Constitution non-existent? Interesting

[redhawk41]

I really have to wonder why, though, people believe that the American way of democratic traditions are doomed in the face of this movement?

where else on earth do the freedoms we enjoy in america exist? i think the fear comes from that. if (when) we do get global government, why would it be like the american constitutional government when the rest of the world is not like the american government? will the rest of the world conform to america, or will america conform to the rest of the world?

america was formed as an escape from tyranny, and because there was conquerable land available. where will we go to escape if (when) tyranny rules the globe? once government, any government, gets a foothold it grows until shed like water off a ducks back. but then another government will arise to takes it's place, and history repeats, as it always has.

again, "hysterical, paranoid fixations are NOT healthy", and neither is alcohol, which is why i gave up both. but i think we can be realistic about this without being hysterical and paranoid.

 

[Wallew]

No laws in any countries are actually valid anymore. The New World Order, with its new government, has arrived. It’s here.

Does this mean I can go out and kill liberal socialist with NO reprisals? God I hope so... If dere ain't no laws, den I guess it's time to bring out da big guns, huh???

 

[utaherrn]

how do I get into one of these groups?

I mean if they're going to take over the world, I want to be on the inside. Better pay, benefits, good retirement, a private army to do my bidding.

I always thought I'd make a good tyrant, what with my photogenic good looks and all, I'd look really good on the new 20 euro-dollar bill. And I know how to do that elbow-elbow-wrist-wrist wave at parades where the sheeple are forced to attend.

And I could pen the new multinational anthem (but it would sound a lot like "Smoke on the Water" mixed with "Secret Agent Man" because that's all I can play on the guitar).

The flag could be a white one (we surrender our liberty in the name of promised safety) with a sheep with the muzzle of a gun to its head.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"where else on earth do the freedoms we enjoy in america exist?"

That immediately presupposes that our way of government, the exact form, is by far the very best for EVERYONE in the world.

Funny, the Communists and Fascists both thought that way, too.

No government, not even a democratically elected one based on American principles, is going to mirror another nation's government lockstep.

You know what we'd be on the road to if that were the case?

One world government, the exact thing that you seem to fear above all else.

Now, tell me. Even though Europe has coalesced under the European Union, have the laws of each individual nation been replaced in their entirety? NO.

Have the Constitutions of France, Germany, and all the other European Union nations been replaced by a single, overriding European Union Constitution? NO.

I'd also ask you to explain to me just how it is that the freedoms that we supposedly enjoy as Americans can, on a state by state basis, differ so greatly?

Gun laws are the perfect example. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York have gun laws that are FAR more restrictive than those in, say, my state of Virginia.

If that's the case, then just what IS this American form of government? Can it truly be defined given that it can vary so wildly from state to state?

And what of those American freedoms when they're actually more restrictive than those imposed by other governments? Say, for example, the drinking age? It's much lower in many European nations than it is here in the United States.

Once again, people are rushing to the conclusion that this supposed one world government means the total abolition of the American form of government, and the American form of law. I'd ask you to give me a single example of where that has actually happened. Even under the Communists laws varied from nation to nation.

"but i think we can be realistic about this without being hysterical and paranoid."

Yes, but I'm still waiting for a shred of realism to enter the arguments outlined in the original posting.

 

[Garand Illusion]

I must be getting tired, Lak -- you actually made sense on a few points.

But as for the majority ...

The pushbutton people of modern New York city are not those of 1942 Stalingrad - or Petersburg in 1864. Or 1900 Kimberly.

You really need to start applying a little common sense to what you say. The people of modern New York are the equivalent of children/grand children to the defenders of Stalingrad and Moscow. People haven't changed that much.

Sure ... we love our freedoms and leisure time. But you take the average upper-middle class yuppie who comes home from work every night to a martini and his big screen TV and Chinese takeout and starve him for a week and shake up his world and endanger his children ... and immediately he does what humans ALWAYS do. He seeks a way to survive. He fights for the survival of himself and his kin.

Like the plane crash survivors in the Andes who turned to controlled cannibalism to survive for a long period.

Like the climber in Utah who lay with for days with his arm pinned beneath a rock, and eventually cut it off and walked for help.

Like a group of friends of mine who were showshoeing and got caught in a blizzard with very little equipment; on the third day they were pretty much crawling, and 2 of them lost fingers to frostbite -- but even though they were upper middle class "button pushers" they have what we all have - the ability to fight for survival.

Again -- your'e like all the enemies of the US. "Those American's like their comfort, so they are weak and depraved." BS. We're neither. But you take comfort where you can get it, and fight for your life when you can't.

Commanders turning their weapons? What, strategic bombers? Sub-launched nukes? They going to level a few more of our cities to "save us"?

True, strategic forces would be of little use and trooops might be elsewhere. but with the rest of the world in turmoil it poses the question of where would those occupation troops come from? Wouldn't they be needed elsewhwere to control Europe and Africa? The American army/navy (which has much more than Nukes) is going to be somwhere in the world, and if there are uninvited foreign troops on their home soil they will be PISSED.

And if someone has leveled one of our cities, I imagine the country that allowed it will disappear under the bombardment of even one of our nuclear "boomer" submarines and a ticked off captain/crew who has realized the chain of command has failed.

Stopping people from "going to get it"? You are naive. In the event of such a catastrophy all routes out the major cities will be blocked. Some people would no doubt leave, but if the masses have ideas about getting in their cars and fleeing the cities I think they are in for a shock - if they happen to have enough gas in their tanks at the time to get to where they think they are going.

Let's see ... Denver has a population of about 1.5 million, probably 2 million guns. Since we can assume the evil invading UN troops don't have major armor (how would they get it inland? Or even on the coast with just the Coast Guard on patrol) we're talking a few platoons of infantry/airborne. Maybe the same number of turncoats.

Trying to guard a city on the plains with about 1,000 roads out of it into the surrounding plains and farms.

Getting that tactical picture? I can hear a radio communication now from a checkpoint on I-25.

• CP: CP Bravo to control. I have a hundred thousand American's approaching. They are apparently trying to leave city, not just lying around crying themselves to death like that guy on the internet said they would.
• COMMAND: Command to CP Bravo. They are unarmed civilians. Fire at well.
• CP: (sounds of gunfire) Command! They are heavily armed with .50 caliber rifles that can shoot down helicopters and many AK47 semi automatics and AR15's. And they shoot VERY WELL!!
• COMMAND: Dang! We forgot the AWB was allowed to sunset by the senators and congressmen working with us. What fools! What is your situation?
• *silence*, followed by a new voice ... "Dang -- this little foreign feller had a radio on him. Get his guns and rations, Billy Bob, and let's see if any of these farmers have any food stashed for us"

And I haven't even covered that fact that in our free market economy the farmers will be desperate to get their wares into the city. And there are still enough horses and old wagons to do more than you might think.

You're confused about something; I am being matter of fact. I have seen people en masse out of control before firsthand. I am certainly not afraid of the truth, which seems to be a major stumbling block for a great many people.

I'm confused about a lot of things, as are many people. But the bad news is ... The World Is What It Is. Sometimes we may wish things could be explained by dark powers, but the fact is the screwed up state of affairs is just the result of 5 billion people with different Agendas trying to cohabitate on a planet with limited resources -- people full of jealousy, religious fervor, and just plain hatred.

We've all seen masses out of control. Some of us have even been in situations called a "mob" and didn't realize it until after (having some drinks downtown after a major sports win -- didn't know it was a riot).

But just read all the sources out there, delve for the truth, and realize that many things are JUST AS THEY SEEM.

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

 

[shootinstudent]

GI,

That dialogue is priceless!

 

[LAK]

redhawk41

as soon as someone mentions 'new world order' people have a switch tripped that turns them off from anything else that is presented

You mean like when George H W Bush mentioned it to Congress 15 years ago?

And G H W Bush has actually mentioned it alot. But isn't it amazing what is denied - even when it has been openly discussed, and has been openly pushed for almost a hundred years.

Clever these change agents; the fear indeed runs deep. All that flag waving and bravado. And all that blood and money. For a big fraud?

Yep, that scares alot of people. They are indeed paranoid and with good reason; should they allow themselves to see the truth it might affect their cozy little nests.

But George H-a-thousand-points-of-light-W Bush isn't the only conspeewassy theewist that wears a foil hat. There's been Leslie Gelb who in 1993 had this to say on "The Charlie Rose Show":

"You had me on to talk about the New World Order. I talk about it all the time. It's one world now. The Council can find, nurture, and begin to put people in the kinds of jobs this country needs. And that's going to be one of the major enterprises of the Council under me."

I guess that means that CFR pres' Gelb was a nutjob all along with G H W Bush. I mean he can not have known what he was talking about. And because it was broadcast on PBS that also means that what he said can not be true - since it was just a ploy to "make Bush look even worse".

And there's a long list of people going back to the likes of Benjamin Disraeli - another conspeewassy theewist - like Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, that wore big foil hats. Mikhail Gorbachev shucked his plush sable hat for tinfoil and has never looked back; he has spoken of the "New World Order" as many or more times than G H W Bush.

George Ball (especially mouthy about it all those CFR guys) told the New York Times in 1988:

"Sooner or later we are going to have to face restructuring our institutions so that they are not confined merely to the nation-states. Start first on a regional and ultimately you could move to a world basis."

Catch! ... There's your foil hat George. Wear it with pride

H. G. Wells had it figured out in the 1920s, in fact like George Orwell he was prophetic. In his work "The Open Conspiracy; Blue Prints for a World Revolution" he wrote:

"The political world of the Open Conspiracy must weaken, efface, incorporate and supersede existing governments." .... "The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York."

In his 1933 work "The Shape of Things to Come" he predicted the German conflict with Poland beginning WW2, and that a world state would come about after something to do with Iraq.

Interesting stuff. Just run "global governance" as an exact phrase on the United Nations website search engine. You'll get more than 1,600 hits to look at:

http://www.un.org

Run "Conference on Global Governance" on google.com.

Send them to George Herbert Walker Bush and all his friends, and tell them that they no longer need to feel like freaks and outcasts ... that they can wear their shiny foil hats with pride - and join the Brave New World Order.
----------------------------------------

"It will be a world religion." - H G Wells

 

[h8theun]

Globalist BS

Look at my forum name its pretty clear how think and feel.The great presedent Jorge Bush 1 was kind enough to ban importation of certain "asault rifles",invade Iraq for invadeing Kuwaite, promote NAFTA, raise taxes,and criticize the NRA for calling the BATF jack booted thugs.Comrade Clinton helped NAFTA happen, banned more firearms,let Reno torch a church in Texas and kidnap that cuban refugee at submachinegun point,wasted Americans live in Somalia {to enforce U.N. fire arms collection Bull ****]waste more Americans in the Balkans, Haiti,and the Iraq no fly zone,and let Ossama B.L. get away murder over and over.Jorge Bush 2 "lowers taxes" to let some pressure out of the revolution valve,promotes illegal imigration,fredralizes more money for publik skools,calls brave Americans ,vigilantes,promotes the FTAA[NAFTA 2]invades Iraq {again}increases gov. waste/spending greatly,and promotes background checks at all gunshow transfers in U.S.A..All 3 of thier cabinets were full fo CFR trash.The same folks who came up with the Fedral Reserve,
the federal income tax system,the leage of nations the yalta conference,the rules of engagement for korea and vietnam that crippled our soldiers,the un,the destruction of Katanga,and the non checked ICC.Dont forget the IMF WB.

 

[LAK]

Mike Irwin,

Asia is already consolidated into what is currently referred to as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Then there is the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). So is the entire continent of Africa. It is called the African Union (AU).

If you study their organizational material, like the FTAA, they already have the seeds of political union on their agenda. Things like "labor conditions", "common social concerns" and "health" etc.

This is no accident. Economic and trade bloc unions can be, and will be, ultimately driven toward political union much in the same way the "commerce clause" has permeated central government power and control throughout our own United States.

I do not think even many politically orientated people in this country have the slightest idea how consolidated and active these organizations are, the scope of their agendas nor the rate at which they are moving.

 

[redhawk41]

I'm still waiting for a shred of realism to enter the arguments outlined in the original posting

That catastrophe will probably be a large-scale terrorist-type act

Is this not a realistic concern?

Our own government has said it is not a matter of if but when.
Our southern border is open.
General Franks has said the next terrorist attack will lead to martial law.
Look what we have put in place since Sept 11. Been to the airport? A major sporting event? The RNC?

If (when) another terrorist attack on american soil occurs, things could get uglier than they have already become.

 

[Garand Illusion]

H. G. Wells had it figured out in the 1920s, in fact like George Orwell he was prophetic. In his work "The Open Conspiracy; Blue Prints for a World Revolution" he wrote:

So once again you quote a lot of people out of context, taking talk about the changing world to be sinister hints at the new force -- a force that has been building since the 1920's. Seems kind of silly to quote a sci fi writer, even a really good one, but who better to support a fictional concept of the world?

Of course ... Karl Marx in the 1800s also wrote about the coming of the world government, the government of the proletariot after the class struggle against the bourgeoise. His revolution appears pretty much failed, or at least in retreat, but in the 50's that was the "new world order" feared that we kept going to war with all over the globe.

If you think that "shadowy group" has been plotting and slowly gaining power for the last 85 years since Wells first wrote of them ...

If you think that a major terrorist attack in the US is going to result in a UN invasion and the encirclement of American Cities until the button pushers within cry uncle instead of just a stock market crash and a strong US military response ...

Then you have no understanding of human nature, history or the state of affairs. As said/proven above.

To everyone else ... what you're seeing in our conspiracy oriented friends here is the kind of bitterness and hysterical paranoia that comes from perceived failure in life.

When your own life seems bitter and worthless, and when you see others who seem so much less worthy than yourself with nice cars and great houses the only reason that makes sense is that there is some evil power working against you and all else that is good in the world. But you've got to take responsibility for your own life, and react to outside influences only as they actually happen.

People have always been talking about plots within plots and movements to control the world. Every James Bond movie has been about someone trying to seize control of the world, or destroy it, or some other huge earth shaking plot.

But those are fiction. And so are the "new order" plots described above.

Any real world government that could possibly happen is many generations away. And if/when it does happen (we'll have been dust for generations) hopefully it will be a good thing.

 

[redhawk41]

instead of just a stock market crash and a strong US military response

so you believe that another major terrorist attack on america will cause economic hardship, as well as strong military response? Do you think the military response will be directed overseas, or here locally?

IMO, it is apparent that the government has no intention of protecting us (open border) or allowing us to protect ourselves (unarmed pilots). Do you feel that a terrorist event could cause the government to call a civilians to the nearest local high school gym, stadium, etc, 'for our own protection'? like in a natural disaster.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Asia is already consolidated into what is currently referred to as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Then there is the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). So is the entire continent of Africa. It is called the African Union (AU)."

Wow, Lak!

I had missed the fact that all of Asia is operation under a single hemogenous government run from where, Bejing? The same with Africa.

All of this goes straight back to the point that I've been repeatedly making, and which some people have been blythly ignoring...

These treaties for trade and cooperation between nations, the same sort of treaties that have been going on between nations for the past 300 years (Dutch and English trade agreements, anyone? Japanese and Portugese trade agreements?) have yet to replace a single nation government with a coalition goverment.

Since you obviously see such agreements between nations as an example of the dawn of the one world goverment, I'm going to give you a little homework assignment...

In the 20th century, how many international military, trade, and cooperation agreements were signed between nations?

How many resulted in one or more independent nations completely surrendering their soverign rights to a collective, universal government?

I can give you both answers right now, but I want to hear your answer.


"I do not think even many politically orientated people in this country have the slightest idea how consolidated and active these organizations are, the scope of their agendas nor the rate at which they are moving."

Ah, the "big picture prophet" speaks.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"That catastrophe will probably be a large-scale terrorist-type act."

OK, we've seen a large-scale terrorist-type act in the United States. Remember September 11?

Remember what OBL hoped it would do, besides killing lots of the infidel? That it would so destabilize the American economy that it would lead a large-scale destabilization of the American economy and American political infrastructure.

Hello? Did that happen? Hello?

No, it didn't.

Yes, it's only a matter of time until the next terrorist strike in the United States. Who knows what form it will take? I certainly don't.

Since September 11, though, there have been natural disasters that have been FAR worse than the terrorist attacks, and none of those has resulted in the often-predicted stock market crash. The skyrocketing price of oil has slowed, but not stopped, the American economy. Industrial production was up 3/10ths of a percent last month.

But what do these events truly mean?

For one thing, it means that despite all the dire predictions and wolf crying, the American economy isn't a house of cards that will fall when someone bad says BOO! It really amuses me, in a very tired, sad way, that so many people think this to be the case, though.

"Been to the airport? A major sporting event? The RNC?"

I don't fly, so no, I've not been to the airport. But, since September 11 I've been to: 4 MLB games, including a Yankees game in New York City in spring 2002, 7 NHL games, all of them in the *gasp* heart of Washington, D.C., 1 MLB soccer game (again in Washington, DC), 1 NFL game (outside of DC), and assorted large crowd gatherings.

I've also not been to the RNC (by that I'm assuming you mean the convention, not the committee) since 2001, given that theres' only been 1 since 2001.

I was, however, to the Republican National Committee in New Orleans in 1988, and I can guarantee you that security was snug as a bug's bung back then.

 

[redhawk41]

I don't fly, so no, I've not been to the airport

i don't fly a lot either, but i can tell you one thing we didn't have before Sept 11: TSA. if there is a problem, just throw more government at it, right? also, before TSA the few times i flew i didn't have to remove my shoes.

by that I'm assuming you mean the convention, not the committee

yeah, convention. one thing that was seen at the convention that should raise some real red flags: so-called 'freedom fencing'. police would encircle protesters with orange fencing to apprehend them. also the 'free speech zone' which was basically a cage. scary and very unamerican, but necessary in a post 9-11 world, right?

For one thing, it means that despite all the dire predictions and wolf crying, the American economy isn't a house of cards that will fall when someone bad says BOO! It really amuses me, in a very tired, sad way, that so many people think this to be the case, though.

good point. though with the complexity of america's, and the world's, economy, i don't think there is really any way to quantify the negative impacts of 'terrorist' attacks. your right though, it didn't crash.

 

[LAK]

Mike Irwin

These treaties for trade and cooperation between nations, the same sort of treaties that have been going on between nations for the past 300 years (Dutch and English trade agreements, anyone? Japanese and Portugese trade agreements?) have yet to replace a single nation government with a coalition goverment.

Ah, the "big picture prophet" speaks.

Your knowledge in the field of firearms and some other things might be quite high but your ignorance of the current geo-political map is astounding.

It is not as if you have to take anyone's word for it; what they are doing is in plain sight. It is in their documents, their summit meetings and is spread all over their websites with their agendas for anyone that wants to take the trouble to look. They are enmeshed in and around the U.N. as well as every major U.N. associated NGO on earth. WHO, "International Labour Unions" etc, etc etc.

I wonder how your condescending breeze will blow off some "gun control", say as currently enjoyed in the United Kingdom - after the whole dam world really lays enough "pressure" to your friends in Washington. As unpleasant a day that will be, I look forward to reading your BS on here if we are all still around. You can explain to us all once again why your paper tigers in Washington and elsewhere in this country "can't just undo these people ... because it will only bring them back, like you've never seen it before"

I am beginning to get the impression that you like it.

 

[LAK]

Garand Illusion

So once again you quote a lot of people out of context, taking talk about the changing world to be sinister hints at the new force -- a force that has been building since the 1920's. Seems kind of silly to quote a sci fi writer, even a really good one, but who better to support a fictional concept of the world?

Out of context? Like who? Explain what their context was if it was not so.

If you think quoting a sci-fi writer is "silly", you have a visual and hearing problem, and or a very limited perception and comprehension of what is going on around you. Or perhaps you have an attention span that only spans ten year (or less) increments; a great many people suffer from this.

Because much of the fiction written by H G Wells and people like George Orwell way back then is already reality. Some of it was reality a good many years ago. Even the bending of perception, rational and logical thought as Orwell described has come to pass; more and more people seem to be suffering from that one too.

Yes, a lot of people spoke and wrote about world government in the 19th and early 20th century.

 

[shootinstudent]

LAK,

Could you link to the text of some these WHO and UN and IMF or whatever documents that you claim will be the basis for one world government?

 

[redhawk41]

goto http://www.un.org/search/ and search on "new world order". include the quotes. here is a sample:

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/issue3/0304p12.asp
http://www.un-ngls.org/tavola.doc

also try searching on "global governance". include the quotes.

please report your findings

 

[shootinstudent]

Redhawk,

I see a couple of letters asking for more support for the UN. Did you come across anything perhaps a little more...authoritative?