Posted on 06/01/2007 10:39:34 AM PDT by Mike Bates
I think this is why.... http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
It’s real. But, it’s ours. Don’t call it an Empire, though; that would be insensitive.
It isn't and won't.
This is where Global Warming comes in to play, it's all about control and taxes.
Taking away freedoms, promoting socialism are NWO objectives.
As far as islamofacist are concerned, if a religion disappears(Christian, like what we are witnessing today thanks to our leaders and groups like the aclu) another will step into the religious void that was created. Wanna guess who stands to gain more when Christianity is pushed aside?
I don't know, but I'm confident he will find it.
I heard this morning that Newt had just said something to the effect that the Bush legacy would be comparable to Jimmy Carter's. My view? He'll be fortunate if it isn't even worse, which is where he's headed.
The earlier stupidity was bad enough. But now we have amnesty, LOST and the NAU. I'm done with him.
Read the story about Jerry Brown, Ahnold and cement for an eye-opener on the application of global warming laws:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843215/posts
I first encountered the systematic effort to indoctrinate American youth in the false ethos that World Government--"One World"--was a goal to be pursued, when I scanned the Debate Handbook, in my High School Library, back in the early 1950s. (Not my Conservative Debate Handbook, which provides the Conservative argument on most major contemporary issues, of course, but the one produced by the Leftist contributors during the WPA era in Roosevelt's "New Deal.")
The effort then was to frame the issue of World Government, not on the basis of whether same would be moral, desirable, or not; but on the basis of how it could be achieved. The whole approach was to treat the idea as an idealistic given, and focus young minds on getting to it.
In the over half-century since, while different factions on the Left have sought different approaches, there has been virtual unanimity on the Left, and among those influenced by the Left in Academia, that World Government was desirable.
Of course, what is at stake is the whole concept of America, as it was born in the Revolution. We could have been part of another Nation at any time, from 1776 on, that we wanted to surrender what Washington won with the sword, and men like Jefferson, Madison, Mason, etc., defined for posterity, etc.. When the basic issues were debated by Americans in 1919--the League Of Nations Debate--the American people realized that they did not want to be "internationalized," and wanted to continue to chart their own destiny. It should be remembered that the idea of Wilson's League was initially very popular. The internationalists quite simply lost the debate. When the time came for them to launch the UN in 1945, they simply rushed it through with very little debate, to avoid a similar defeat.
Both Clinton & Bush have embraced the mantra of a duty to the world, but the Constitution recognizes no duty to subsidize others; cooperation in dealing with Piracy, yes; aid and tribute, never. But all of their lives they have been taught by, then associated with politically, educators, "pundits," and what have you, who were either thoroughly enamored with the idea of "one world" orders, or thoroughly intimidated by the pretenses of those who were enamored with the idea of "one world" orders. Bush, on these issues, is purely a little thinking product of a prevailing fashion. It is the Emperor's New Clothes, with the Emperor in drag, pretending to be fighting for what is right, as all America waits, desperately waits, for a little boy schooled in the Heroic Epics of the West, to cry out, "Real Men do not go out in drag (metaphorically) and surrender their birthright!"
We need to recapture the Republican Party for men who understand what National Sovereignty and a Constitutional Republic, really mean!
William Flax
Why do you limit fascism to the Islamists? There seem to be quite a few varieties out there.
That depends on which "NWO" you are talking about. Yes..the proponents of socialism/communism have that objective. If you seriously think the GW, as a Free Christian promotes this, I think is' time you put on your tinfoil hat.
Because they are the largest movement on earth right now that leaves no choice but their way or death.
You don't believe that the SPP is working toward The North American Union? Which I might add is a giant step to completion for the NWO? You think Bush doesn't know about this?
Of course he does..he is fighting for us all on a global level every day....Looking to the future of our survival as a people....Playing global chess with corrupt leaders of every country.
See my Post #49, for an historic perspective on what is going on. GW does not support the socialism/communism version, but neither did Wilson in 1918/1919. Ever since those of us who cherish Sovereignty and a Constitutional Republic managed to turn back the League of Nations, the internationalists in education, the media, etc., have been using all sorts of devices to persuade the gullible on the campuses of America that World Government was inevitable, desirable and idealistic. It is, of course, none of those things. But I believe that if you look at Bush's Second Inaugural Address, you will realize that he is totally confused on International Relations, and has certainly "bought" a good part of the Internationalist message.
I’m all in favor of genuine free trade. But the deck is stacked against us with most of these programs.
To take one example, which Phyllis Schafly has recently spoken about, Europe has a VAT tax and we have an income tax. Our goods sold in Europe pay their tax, but their good sold here do not pay our tax. Which gives them a 17% advantage. It’s like a 17% subsidy, to which you can add other subsidies as well.
In addition, they hold most of the levers of power in the IMF. As a result the findings are almost always in their favor and against us.
Europe isn’t even the worst problem. Trade with China is completely unbalanced because they have a command economy and basically subsidize everything. I’ve seen the arguments that we gain by it, but I’m afraid they are untrue.
I'm not for world government, but globalization is happening. The fact that we are writing to each other right now instantly over thousands of miles is proof of that.
If you are like me it is happening much too fast for comfort.
Any ideas as to the engine driving this?
International bankers, Inetrnational monetary fund, UN, etc.
Is the whole point to amass mind blowing wealth and power?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.