World Government

Well, that's the same thing that the John Birch Society and other right wing organizations were saying over 60 years ago when the UN was founded, and it hasn't happened yet, and as far as I can see it isn't any closer to happening now than it ever was. This country is awash in guns-I live in Texas, and, hell, dogs, cats and possums have guns here.

This is part of the same ideology that says that 'communism' the CFR and one-world government are the real boogeymen-the same people that are saying this kind of thing basically ignore the fact that the federal and state governments take more of our rights away every year, and are kicking people's doors down at an ever increasing rate for reasons that have nothing to do with the UN or one-world government. Hell, we've already got the world's biggest prison system. The problem is that people that are complaining about 'one-world government' usually don't pay much attention to this, instead focusing on 'communism' and the UN.

 

Nationalism is definately the answer here. It is more that no countries will want to relenquish control of power and money. Look at the EU. One happy government? I think not.

 

The only way to actually offset the movement to globalism is to accept individual responsibility, and force our governments to transparency and full accountability to those that elect them. To make it simple for some of you. We need to know exactly who sits on which corporate boards, and what these "leaders" stock portfolios contain. It's only when we know who really controls the reins of power, that we will understand the motives of their actions.

 

Why aren't my posts showing up?

 

................

 

No, it's a hell of a lot closer to happening since things are coming to a head in just about every way. The things the JBS was saying 50 years ago will have proven true ten years from now (unless people wake up and take some serious action!). I am almost sure of that. The things the JBS was saying back then have already started to come true years ago.

It's not just the UN that wants to take our guns away, but our own government as well. This will happen when the right crisis arises to "justify" doing so.

The CFR and the global elite control the federal and state government, which is what you are missing. You fail to understand how it's all interconnected at the top. When you follow the money, you see there is really no difference between any of these groups, and all are part of a much larger agenda.

 

You don't get it. That is exactly what they have been saying for 50 years. The end is near. The sky is falling. We must act now (act, presumably, means "we must listen to Alex Jones from the comfort of our homes").

You may find it exciting to believe you are at the cross roads of history, but that's just part of the conspiracy theorists' marketing pitch.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/24/opinion/courtwatch/main2117497.shtml

Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen Looks At Suggestions For Dumping The Document

Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

Cohen, Levinson, Ackerman, Posner (I see a trend in the surnames)


Suddenly, the most sacred text in America is under attack from all sides. The Constitution was never meant to be a "suicide pact," says eminent judge and author Richard Posner. It's "undemocratic," says University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson. In this time of terror we need a new one — an "emergency Constitution" — says Yale Law School guru Bruce Ackerman. And Richard Labunski, in his fine and timely book about James Madison, pretty much destroys the myth that the Founding Fathers were motivated solely by noble impulses when they crafted the new government's guiding light.

These unsettling theses are a measured distance from the roiling debate in legal circles these days over the Constitution's "original intent" and whether it alone should guide constitutional interpretation. That debate is over how the document should be construed by modern jurists. The debate entered into by the literary firm of Posner, Levinson, Ackerman and Labunski is all about whether and to what extent the document itself deserves the legal and political reverence it receives today. During a time of terror, when writers write lofty words about the need for a strong Constitution, the bright men identified above are talking about taking it apart.

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Posner, a Reagan appointee, argues in "Not a Suicide Pact: the Constitution in a Time of National Emergency" (Oxford 2006) that in a terrorism-induced choice between individual freedoms and collective security, the Constitution was never intended to side with the first at the expense of the second. Maybe it's Judge Posner's bitter reaction to what he perceives as judicial overreaching in constitutional decisions. Or maybe it's his professed disdain for "civil libertarians" whom, he says "are not always careful about history." Whatever the case, Judge Posner is ready to make malleable the protections contained in the Constitution; he's ready to have bedrock individual rights and protections ebb and flow along a sliding scale depending upon the scope of the crisis.

But at least the good judge is not calling our sacred text "undemocratic," which is as far as Professor Levinson is willing to go. In his new book, "Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong" (Oxford 2006), Levinson argues that it's time for us all to convene another constitutional convention (this time, with air conditioning) to undertake wholesale changes to what he says is an unworkable Constitution. "If I am correct," Levinson writes, "that the Constitution is both insufficiently democratic in a country that professes to believe in democracy, and (emphasis added) significantly dysfunctional, in terms of the quality of government that we receive, then it follows that we should no longer express our blind devotion to it." Them's fighting words!

Professor Ackerman, the Yalie, also doesn't want to be "blindly devoted" to the document we all are taught in public school to be blindly devoted to. All he argues for, in his new book "Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism" (Yale 2006), is that we come up with an "emergency" Constitution (really a series of new constitutional provisions) that will help guide us when the next terrorism attack surely comes. We need a new baseline law, Ackerman writes, "that allows for effective short-term measures that will do everything plausible to stop a second strike — but which firmly draws the line against permanent restrictions." Our existing Constitution isn't good enough for Ackerman because it is so vulnerable to cynical manipulation by our politicians and to neglect by average Americans.

Which brings me to the best book of them all — and the only one of the four worth remembering — and that is Labunski's unheralded "James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights" (Oxford 2006). The University of Kentucky journalism professor offers in mind-numbing detail Madison's efforts first to prevent a bill of rights from being incorporated into the text of the Constitution, and then his real politic realization that the Constitution itself only would be accepted by his fellow Founders if in the end it did include a bill of particularized rights and freedoms. To absorb the Madison book is to understand that the Constitution is neither the Ark of the Covenant (as Thomas Jefferson once famously said) nor a mere legal guidepost along the American way that ought to be dispensed with in difficult times.

It is instead, as Labunski laboriously points out, a document conceived and drafted by rich white men during the political moment of their lives; a document brilliant mostly for its ambiguities and its ability (thanks to generations of judges as polished and as responsible for our rule of law as any of Madison's gang) to foresee the potential, indeed, the destiny, of a changed and changing world. The Constitution is not an undemocratic document — indeed, it is as schizophrenically and unsatisfactorily democratic as the rebels were then and as we are now. It does not need to be replaced, even temporarily, by an "emergency" document that would leave to far lesser men (and women) the task that Madison achieved. And it certainly deserves better than to be manipulated, by zealous and unchecked executive branch actors, in the name of "national security."

I blast modern-day politicians all the time for lazily enacting vague and ambiguous legislation — essentially pawning off the most difficult policy choices upon judges, who then are criticized for making the policy choices that our legislators were supposed to make in the first place. But Madison and Company purposely, and I think with great forethought, pushed through an often vague and ambiguous Constitution and then a Bill of Rights not just because it was the best they could do given the political conflicts of the era but also because they had a certain faith that those of us living in future generations would manage the document with wisdom and care.

Their faith has been rewarded many times before, in eras darker than our own. It is important for esteemed scholars to try to scale mountains, even ones as high and mighty as the Constitution itself. And clearly the document isn't nearly as perfect or as ideal as we all have been taught to think it is. But it usually works. And if we were to suddenly discard it or its core principles now, literally under the gun, we'd be conceding a huge battle in the war against the terrorists. Now is not the time to attack the Constitution. Now is the time to defend it.

 

aww DQ I hate disagreeing with you, but you have part of it righ and pressed rat has much of it right. the one world government has been being pushed by our government as well as other economic leaders for many years and they (the rich and government leaders behind the scence or not) will keep pushin for globilization util they get it. this is a sad reality that we as citizen of not only the united states, but the world must watch for and fight it when needed. and DQ you are right about the state and local government taking away more of our right every day than the other, but really the state government gets their lead from the federal government who is run by corporate power houses who want globalization to fatten their pockets and eliminate all barriers against them gaining more money and power in the world.
DQ you are always too kind to me. sorry for disagreeing with you.

 

it wont be stopped

but internationa cultural identity and diversity should be presserved not destroyed

 

Well, I actually believe that we are headed toward a 'one world government' scenario, but just not in the way that it is frequently predicted. I don't think it's going to involve UN troops kicking down people's doors.

However, (and I made this point on another thread-I guess it wasn't this one) I think that the real one-world government that is developing is with the US as the real hegemonic power in the world, doing the bidding of the corporate power houses, as you say, and with other countries slowly (or quickly) falling in line. I think that's the real danger (actually what is taking place now), not the old-fashioned John Birch Society line that the UN and communism are going to be the one-world government boogeymen.

You're right, and I made that point on another thread (not sure which one) that our government, in concert with global corporate interests is really the catalyst behind one-world government. In the not-too distant future, the US is going to be calling all the shots on the world stage, or most of them, and for the purposes of furthering the interests of the global economic elite. All this moralizing that the US engages in in regards to our foreign policy is really just window dressing. This is exactly why we're in Iraq now, and have got many countries to go along with us, even the Labor government of the UK. Slowly even traditionally pro-labor and anti-war parties such as Labor in Britain are falling in line and doing America's bidding.

It's ok, sunshine-you're really not disagreeing with me. I'm still crazy about you, anyway...imp2:

 

put this way I do agree with you for the most part DQ, I must have missed the thread you're talking about. oh, yes and I must insert my blushing here.

 

Wake up!
In May 2008 all will need the real ID, this is a RFID internal passport, without it
you will not be able to drive, have a band account, travel, have a job, board a
plane etc etc etc etc.

Resist!
Watch Arron Russo's new film here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=aaron+russo

Wake up, there is not very much time left

 

Wake up!
In May 2008 all will need the real ID, this is a RFID internal passport, without it
you will not be able to drive, have a band account, travel, have a job, board a
plane etc etc etc etc.

Resist!
Watch Arron Russo's new film here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...8&q=aaron+russo

Wake up, there is not very much time left

 

many of us will get out of a RFID on basis of reglious freedom at least in the U.S. I know that is what I will use to get out of it. if in fact it ever comes about in the U.S.

 

communism...but more so anarchy

 

The evidence suggests that a middle class revolution is coming.

 

Yea, we should be so lucky....

 

communism.

 

Um, not in a fascist society. You're dreaming if you believe that.

Part of the agenda means destroying religion.