Obama Appointee Favors One-World Government

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Critics Decry Obama Nominee for State Department Legal Adviser

President Obama's nominee to be the State Department's legal adviser has ignited a fury among conservative critics who say his views are a threat to American democracy -- an accusation the White House on Tuesday called "outrageous" and "completely baseless."

Baseless?

HAROLD KOH

Koh is an advocate of transnationalism, a concept that argues in favor of "global governance" as opposed to the constitutional sovereignty of independent nation-states. This perspective holds that the world's most challenging problems -- war, terrorism, "climate change," hunger, financial and social inequalities, diseases, human rights violations, racism, sexism, and xenophobia -- are too complex and deep-rooted for any single nation-state to address effectively on its own. The solution, says Koh, would be for all members of the international community to recognize a set of supranational laws and institutions whose authority overrides that of any particular government. Koh believes that such laws should "be internalized into the domestic law of even resistant nation-states."

This pick by Obama seems to be a pretty good indicator of the path he heading us down and adds more credibility to the Obama Deception Documentary posted on another thread.

Why would you appoint a State Department legal adviser who wants to replace our laws with international laws, our government with global government, if that was not your desire as well?

I don?t think this country has ever seen a president that has gone out of his way to appoint or attempt to appoint so many tax cheats, whack jobs and losers, it just shows what kind of circles he associates in and exposes his true extreme radical lunacy.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
transnationalism, based on its definition here, does make sense and I have long thought that the only way to get a lot of people do to something they don't want to do and are not monetarily motivated to do, such as live "greener" is by fiat, specifically government, and since one country is not under fiat of another, only a world government would do it.

Anyway, in this specific case I don't have much of a comment.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
The rest of the world is Americanized anyway. Just take them all over and tax them to pay for the bailouts. Problem solved!

:laugh:
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
Well considering your 2 sources of this information are Foxnews & Discoverthenetworks.org (a site that claims to expose the "left" and the people that control it), I'm just going to go ahead an assume that suggesting Koh supports undermining the U.S. Constitution is either an incredible stretch or an outright lie. You pick.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
He sounds like my kinda' guy. :)

Sorry, Socio, but check under your bed for Commies.

-Robert
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
The world is headed exactly where the Bible said it would, thousands of years ago. I never thought I would see a one world government in my lifetime, but if we keep getting Obama's it will certainly happen. We owe so much money to the Chinese, that Obama is going to keep expanding and expanding... we wont have any choice but to cave to any demands they make. The Bible says the borrower is slave to the lender, obvious, but it's implications are not as easily understood.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I really dont believe a one world govt is possible without major oppression or elimination of cultures. There are so many differences on a local and state level within our own country. Now add in language, cultural, and ethic differences.

He may want it, but it wont happen.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
The solution, says Koh, would be for all members of the international community to recognize a set of supranational laws and institutions whose authority overrides that of any particular government. Koh believes that such laws should "be internalized into the domestic law of even resistant nation-states."
whoa... fuck that. Oh, wait... :Q

In theory, it's disgusting. In reality, it's impotent. Thank gawd for that.

Then again, we don't need any more of these one-world-government jackasses running around with power in this country... so I say that we should tar, feather, and banish this Koh son of a bitch.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
The world is headed exactly where the Bible said it would, thousands of years ago. I never thought I would see a one world government in my lifetime, but if we keep getting Obama's it will certainly happen. We owe so much money to the Chinese, that Obama is going to keep expanding and expanding... we wont have any choice but to cave to any demands they make. The Bible says the borrower is slave to the lender, obvious, but it's implications are not as easily understood.

This thread is like a honeypot for stupid, paranoid, delusional morons. :roll:
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Duwelon
The world is headed exactly where the Bible said it would, thousands of years ago. I never thought I would see a one world government in my lifetime, but if we keep getting Obama's it will certainly happen. We owe so much money to the Chinese, that Obama is going to keep expanding and expanding... we wont have any choice but to cave to any demands they make. The Bible says the borrower is slave to the lender, obvious, but it's implications are not as easily understood.

This thread is like a honeypot for stupid, paranoid, delusional morons. :roll:

Socio always brings 'em out!
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
It was so much better when we had "real Americans" as legal advisers in the JD. You know, the ones that advocated torture, preemptive war, ignoring treaties, warrantless wiretapping, etc.. No need to scrap the Constitution, just ignore it.

The concept of a world government dedicated to the safety, security, and well being of all the planet's inhabitants is, in itself, not a bad idea. It won't happen in any of our lifetimes, but maybe in a hundred years, people might be willing to consider themselves as citizens of a world community with shared goals and responsibilities.
 

Don66

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2000
2,216
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Duwelon
The world is headed exactly where the Bible said it would, thousands of years ago. I never thought I would see a one world government in my lifetime, but if we keep getting Obama's it will certainly happen. We owe so much money to the Chinese, that Obama is going to keep expanding and expanding... we wont have any choice but to cave to any demands they make. The Bible says the borrower is slave to the lender, obvious, but it's implications are not as easily understood.

This thread is like a honeypot for stupid, paranoid, delusional morons. :roll:

He's entitled to his opion or belief:disgust:

I don't think that make him anymore of an idiot than you.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
LOL good luck with this Obama, too many nationalistic countries, they don't want to say goodbye they love their country.
 

JACKDRUID

Senior member
Nov 28, 2007
729
0
0
much like true socialism and communism, transnationalism is just an ideal, not attandable realistically.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Duwelon
The world is headed exactly where the Bible said it would, thousands of years ago. I never thought I would see a one world government in my lifetime, but if we keep getting Obama's it will certainly happen. We owe so much money to the Chinese, that Obama is going to keep expanding and expanding... we wont have any choice but to cave to any demands they make. The Bible says the borrower is slave to the lender, obvious, but it's implications are not as easily understood.

Please sir, show me scripture for this. Thank you :)
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
This little bit sums up Koh nicely.
One of his deanly duties is to preside over the committee that selects a recipient for the Yale Law School Award of Merit. This prestigious and prominent honor is presented each year to an outstanding graduate or longtime faculty member of YLS.

We've heard that Dean Koh, short-circuiting any real discussion, essentially ordered that the 2007 Award of Merit would go to Linda Greenhouse -- the left-leaning Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times. Other committee members proposed Justice Samuel Alito '75, confirmed earlier this year to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the most natural and appropriate choice. But Dean Koh squelched their support for the conservative jurist. He cut short the deliberations, declaring by fiat that Greenhouse -- who did a one-year master's program at Yale -- would receive the award.
So given the choice between a Supreme Court justice who graduated from the school and someone who spent a whole year at the school Mr Koh picked the second one.

I thought Obama was going to be post partisan? Instead he seems intent on appointing the most partisan people he can find.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
On the other hand, there are enough freaks in powerful places in this country that think the Earth is 5,000 years old and man used Velociraptors as transportation....

Im not sure who scares me more.....
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,667
8,210
136
I for one appreciate all the long hours of scouring the 'net it must have taken to find this teeeny tiny priceless little gem of a topic that got finely and painstakingly faceted and polished out of the need to relieve the ideologically driven confusion, pain, paranoia, guilt and hate that some of the loyal opposition created within themselves when they realized what they had done to our Nation, and much more importantly to them, what they had done to themselves.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,698
6,257
126
Global Government is inevitable. The issues as to why are indicated in the quote given by the OP. All issues that transcend National Borders and no Nation can address them themself and likewise if certain Nations don't address them it doesn't matter how many others do. The Opposition to such an idea lie basically in 2 Camps:

1) Religious people concerned about Prophetic utterences. Vague words lead to vague conclusions. Those conclusions have been very different over the centuries, changing as the Political tastes of those types have changed, but that often means sticking to a particular interpretation for many Generations. For a very long time, for eg, the Pope was the epitomy of evil in the World, the Anti-Christ. A few still adhere to that, but most have dropped it as it never came to pass. Many these days are turning towards the UN as Anti-Christ or where the Anti-Christ will gain power.

The consistency in these beliefs lie at the heart, some form of Global Dictatorship and a quick read of Revelations would seem to indicate a fairly nasty Dictatorship. It's kind of difficult to ascertain which is nastier though, the Dictatorship or the Judgement of "God" which gets increasingly nastier until all Life is at risk of Extinction. Despite the alleged evil of the Dictatorship the actual evidence against the Dictator seems even more vague than the Judgements against the Dictator. Some things are mentioned, but they are all things that have existed since Time began(for Humans). For some reason "God" just decides enough-is-enough and proceeds on a Killing Spree?

2) Nationalists. Those who fear the demise of the Nation-State. The Nation-State is not really that old of a concept or, more accurately, current Western Nation-States are not very old, the oldest being 5-7 Centuries. Prior to them many small City-States existed which eventually gathered together due to common interest to form what eventually became todays Nations(I have skipped over transitional organization--Counties, etc for sake of time). History clearly shows the continuous process of Political organizing of those with common interest into ever-larger organizations to best realize/organize those interests.

It should be noted that as increasing Realms grew larger from 1 City---many Cities----Nation State, instead of all previous City Governments being replaced, there was simply a New Government formed above all those whose tasks were primarily to oversee those Issues which were the most Common amongst the Cities. Those being, Defense from Invaders for the most part, but also Transportation routes for Trade, and the like. Internal City concerns were still mintained by the original City Government and continue to be so to this day.

Thus as it is when concerning our current or future Transition from Nation State to(let's call it) Global State. The Nation doesn't cease to exist nor does it cease to basically function the way it currently does, except for some Issues, it merely becomes less Dominant, no longer the pinnacle of Power to which an Individuals Priviledge/Responsibility extends. What differs between Nation State and Global State is that the Global State concerns itself primarily with issues of Common Interest amongst Nations. This brings us back to the OP's quoted portion, issues such as Pollution, Trade, and the like. It is clear that such a transition is necessary, at some point.

Part 2(the Edit)

It doesn't just go from one level of Government to the next in 1 step. As previously mentioned there are Transitional phases that occur of extened periods of time before such a transition is complete. Cities first made agreements amongst each other, perhaps financing/builing/maintaining Trade Routes or agreeing to come to each others aid if Attacked and other such agreements. These lead to the creation of some kind of Governing structure that included Both or All of the Cities in the Agreement. As time progressed not only did Individual Cities join these established organizations, but various organizations began to join each other as well and, as any Manager knows, once member numbers reach a certain level, it becomes increasingly difficult to effectively run an organization. It then became necessary to make another kind of Governing Structure.

In more recent times the same transitional process has been occuring amongst Nation States for quite some time now. Centuries ago most Nation States were quite self contained, carrying out War on their own(not always, but most of the time) and such. Begining early in the 20th Century that really began to change though. Nations increasingly banded together for many reasons, such as Defense, Trade, etc. Some were rather temporary arrangements, Allies/Axis during the WWs, while others were more permanent League of Nations/United Nations, World Bank, G7, NATO/Warsaw Pact, etc. Clearly the transitional process is in play and the inevitable need for a new Governing structure is apparent.

Cliffs
-it is inevitable
-History shows a progression
-we are continuing that progression
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
The world is headed exactly where the Bible said it would, thousands of years ago. I never thought I would see a one world government in my lifetime, but if we keep getting Obama's it will certainly happen. We owe so much money to the Chinese, that Obama is going to keep expanding and expanding... we wont have any choice but to cave to any demands they make. The Bible says the borrower is slave to the lender, obvious, but it's implications are not as easily understood.

It didn't happen that fast . Your hindsight is better than most tho. They won't believe it till there under the yoke.