Obama Appointee Favors One-World Government

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

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.

wow multiple crazy speak together interacting :camera:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well Sandorski, which of the Constitutions principles are you willing to give up for this one world government?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: palehorse

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.

Now I know what I say sounds daft. But unless we move with deft. The people must move to replace all pesent authority or . The One authority we all get will thread on us.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

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

Just read the book of revolations . 1verse hear or their does nothing. But there are many referances to A new Bable its on the EU coinage. Bible Bable. Many writing threw history point to a plan for the return of Nimrod . 12-23-12

You learn everthing you can about this man Caesarion Everthing it takes work to get good info vs. Bad But if he was Christ . Bible Bable sounds good to me. IF!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Sandorski, which of the Constitutions principles are you willing to give up for this one world government?

Who says you would have to give up any?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Sandorski, which of the Constitutions principles are you willing to give up for this one world government?

Who says you would have to give up any?

:laugh:


You know this is never happening as well as I do....

 

[Nemesis 1]

When one speaks of the 1world King . You have to remember he already existed once.

Now if ya really get into to conspirecy . If there was a plan spawned it was after Bable was destroyed and the people confonded. THis plan would have the quality of soever.

So if you look at history and find the scraps that good men of died toget trueth out .

It could very well be that religion is the soever.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Sandorski, which of the Constitutions principles are you willing to give up for this one world government?

Who says you would have to give up any?

:laugh:


You know this is never happening as well as I do....

Really? I will backtrack a bit, perhaps some Constitutional powers would be sacrificed, such as a Nation States abiility to Declare War. There's always the prospect that Gun/Firearms would be an issue(particularly for the US), but on the whole most Constitutions would likely remain as is.

A Global Government is not a whole changeover from National Government. It is simply a new Organization of Issues common amongst Nation States. Take the example of your Local City/Municipal Government(assuming you live in a City), that Government concerns itself to its' jurisdictional concerns and also has unique Laws addressing the desires of the Local Population. Govenments above the City such as State/Provincial and Federal Governments, do influence that City, but only in certain areas. They do not control a City in all minutae of detail.

State/Provincial Governments have similar unique Powers/Influence for their Jurisdictions. Federal Government has limited powers and does not control the States/Provinces in minutae. Same would be the case of a Global Government, it would not control the minutae of a Nations Federal jurisdiction, but would have some control jurisdiction over certain things with a Nation.

Particularly concerning Gun/Firearm issues, but this applies to other less controversial issues as well, there need not be that much a change from the Status Quo or possibly any at all. Just like the Federal Government allows State/Provincial Governments decide on certain issues, so would/could a Global Government. Certainly Gun/Firearm issues are a hotpoint and if given the leeway of National preference on that issue, it would only work if one Nations choice didn't adversely affect another or other Nations choice in the matter(free flow of Weapons from a "Guns Rights" Nation to a "Gun Control" Nation for eg).

It all comes down to how it is Organized and what remains National jurisdiction depends on what Nations are willing to Argue for. Within reason of course. Global Issues should be handed off to the Global Government, at least in as much as is required to deal with certain Issues. For eg, Environmental Protection: GW/GCC is a Global Issue, but Sewage Treatment Issues vary somuch that they are best left to more Local Levels of Government. Certain types of Auto Emissions are more Local concerns, etc.

This is where it appears the EU has failed, IMO. They have become Micro-Managers of things they should not have concerned themselves with. In some cases they should have probably just created a Frame-work for National Governments to use if they so chose to, rather than just begin doing minutae stuff itself.

Many Governments, especially the US, will not stand for that kind of setup, but they can benefit greatly from a Global Govenment. So when the tiime comes, being part of the process to bring about a Global Government is very important. Until then various Organizations will come about to address various Issues of Global concernn and Common National Interest. All those disjoined Organizations will become increasingly inefficient, costly, and much more effective if joined together into some form of Government though.

 

[LumbergTech]

You do realize this is all a bunch of bullshit? You know that if they actually tried to unify all the countries that people in the United States (and elsewhere) would go crazy and fight to the death..

It isn't going to happen without a mass scale murder.

And if by chance a world government does develop, that really doesn't mean its permanent...

in a way we already have a world government, we have a set of rules that we (we being te nations of the world with armies) require people to adhere to or else we will threaten their safety..

The people in the United States seem quite fearful that they might be subjected to similar outside scrunity as they have done to other nations for quite some time.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
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.

This. The OP has been taken in by fear-mongering.

ZV

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
You do realize this is all a bunch of bullshit? You know that if they actually tried to unify all the countries that people in the United States (and elsewhere) would go crazy and fight to the death..

It isn't going to happen without a mass scale murder.

And if by chance a world government does develop, that really doesn't mean its permanent...

in a way we already have a world government, we have a set of rules that we (we being te nations of the world with armies) require people to adhere to or else we will threaten their safety..

The people in the United States seem quite fearful that they might be subjected to similar outside scrunity as they have done to other nations for quite some time.

It's not BS. Though you are correct that the US has a strong Influence on Global Affairs, but that's mostly through Organizations such as the G7, NATO, and such. Direct US Military use has limited influence overall and as seen in recent events, it is excessively Costly and unsustainable for any significant period of time. The greatest power the US has is not its' Military, but its' Ideas.

 

[brandonb]

Wow, people support a one world government. Religion aside, 4 billion years of evolution should be a pretty strong indicator that people operate differently that one another. Birds of a feather flock together... Get us all in a mix and watch the fireworks. No thx.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Does that make him in favor of the so called Iraq 'invasion'?

pinch yourself and wake up...

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'll be back. I've got to report this to my Mommy.

Funny, you didn't have such tact with regards to the Iraq war or other matters of former President Bush.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Wow, people support a one world government. Religion aside, 4 billion years of evolution should be a pretty strong indicator that people operate differently that one another. Birds of a feather flock together... Get us all in a mix and watch the fireworks. No thx.

Yes, many do, because it's increasingly becoming necessary.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Socio
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.

is there a problem with any of this? seems pretty reasonable.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87
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.

this will happen already, by the time i die i would be surprised if there are more than 100 languages that are not functionally dead. i think atm there are ~5000 languages left, down from a peak of 20000 or so a couple centuries ago.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Sandorski, which of the Constitutions principles are you willing to give up for this one world government?

i don't see the reason to give up any of them, at least as far as my rights as a citizen go.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

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

Just read the book of revolations . 1verse hear or their does nothing. But there are many referances to A new Bable its on the EU coinage. Bible Bable. Many writing threw history point to a plan for the return of Nimrod . 12-23-12

You learn everthing you can about this man Caesarion Everthing it takes work to get good info vs. Bad But if he was Christ . Bible Bable sounds good to me. IF!

revelations was written about rome.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Sandorski, which of the Constitutions principles are you willing to give up for this one world government?

i don't see the reason to give up any of them, at least as far as my rights as a citizen go.

There is no such thing as concurrent and equal government. At some point there will be a difference of opinion. Which holds, the world government or the Constitution?

I have yet to see anything I would replace our founding document with. That being the case, I won't surrender sovereignty for the sake of playing to globalists.

This isn't going to happen simply because "We the People" won't allow it, and if our elected officials attempt to foist this on us, they have betrayed their office and us.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Sandorski, which of the Constitutions principles are you willing to give up for this one world government?

i don't see the reason to give up any of them, at least as far as my rights as a citizen go.

There is no such thing as concurrent and equal government. At some point there will be a difference of opinion. Which holds, the world government or the Constitution?

I have yet to see anything I would replace our founding document with. That being the case, I won't surrender sovereignty for the sake of playing to globalists.

This isn't going to happen simply because "We the People" won't allow it, and if our elected officials attempt to foist this on us, they have betrayed their office and us.

Your fears are primarily Strawmen. I think you and others are assuming some extreme change in how things work if this was ever implemented. It wouldn't be, in fact in many ways you'd be better off, as given the predominant Political philosophy, you'd have some direct input into Issues that currently are dealt with by the G7/20/x, NATO, and other such organizations.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The internet is changing everything as more people see that they have common interests beyond any borders and irrational fears of "outsiders" are dispelled through interaction and observation. Eventually, common interests will lead to common management and common solutions to problems.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Sandorski, which of the Constitutions principles are you willing to give up for this one world government?

i don't see the reason to give up any of them, at least as far as my rights as a citizen go.

There is no such thing as concurrent and equal government. At some point there will be a difference of opinion. Which holds, the world government or the Constitution?

I have yet to see anything I would replace our founding document with. That being the case, I won't surrender sovereignty for the sake of playing to globalists.

This isn't going to happen simply because "We the People" won't allow it, and if our elected officials attempt to foist this on us, they have betrayed their office and us.

Your fears are primarily Strawmen. I think you and others are assuming some extreme change in how things work if this was ever implemented. It wouldn't be, in fact in many ways you'd be better off, as given the predominant Political philosophy, you'd have some direct input into Issues that currently are dealt with by the G7/20/x, NATO, and other such organizations.

You mean the "one world government" won't dictate our national defense policy and regulate how much we spend on defense? That soulds like an extreme change in how things work as they currently stand. Oh, and we don't have any input into the issues of G7/20/x, NATO? Please point to an "upside" for giving up our national soveriegnty and submitting to the will of the "one world government".

 

[silverpig]

Half of you guys have such poor reading comprehension it's amazing. This isn't an argument for abolishing national governments and making everyone live under a world government. The most important line in that quote is this one:

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.

The idea is to set up a list of very general global laws that everyone must abide by. Such a list would be very general and easy to agree upon.

1. Murder is bad.
2. War crimes are bad.
3. Bioweapons are bad.
4. Chemical weapons are bad.
5. All humans have certain basic rights which are to be protected and not violated.

To ensure these laws are upheld, we will have a world investigation force (sort of like the UN weapons inspectors), who will investigate complaints that can't be reasonably handled by an internal police force. The defendants will be tried in a world court on these charges.

I don't see the problem here.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Sandorski, which of the Constitutions principles are you willing to give up for this one world government?

i don't see the reason to give up any of them, at least as far as my rights as a citizen go.

There is no such thing as concurrent and equal government. At some point there will be a difference of opinion. Which holds, the world government or the Constitution?

I have yet to see anything I would replace our founding document with. That being the case, I won't surrender sovereignty for the sake of playing to globalists.

This isn't going to happen simply because "We the People" won't allow it, and if our elected officials attempt to foist this on us, they have betrayed their office and us.

Your fears are primarily Strawmen. I think you and others are assuming some extreme change in how things work if this was ever implemented. It wouldn't be, in fact in many ways you'd be better off, as given the predominant Political philosophy, you'd have some direct input into Issues that currently are dealt with by the G7/20/x, NATO, and other such organizations.

You mean the "one world government" won't dictate our national defense policy and regulate how much we spend on defense? That soulds like an extreme change in how things work as they currently stand. Oh, and we don't have any input into the issues of G7/20/x, NATO? Please point to an "upside" for giving up our national soveriegnty and submitting to the will of the "one world government".

Currently G7/x, NATO, other Orgs are completely out of the influence of the Voting Public. A Government in control of those things would likely involve some kind of Direct Representation.

Ya, Defense Policy might be that Governments mandate as well, but if it was, what Nation would be a Military threat? I think Nations would possibly maintain their own Militaries, but War actions would be decided/Approved by the Global Government. Justifiable actions would be easier to carry out as Coalitions would no longer need to be made.

Any such Government is going to have its' Powers limited, as many Nations besides the US don't want to surrender certain Policy control.

As for giving up Sovereignty, you already have given up much of it since the USs' inception. Some of it to Orgs like NATO, G7/x, etc, but also much has been given up simply because your Natural Resources do not give you as much Self-Sufficiency as they used to.