Will America Break Up?

[American Patriot]

I think you misunderstood the thrust of my assessment.

They want America to become extinct. Period. Regardless of what happens to the land mass (which the Chinese want badly) - the Russians could care less on in that respect.

The Russians and Chinese (among others) have a converging want, and even perhaps a NEED to see this country fall.

Capitalism has been the greatest, most successful method of economics ever conceived and that can even be proven that the Communists in both those countries have embraced capitalism even while throwing their own people into political prisons.

Communism can't exist in an atmosphere beneficial to Capitalism.

Further, the Freedoms Americans enjoy are hated by those in power in other countries because it obviously makes the dictators there look bad. Even hated.

[Backstop]

I just can not imagine the collapse of our government, and being replaced with a full blown Communist one.



Sad times indeed.

[American Patriot]

I can't imagine that either, not without a fight Backstop. Not without a fight.

[American Patriot]

Many of them won't be put against the wall, useful idiots will be moved into power.

I can see that from watching the way things work even now.

[American Patriot]

How would it be easier to kill Americans? Who would be killing us?

Without an all out attack on this country, that isn't going to happen. Even the Leftists who would love to see the demise of the Right won't raise their hands to us.

I just listened to some of the calls that are left for some of the Tea Party groups (it was on tv a few minutes ago). They want us to "Shut up because we're in the minority". (Freedomworks)

And many other things. They want to shut us up, and if they try to kill us we fight back.

An outside country would have to attack us and kill as many as possible, meaning nuclear weapons. Nukes wouldn't leave them the freedom to move in and takeover easily.

On the other hand, I suspect that's precisely where they want to go, which is why I believe China will be the perps.

[American Patriot]

I suggest that this is already in the works, but the time isn't yet ready.

But, the country is ripe for this type of attack.

America is deeply divided among traditionalist American idealism and Socialism.

When the internal strife becomes so great, the stresses are causing people to start real fighting (which I believe is not far down the road) a foreign government with the wherewithal will do just what you've suggested above.

[vector7]

Companion Thread: Russian analyst predicts decline and breakup of U.S.

Breakup Of U.S. Is Inevitable

Posted on May 19, 2010

People all over America are discussing freedom’s future. In short, they are worried. In fact, many are actually talking about State secession.

In coffee shops and cafes, and around dining room tables, millions of people are speaking favorably of states breaking away from the union.

Not since the turn of the twentieth century have this many people thought (and spoken) this favorably about the prospect of a State (or group of states) exiting the union. In my mind, this is a good thing.

Even many of those who oppose the prospect of secession understand the increasing tyrannical nature of the current central government in Washington, D.C., and that something must be done about it.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines tyranny as

“1: oppressive power . . .
2: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler . . .
3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force . . .
4: a tyrannical act.”

Even a casual observer would have to conclude that most of the actions proceeding forth from DC today match at least Webster’s 1st and 3rd definitions of tyranny.

Besides, who would argue the advantage of the tyranny of an oligarchy over the tyranny of a monarchy?

A tyranny of many cannot be distinguished from a tyranny of one in most cases–especially not by those poor souls who are at the point of the spear of Government’s cruelties.

The fact is, there is collusion between Big Government and Big Business (as each feeds and profits off the other) to strip the American people of their God-given liberties. Without a shadow of a doubt, had America’s Founding Fathers not sagaciously cemented the Second Amendment into the US Constitution, the Jackboots would have marched over us years ago.

That freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustration–and even fury–is quite understandable. And State secession is, very properly, the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty. All of America’s founders understood this–all of them! And millions of modern-day American patriots are just now beginning to become reacquainted with this great, historic doctrine.

However, whether one subscribes to the doctrine of secession or not is quite immaterial. The breakup of the US is inevitable! Short of another Great Awakening, nothing can stop it. And given the spiritual deadness of most American churches these days, the prospect of a modern-day national revival seems remote at best.

It is a historical fact that no empire can sustain itself. And America is more and more becoming a global empire. For the sake of simplicity, I ask readers to ponder this question: How can one sustain a global economy without global government to manage and control it? Answer: One can’t.

This is why elitists in politics, economics, and the military have been calling for global government for decades.

People such as

George H.W. Bush,
Bill Clinton,
George W. Bush,
Tony Blair,
Walter Cronkite,
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
David Rockefeller,
Henry Kissinger,
Gideon Rachman,
Warren Christopher,
Walt Rostow,
Richard Gardner,
Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Robert Pastor, et al.

Furthermore, organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission are constantly promoting regional or global unification.

Moreover, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and, of course, the United Nations (UN) all contribute to the escalation of globalism.

I have written two previous columns outlining much relevant information on this very real promotion of globalism. See them at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=84

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=86

Therefore, it is safe to say that, for the most part, America’s foreign policy is (and has been) controlled and manipulated by globalists.

Accordingly, America’s armed forces are used more and more as international policemen to patrol the streets of the world on behalf of this international cabal of merchants and politicians. The cover for this is the mantra of fighting an international “war on terrorism.”

But the real agenda is, keeping our troops fighting in perpetual war so that they might be available to the globalists at the UN and US State Department (not to mention countless “off the books” operations being run by the CIA and a host of other agencies) for the purpose of maintaining the “global economy” (and only God knows how many illegal enterprises).

Perpetual war also allows the Machiavellians who desire to turn America into a police state to increasingly encroach upon constitutionally protected liberties by keeping the populace in a perpetual state of fear.

After all, as long as our troops are “over there” fighting (and making) enemies, we will always need Big Brother to keep us safe “over here.”

And the only way he can do that is by putting us all in cages; but hey, it’s for our own good, right?

And, of course, this new “global force for good” must itself be reshaped into an image compatible with the political correctness of the New World Order. Hence, more and more women are being placed in combat units.

In fact, females are now the fastest growing group of enlistees within the US armed forces. And for the first time in US history, women are now approved to serve aboard submarines. (I am sure submariners’ wives are thrilled about this!)

“How does flooding the US military with women fit into the scheme of the globalists?” you ask. Simple. By reducing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of our military forces, it requires them to be part of a “coalition” force. Come on, folks, figure it out: our troops are always part of some sort of global “coalition” army. They always serve in concert with NATO, or the UN, or at the behest of some other global entity.

And please, I don’t need readers to write me with great indignation, calling me “sexist.”

Get real!

If women can serve in combat equally with men, why not have an all-female combat infantry division? How about an all-female tank division?

Let’s have an all-female Navy warship!

What about an all-female Navy SEAL team or Army Special Forces team?

If, then, women are inefficient in combat as a unit, they are equally inefficient in combat individually.

Wise up, people!

It is critical to the globalists controlling Washington politics that our military be integrated with foreign entities. Allowing the weaker vessels to dilute the warrior-strength of our combat units helps to accomplish this in spades!

Folks, this new American empire is not sustainable. Mark it down: the American empire will follow every other notable empire of antiquity and collapse under its own weight. The signs are already ubiquitous.

In its attempt to entice illegal aliens (a necessary component to the globalization of America) by providing them with almost complete and universal welfare benefits, the Empire has saddled the states with a monstrous debt and has planted the seeds for its own fragmentation.

The American Southwest is a boiling caldron. Revolutionaries, violent criminal gangs, agitators, drug runners, human traffickers, and agent provocateurs–all loyal to Mexico–have been allowed to freely unleash their anti-American vitriol to the point that, in desperation, the State of Arizona is now trying to fight back. It is probably too little too late, however.

Both the central government in Washington, D.C., and the national news media are sympathetic to the cause of La Raza. Look at how those brave legislators and governor in Arizona have been lampooned by the national press corps.

The call for the “reconquista” of America’s great Southwest will continue to escalate. It is all part of the globalists’ plan to regionalize the United States. The template is already in place.

CFR’s Robert Pastor has already done the legwork. The North American Community (or Union) is past the drawing table stage; it is now being implemented. The NAFTA superhighway is being built and La Raza has been unleashed on the frontier. It’s only a matter of time.

Furthermore, take a look at the staggering debt that this government in Washington, D.C., has burdened the American people with. To talk numbers is meaningless: they total more than we can possibly begin to fathom.

These numbers shock sensibilities and strain comprehension. In this regard, toss away all notions of partisan politics. Both major parties in DC have forever plunged our children and grandchildren’s future into a chasm of indebtedness so deep that it can never be recovered. Never!

Yet again, perpetual war has accomplished its purpose: unmitigated debt has allowed international bankers to print and loan vast sums of paper money that can be used to further their dreams of a global economy, complete with a mutually palatable system of burgeoning global governance.

I say again, the American empire is not sustainable; the breakup of the United States is inevitable. It is only a matter of time. The real question is not IF the US will breakup, but WHEN and HOW?

Globalists are already planning America’s breakup. Indeed, their plans for the future global economy DEMAND that America fracture. So, all of those who want to parade around and pontificate about the “unconstitutionality” and “impracticality” of secession can do so to their hearts’ content. It changes nothing.

The breakup is coming.

What is yet to be seen, of course, is if there will be enough states (the last vanguards of liberty) with the foresight to recognize the rise of tyranny and globalism as it approaches, and muster the courage and fortitude to do what principled patriots and lovers of liberty have always done: draw their line in the sand for freedom.

Call it what you will; debate the definitions and language all you like; it all comes down to the same thing: either men fight for freedom and independence or they allow themselves and their children to be sold into slavery.

At some point in the future (how far in the future, no one knows), we Americans will, once again, have to face that decision.

In the meantime, keep talking about freedom around your coffee tables; keep writing about freedom in your books and columns; keep praying about freedom in your churches and closets; keep dreaming about freedom in your hearts and minds.

Real freedom–where a man can be left alone; where a man can keep what he earns; where a man can make his own choices; where a man’s property is his own; where harassing agents of an oppressive central government are nowhere to be found; where a man doesn’t have to sell his soul in order to sell his wares; where a man’s worship of God is not subject to political correctness (or the IRS); and where a man can actually exchange commerce and correspondence without the prying eyes of Big Brother–is worth any price. ANY PRICE!

As Barry Goldwater said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Amen! And if the pursuit of freedom requires the extremism of secession, I say, LET IT COME!

[American Patriot]

This is why elitists in politics, economics, and the military have been calling for global government for decades.

People such as

George H.W. Bush,
Bill Clinton,
George W. Bush,
Tony Blair,
Walter Cronkite,
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
David Rockefeller,
Henry Kissinger,
Gideon Rachman,
Warren Christopher,
Walt Rostow,
Richard Gardner,
Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Robert Pastor, et al.

Furthermore, organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission are constantly promoting regional or global unification.

Bullshit.

I knew George Herbert Walker Bush personally. He is neither an "elitist" nor a "globalist".

Globalists are SOCIALISTS.

I wish to hell people would stop making this shit up.

Baldwin is wrong, so is Ron Paul and all the rest of the morons who keep spouting this bullshit.

He might be correct about the last, best chance being a "break up" but even that is WRONG.

BTW - Grouping Bush with Cronkite - both of whom I've met and know something about is childish, immature and ignorant. Cronkite was a socialist of the worst sort, a Newsman whom everyone trusted. Socialist is probably strong for him, he was more of a co-op type of guy. While I don't believe he believed directly in Socialism, he certainly did believe in "redistribution of wealth" in some manner.

A LOT of people believe that everything "should be for the good of all".

I DON'T believe that.

I believe we should help out neighbors, we should help others, but I don't believe it should be at the point of a gun or threats from our government or neighbors, friends or Socialists.

If I wish to donate something to help someone, I WILL on my own. When someone starts ORDERING me to give up my money they can go fuck themselves.

[zenbudda]

the funny thing is, that piece written by the black lady is largely hypocritical. george washington owned slaves, yes. but she fails to mention that slaves were part of a lot of different societies back then. something my history 101 teacher informed us of was that slavery, while not socially acceptable now, was commonplace in all countries of the world. so isn't she really doing the same thing that she's complaining about? so maybe i'll do the same thing. maybe your people's came over in shackles because you were weak as a society and did not know how to defend yourselves against your own peoples who sold you as slaves. and you must not be very intelligent because you blame the wrong people for enslaving you. you never talk about the black masons that helped develop the USA. you don't find ways to integrate yourself into the western culture.


it's interesting how people overly focus on american slavery when native american indians had slaves; africans had slaves (who built the freaking pyramids?). there are countries even today that use "slave" labor practices. but yet people turn a blind eye and blame america.

it's odd because i share this woman's desire to tell the whole truth and not just some revisionist form of it. but she is letting her angst change the underlying meaning behind things (something we are all guilty of i'm sure).

***edit***
after reading the rest of the thread, i have a serious question. what was meant by the saying "New World Order"?

[vector7]

Let me make a suggestion. I suggest that it is entirely possible that the leading successionists and neo-confederates in this country are Communist infiltrators, having infiltrated what Jan Sejna called the anticommunist 'reactionary sects' that crave power and who would be perfect cover for marxist 'false-front oppostition'.....I'm thinking of groups like the Moonies, the John Birch Society, the Society of st. Pius X, ETC...

Chuck Baldwin can kiss my ass.


Our enemies would love to see succession happen....'Union' is not the only thing our country needs to survive, but it is the necessary thing that is indespensible for all other things necessary!

Interesting points.

The fact that many in this Administration are closet Communist should raise a flag.

The fact that they also believe Russia and China are our friends and we now share many goals including dismantling strategic facets of our military and taking down nuclear deterrents should raise more flags.

When these revolutionary Communist believe America's Government needs transformation and their political enemies overthrown to possibly include allowing Russia, China and their Allies to be partners in the occupation of the United States; this is Axis war strategy.

My feeling is that radicals like Alinsky, Ayers and others may have been KGB influenced in their origins along with many other leftist groups from that era.

Members of these groups have now spread in authoritative roles on our campuses, in the MSM, Government and politically powerful institutions.

They have nearly complete control of one of our 2 Party systems of representation.

Watch the Left in this country as they continue to provoke a confrontation.

[American Patriot]

Interesting points.

The fact that many in this Administration are closet Communist should raise a flag.

Point made. It does raise a flag. It has been raising flags since he announced his candidacy. Further flags were raised when he hired all these Communist, whom, by the way are "not in the closet".

Rahm Israel Emanuel - for example: He is an anti-gun, anti-free speech, raised Jewish - or at least was born to a jewish family. Unfortunately, his mother was a hard core Communist writer.

His father? Oh, nothing big, belonged to a group called LEHI, terrorist assassins and bombers. Wow. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Gang)

I don't have to mention the others, they too have been covered at length.

But what I WILL mention is it is a well known psychological aspect that children, many times will take the opposite political stance of parents. In this case, I'm not so sure that happened. It's about a 50-50 thing.

The fact that they also believe Russia and China are our friends and we now share many goals including dismantling strategic facets of our military and taking down nuclear deterrents should raise more flags.

When these revolutionary Communist believe America's Government needs transformation and their political enemies overthrown to possibly include allowing Russia, China and their Allies to be partners in the occupation of the United States; this is Axis war strategy.

My feeling is that radicals like Alinsky, Ayers and others may have been KGB influenced in their origins along with many other leftist groups from that era.

Members of these groups have now spread in authoritative roles on our campuses, in the MSM, Government and politically powerful institutions.

They have nearly complete control of one of our 2 Party systems of representation.

Watch the Left in this country as they continue to provoke a confrontation.

All of these people have been influenced by Alinsky. Especially Obama. There's word afoot that Obama is working diligently to have Alinsky like techniques used to train CHILDREN to be "state followers". Don't know if it is TRUE, but I certainly think it could easily happen given his charismatic appeal.

Honestly, do any one of us think that there is a "New World Order"? There might indeed be people trying to push for it, but it's not a real thing, there's no "bilderberg" group, and the CFR isn't working to make it so. There might be some underpinnings of trying to control the world - but Russia wants to, China wants too, UK wants to, the US wants too... everyone WANTS to control the world their way.

Is anyone else going to allow some other country to do it? Nope. Not at all.

If we try, the Russians and Chinese will band together to stop us.

If the Chinese try, we and thr Russians (and others) will stop them and so on.

[zenbudda]

i saw a list of people who were being attributed to being socialist that included the bush's. I'll be honest, unless i have other proof, i do believe they wanted some sort of social control themselves. what did they mean by New World Order?

[American Patriot]

i saw a list of people who were being attributed to being socialist that included the bush's. I'll be honest, unless i have other proof, i do believe they wanted some sort of social control themselves. what did they mean by New World Order?

Yeah!

Get the pitch forks!!

GET THEM!!!!!!!!!!!

/sigh

[American Patriot]

Let's take the statement "new world order" in CONTEXT, shall we? Here's the paragraph from the actual speech in which he said it.

We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.

Now....

1) A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle.

2) An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony.

3) A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice.

4) A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.

Of COURSE the speech was given in 1991. On September 11th... interesting, huh?

[zenbudda]

Yeah!

Get the pitch forks!!

GET THEM!!!!!!!!!!!

/sigh

of course you have your right to your opinion of my position of bush, but by your statement, it seems you may have over interpreted my stance on the list that was posted earlier in this thread and my understanding of both of bush's policies. of course, maybe i interpreted your response in the wrong way.

there were 2 points being made by my statement. 1 was about the list posted above that included the bush's names (bush jr's spending wasn't exactly conservative). 2 was about the use of words New World Order. in my eyes, there is no need to rally a flash mob due to these points/questions, at least nothing to sigh about. but after reading your posts i see you have been around a while and probably think i'm a typical NWO conspiracy naysayer. i'm not. i may entertain conspiracy theory notions to keep myself honest, and honestly, i believe there are very interesting facts to be pointed out by certain conspiracies.

obama recently started using New World Order in his speeches (or am I being fooled by the media on that one). I wanted to make sure i understand what "new world order" actually means. i'm not making a connection between those words and those who use them...yet.

[zenbudda]

Let's take the statement "new world order" in CONTEXT, shall we? Here's the paragraph from the actual speech in which he said it.



Now....

1) A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle.

2) An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony.

3) A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice.

4) A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.

Of COURSE the speech was given in 1991. On September 11th... interesting, huh?

Are you assessing that when the Bush's used the term New World Order that this is what they meant?

[vector7]

Ok, I think you are missing the main thrust of my arguement; i'm not talking aout the threat of infiltrators from the 'Left' but from the 'Right'. It's the reaction to Obama, not Obama himself, that the Communists are trying to exploit, the dialectical possibilities coming from the 'antithesis' to Obama....That's my worry that I think some are missing.

You know this was brought up in a couple of threads.

The reaction to overwhelming socialist change...at what point do people say this is enough?

Where is the line drawn and at what point is too far?

I brought up the passive approach that maybe we should be prepared to cache all our stuff and live to fight another day.

Well that didn't sit well with everyone here, I did get corrected.

After reflecting on some of the comments made here I had to agree, there are some fundamental areas of our freedoms that cannot be overturned without a fight.

When and where this happens needs not to be discussed in an open forum.

[American Patriot]

of course you have your right to your opinion of my position of bush, but by your statement, it seems you may have over interpreted my stance on the list that was posted earlier in this thread and my understanding of both of bush's policies. of course, maybe i interpreted your response in the wrong way.

No, I didn't misinterpret what you said. I was merely commenting. Conspiracy theory is, of itself lame and wasteful. I guess you don't really know where I am coming from. Try going over to the Anomalies Forums and reading the YEARS worth of stuff I've written on this or that conspiracy. In my mind anyone touting a conspiracy (even me!) hasn't read up on the subject well enough to be informed and is making vague, usually inconsistent statements about "connections" to make their conspiracy "work".

Any New World Order conspiracy is coming out of the mouths of people who want to see the United States isolate itself completely. This comes from two types of people. Those who are Americans (and usually Libertarian, or pretending to be) and those who are outside the United States and want us "out of the world business, off the world stage and knocked down to a third world nation". There are very, very few others who spout NWO stuff... unless they are just merely ignorant of the world, and how it works.

I agree with your statements on one point Bush Jr spent a lot of money.

Bush Sr. however was not a "NWO" guy. I know him personally. He's about as "Capitalist" as they come. He's an oil man from way back. He is a decent, honorable human being and to lump him in with socialists like Barak Obama is just ignorance and unknowing. It means, Zen, that you've not actually read something HE has written as opposed to, say, what the MEDIA (or the Left) has written about him.

there were 2 points being made by my statement. 1 was about the list posted above that included the bush's names (bush jr's spending wasn't exactly conservative). 2 was about the use of words New World Order.

I'll address each of these in turn:

1 was about the list posted above that included the bush's names (bush jr's spending wasn't exactly conservative).

Agreed about Bush Jr. Not about Sr. Remember, I worked directly for the man as a Senior Radio Tech for the White House Communications Agency while he was Vice President (as well as for Reagan, later for Bush as President, Dan Quayle as well. I've also had the opportunity to meet Carter, Nixon, Ford, as well as Bush Sr., Reagan and numerous other people in higher offices over the years).

Bush Sr. policies on taxation were like those of Reagan. He campaigned on "no new taxes". In fact, he did "go back on his word" AFTER a major battle with Congress (which was controlled by the Demoncrats. I mean Democrats). He used the tax increase to REDUCE the deficit. That's well and good, because it wasn't that big then. Now, we have a President who deliberately has increased the deficit to TRILLIONS of dollars and now wants to erase that by taking 50% of everything every American makes. There's a big damned difference is balancing a budget and increasing the budget to the point of enslaving Americans. BIG DIFFERENCE.

2 was about the use of words New World Order.

As I stated in the beginning, George Bush Sr used those words in a speech. That speech was when we were headed into the First Gulf War. Read the SPEECH to see what he was saying, NOT what others say about him. He said the new "order" in lower case, by the way (not in upper case like the bozos preaching this nonsense say) was as I stated in my above message. Those were his EXACT words about what his idea of a "new order" was.

in my eyes, there is no need to rally a flash mob due to these points/questions, at least nothing to sigh about. but after reading your posts i see you have been around a while and probably think i'm a typical NWO conspiracy naysayer. i'm not. i may entertain conspiracy theory notions to keep myself honest, and honestly, i believe there are very interesting facts to be pointed out by certain conspiracies.

As you say, I have indeed been around awhile. I've been involved with politics since I was a young lad in high school. I've campaigned for both democrats and republicans. I've been registered as both. I've voted for both sides at various times in my life. I've voted for independents as well.

In fact, I voted for Carter the first time, and Reagan the next time around (I learned a hard lesson when 8 innocent men died because of Carter's incompetence...) - Desert One. Check that out sometime to get the whole story.

I have myself, run for office (School board, probably one step above "Dog Catcher". I didn't win one of the four seats, but acquitted myself well by coming in 5th out of 15 candidates. I decided NOT to run for other offices since I never desire or have the diplomacy skills required to be in a public office.

So - in essentially no, I do NOT see you as "a typical NWO conspiracy naysayer." Not at all. (My /sigh and other comments weren't really directed AT YOU per se, just the idea of it all.)

I see you're questioning the idea of NWO theory, as you SHOULD be. Life, the world and politics is significantly more complex than most people make it out to be (including myself at times.... I'd just nuke North Korea into submission and tell China they are next if it were me..... )

Honestly, giving into these theories is taking the easy path, you are "running with the wind" when you do this, instead of "beating against the wind". When running with the wind, you hoist your sails, wing them out and let the wind push you (usually to the west, and indeed perhaps looking at a map, to the LEFT). When you are beating, you're trying to sail into the wind. It is impossible to sail INTO the wind, thus you must tack, go a little off the wind for one space of time and distance, then come back going the other way to keep on course. On map, you might actually be going West to East (and therefore, to the RIGHT).

Beating is much more difficult, it requires much work, study and understanding of the subject (being the wind, oceans and currents). The wind can be fickle, currents are generally steady, and in the same directions and oceans can get tossed about by a combination of the wind and currents. Storms happen, and you have to get through them.

Politics is very much like sailing in this respect. To come to an understanding of the sea - or politics - you mus work hard, study long and gain an understanding of the topic. Simply listening to, and believing everything you read isn't sufficient.

While I spend a great deal of time here reading, as well as posting I do not post anywhere near as much as I read. No one does I believe. That is a good thing. But BELIEVING what you read wholly without any other verification, considering mitigating factors and merely "putting it all together in pieces" is exactly, precisely what "Conspiracy Theorists" do. EXACTLY!

(Don't believe me? Ask Brian Baldwin, Ryan Ruck, Backstop, Malsua and many other of the regulars here who also have known me for many, many years and they can verify pretty much all I've ever said about Conspiracy Theory).

A conspiracy theory ONLY holds together while people "believe" in it. Never when there is documented, supporting evidence to ascertain that a person has committed a crime (or conspired with others) to perform something detrimental to the rest of us.

Did Bush and others CONSPIRE to cause a "New World Order" (some as-yet unseen entity) to take over the world, create one currency, to take us all into serfdom?

No... it hasn't happened. While many would love to believe it, remember this, those who spout this NWO stuff WANT the US to become separate states, or worse to fall apart. They WANT the government to declare martial law so they can say "I TOLD YOU SO!" and take up arms - or more importantly so people like you and me will take up arms against our so-called "evil government" so that they can run and hide like rabbits in their hidey holes, complete with nuclear fallout and three years worth of survival rations (which they were selling on some radio show - just heard RECENTLY in fact...)

When you start studying, in depth, some of these conspiracies, you certainly will find some truth in them. But, it's not the little truths, and the connections that make them concrete. In fact, in most cases the truth is there, but taken out of context (as was Bush's "NWO" speech). Other things that are just plain WRONG are the connections.

The connections are the glue that holds together a good conspiracy. If you start by looking at these connections and finding falsehoods that intersperse within, you can WATCH a Conspiracy falling to pieces before your eyes.

The very fact that I rail on them should be sufficient impetus for YOU (and others) to get off your duffs and do the research yourselves.

I am NOT going to take people by the hand and walk them through conspiracies. I don't have that much time left in the world to correct them and show the falsehoods. But, I can help point people to LEARNING for themselves.

Over the last 20 years I have been accused of being "brainwashed". I'm ANYTHING but brainwashed.

In fact, my personal "beliefs" are based solely on factual, scientific and real, hard data points that I can discover for MYSELF without someone pointing me to them.

My politics is based on COMMON SENSE. Not the fallacy of "belief". Ask ANYONE on the left what they "believe in" and they will give you some flighty, lofty words like "world peace, green trees, free energy" and some other such bullshit. There's nothing pragmatic to their "beliefs".

Ask me what I believe and I will tell you "Nothing, unless I can prove it to be true". PROVING something to be false is a lot more difficult. But sometimes you can determine something isn't true simply by researching the subjects.

obama recently started using New World Order in his speeches (or am I being fooled by the media on that one). I wanted to make sure i understand what "new world order" actually means. i'm not making a connection between those words and those who use them...yet.

He in fact used a similar phrase.. but not precisely. He said, and I quote:

So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by your side in Afghanistan and around the globe. As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions.



This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times –- countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing wounds. If we are successful in these tasks, that will lessen conflicts around the world. It will be supportive of our efforts by our military to secure our country.

Remarks by the President at United States Military Academy at West Point Commencement,Michie Stadium, West Point, New York


Fox News made an issue out of a "New world order" speech by Obama. Well, the honest answer is he didn't SAY new world order in that speech to West Point grads.



Is Obama hoping for and pushing for a "New World Order"? Perhaps he is. Is there PROOF of this? What exactly (as you have asked) does "new world order" MEAN anyway? Who is defining this phrase? Where did it come from? Who started it?


The questions, as you can see go on and on, but the answers are rare and difficult to ascertain.

[American Patriot]

Are you assessing that when the Bush's used the term New World Order that this is what they meant?

No I am not "assessing" anything. The speech, at least the portion thereof containing the words "New world order" is posted above. IN THAT PARAGRAPH are those exact statements.

When you write, your paragraph (in general) has an opening statement, a closing statement and information in the middle. That information in the middle is there to explain and underscore your opening statement.

In a speech, many of which I've personally given as teacher, father, speaker at funerals and weddings, and as a political candidate, you attempt to grasp the attention of the audience, give them something to think about and leave them wanting more. Except at funerals of course.... (but I digress into dark humor...)

Bush stated those exact things in the very speech that is touted as the "New World Order" speech.

I didn't make that up, or "assess" anything. That is PRECISELY what he stated his idea of a new world order was.

Obama on the other hand used the phrase "international order" and said the US shouldn't shoulder all the worlds burdens (or words to that effect).

I could reasonably say, "Obama said there is a new international order and we are turning over responsibilities to the United Nations".... and by inference "giving up our sovereignty.

He DID NOT SAY THAT - but people will BELIEVE he said it!

[American Patriot]

What I am seeing here is a widely divergent set of beliefs, most if not all on the Christian leaning, Right Wingish or even Libertarian bent.

The very fact that this country is made up of so many different religious, political and social beliefs is what makes the country so attractive to those countries around us. I've stated this in the past... no one, if given the chance to come to the United States to live as a Citizen would TURN DOWN THE OPTION - if they do, they are few.

Those who would turn it down have personal reasons, and very few of those personal reasons have to do with the US being a horrible place to live. Instead they would be family, friends, or simply their comfort zone.

Michael seems to think there is a faction of "Right Wingers" who are not truly Right Wingers pushing the right to do something, anything, to discredit our side.

Vector seems to believe the opposite and wants to know "Where do we stop them? Where do we put the line in the sand?"

Zen seems to want everyone to just get along - but damn those pesky Conspiracy Theories anyway! (Just kidding Zen hehe)

In truth, where DOES it stop? It stops right here, right now, with each of you.

Not me, not Ryan, not Backstop, but ALL OF US.

EACH OF us should be writing Congress at least weekly, if not daily. We should be sending letters to the White House protesting loudly our displeasure with the President's socialist objectives.

We should be writing to those Congress persons who are actively attempting to shape our country into some Marxist utopia (where we give up 50% or more of our income to pay for their tress passes into giving away our country's treasure to those whom do Not Deserve it - namely bailouts for example).

We should be attending these "Tea Parties" and standing up for OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS before anything else. Before Government rights (which the government has few), before states rights (which they have beyond the Feds). And emphasizing that while Obama might have brought change, most of this change is UNWANTED and not only will they reverse it, we will reverse it if they do not voluntarily reverse this change.

But, then you must be SPECIFIC, like a laser beam, on what change we didn't want. What have they done other than talk and put Marxists into powerful positions in government so far? Well, they have bailed out car companies, banks and all sorts of other places. They are giving 4 billion bucks to ACORN (figure that one out).

What are WE doing?

Firing Congress.

One at a time.

What is the government doing? Creating disasters like the BP oil spill as some kind of diversionary tactic! (Ok, I threw that in there for the Conspiracy theorists!)

What to do/... what to do....

DON'T wring your hands. Prepare for war, while shoring up the defenses of the territory. That's what to do.

War - my friends, doesn't mean having to get your guns out. It does mean shooting straight, honestly and telling those "in charge" what you are pissed off about, why and giving them OPTIONS to fix it before they themselves run out of options and time.

When it gets to the point Americans are fed up enough, something will give. Either the government overreaching itself, or we will fire every person in Congress, the President and his Cabinet and install a new group of people in the next elections. It won't come to a shoot out.

Too many Americans work in the military, too many Americans are caught in the middle.

Americans won't kill Americans. It isn't going to happen (and that's not denial, that's a fact).