So whats wrong with a One World Government?

[DamianTV]

Playing devils advocate here, and I know im gonna take heat for this thread, but I want to know why the GENERAL idea of a One World Government is bad.

I have a one word answer. SLAVERY. It will be the end result if our current course is not changed. But the idea of a One World Government by itself, depending on what type of government it is, cant be that bad. If it was a Republic Government (what they keep telling us is our Democracy, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the DEMOCRACY, uh, hey wait, that dont sound right...), based on the Constitution, might not be that bad of a place to live in, but what were gonna end up with is some sort of Super Monarchy where the super super super super rich (owners of the private central banks will be the only true rulers, hell even oil tycoons wouldnt be allowed into that club) will be your new kings and queens.

But, as I said, I want to hear your thoughts about One World Government, not NWO, OWG.

[christagious]

One World Government, not NWO, OWG.

same thing, right? At least that's what I've been led to believe for the most part

[Kalifornia]

First, if this is really necessary, are you in the right place?

The biggest problem with a world government is the same problems with all government. Government=Force. The only thing that makes democratic systems less tyrannical than monarchy or other forms of government is that it requires 51% of the people, or elected representatives, to make law.

Im sorry, but just because 51% of the world says something is right, that does NOT make it so. That leaves room for 49% of the world to be killed for sport, taken to the extreme.

Given this. It is best to keep governments of all kinds weak. The best way to keep them weak, and dependent on public sentiment is to keep them small and local.

You see how monolithic, slow, burdensome and unresponsive our federal government is. How in the hell could you possibly think that letting some jokers run the whole world would be anything but an abysmal failure?

[Patriot123]

I think a one world government would be great. All of these thoughts that it would be forceful and whatnot is utter crap. If it were a Constitutional Republic, and if it was done right, it would be the best thing that could happen for mankind. So long as we actually have a decent Constitution, unlike the one we have now in this country. However, we aren't quite ready for a one world government yet, in my opinion. We aren't mature enough for it yet.

[brandon]

Nothing is wrong with it if I can be the king. ;)

[DamianTV]

Nothing is wrong with it if I can be the king. ;)

Sounds familiar...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g

(keep in mind I am playing Devil's Advocate here, and it is absolutely NOT what I want to see or believe in. I'll explain more after some more of your responses.)

[Kalifornia]

I think a one world government would be great. All of these thoughts that it would be forceful and whatnot is utter crap. If it were a Constitutional Republic, and if it was done right, it would be the best thing that could happen for mankind. So long as we actually have a decent Constitution, unlike the one we have now in this country. However, we aren't quite ready for a one world government yet, in my opinion. We aren't mature enough for it yet.

*head explodes*

[DamianTV]

I think a one world government would be great. All of these thoughts that it would be forceful and whatnot is utter crap. If it were a Constitutional Republic, and if it was done right, it would be the best thing that could happen for mankind. So long as we actually have a decent Constitution, unlike the one we have now in this country. However, we aren't quite ready for a one world government yet, in my opinion. We aren't mature enough for it yet.

As much as I like the idea of a completely free world where everyone has constitutional rights, I dont trust the government to keep their promise. Its great in concept but in reality, I think if it were attempted to be applied, we would get a much different point of view that turns out to not be such a good thing. I dont think the guys that wrote our Constitution had that much faith in government either, which is why a lot of the things in the Constitution were written specifically to limit the role and the ammt of power that the govt had.

There was a very specific reason why I asked question (yes it was rhetorical, and probably offensive to some, remember Devil's Advocate, again), of all places, here in the Ron Paul forums, and that reason is basically this: The next time you hear that question, you'll be more prepared to give your answer. If we do not talk now about the questions that will arise in the future, we will find that our answers will fall in line with what they want us to say. This is the government we are talking about. They will phrase, paraphrase, and rephrase their question until they get the answers they want out of people. We have to be prepared for variations of those questions.

Chance favors the prepared.

(I dont remember who said that, some movie I think)

[Doktor_Jeep]

A one world government would be great.

Better chance of getting all of the bastards in one place for a new Guy Fawkes event.

[Dr.3D]

This is the government we are talking about. They will phrase, paraphrase, and rephrase their question until they get the answers they want out of people.

Government holds up three fingers and asks: "How many fingers do you see?"
Citizen answers: "I see as many fingers as tell me to see!"

[Mini-Me]

Several major reasons:

1.) It would inevitably become perverted, corrupt, and totalitarian, no matter how it started out, and here's why:
Government is more accountable to the people when power stays as local as possible. The farther away it gets, the more disconnected politicians are from the people. Even if they have the best of intentions, this will make their policies skewed and out of touch. Furthermore, the farther politicians are from the people, the less likely it is that they'd have good intentions at all.

Part of the reason government is more accountable to the people at local levels is that it is less powerful. The more powerful any government or government post is, the more attractive it is to ill-intentioned people who seek power for power's sake. One world government has a supreme monopoly on legitimate force throughout the entire world, making it extremely powerful and naturally attractive to the worst of all sorts. Furthermore, power corrupts, so even many well-intentioned people would be sucked in eventually. Even if it was initially set up as a perfect republic that ONLY protected the rights of citizens, it would eventually and inevitably become perverted. A nation-state among other nation states might be able to stick to an absolutely perfect and bulletproof Constitution forever, unlike the United States - after all, the US Constitution had some flaws that were exploited, the greatest of all being the fact that it did not strictly enforce itself with harsh penalties against any official who overstepped it. However, with an absolute monopoly on the legitimate use of force throughout the whole world, and especially by being as remote from the people as possible, one world government would unavoidably become perverted. As we've seen, increasing consolidation of government power (especially executive power) happens in a gradual downward spiral, and once it's reached a certain level, nothing but a major shift can stop it from continuing on its natural course to totalitarianism.

Especially considering most people in the world and even in America seem to want some form of authoritarian collectivist fascism, this transformation would come very, very quickly. The more centralized and potentially powerful a government is, the more incentive some parties will have to send it down that path. As soon as one world government becomes a hub for legalized plunder (welfare, corporate welfare, protectionism, etc.), it will become more corrupt than any lesser government ever could. After all, what money-grubbing thief of a conglomerate wouldn't try lobbying the one-stop-shop for worldwide economic favors and monopolistic supremacy? The more centralized the power is, the easier it is to buy influence over a large geographic area, and one world government is as centralized as you can get. It's a hell of a lot harder bribing countless local governments than a state governments, it's a hell of a lot harder bribing 50 state governments than one national government, and it's a hell of a lot harder bribing 190 national governments than one supreme government. In other words, government corruption, money in government, and government in money would be at a height that could only be surpassed by one government ruling several planets. ;)

Another strong force would also cause government to become increasingly socialistic and destructive: Misplaced philanthropy. Both selfishness and philanthropy would run their course until eventually, the government had an increasingly centrally planned economy. Even if the central planner meant well (which would eventually cease to be the case), nobody in the world is intelligent enough to properly make decisions to manage an economy of global proportions. Misallocation of capital would be rampant, and increasingly so the more mechanisms the planner tried to control. Shortages and poverty would occur if only the money supply was manipulated (like today), and eventually, famine. If the planner was a complete Communist, imagine China's Great Leap Forward...times ten.

The gradual downward spiral would constantly worsen. With government so remote and its purpose finally utterly perverted, a police state would become inevitable for the ruling class to protect its power - and with the might of a completely unopposed one world government, humanity would see the worst tyranny in its entire history. Economic tyranny will rule, with fiat money manipulated for the benefit of the protected classes. The whole world would be sucked into the same economic system with no legal escape...and you can be sure that the vast police state would make sure nobody's using alternative currencies. Everyone would be educated by the same system, propagandized by the same media, etc. It would be extremely difficult for anyone to really raise awareness, and even more difficult to fight any kind of revolution: The more powerful and concentrated government power is, the more nigh-invincible it is. Such a government would ultimately be overthrown, perhaps after screwing up its economy so much that the starving masses just won't take it anymore, no matter how brainwashed they are. Still, it would be one hell of a painful and bloody lesson for the world (and quite frankly, it's one we're about to face).

The bottom line is that you can't have one world government without something like the NWO. NWO-style totalitarian plans are not some strange anomaly; rather, they're the natural consequence of ever-more-concentrated power.

2.) Besides being smaller and closer to the people, there's another important reason why more governments works much better:
Governments compete for citizens! This means that the more governments there are, the more options you have if yours turns sour. If your country goes to hell, slip out in the dead of night and move somewhere free. However, if there's just a one-world government, there's nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. In addition, no other country will exist to wage war with the one world government and end the tyranny. The whole world will share the same fate of totalitarian rule, and also, the whole world will suffer for any of the idiot central planner's economic failures/experiments/games. That brings me to:

It's much better to have a variety of government policies than one single set that everyone shares. Besides having another place to make a refugee home, this is another advantage of competing governments. First of all, different people from different parts of the world with different cultures will want to run their societies differently. If you force the same homogenized law on everyone, almost everyone will be unhappy. Here in the US, you can see a very clear example of that: Abortion, once a state issue, is so divisive on the national level that a significant percentage of voters vote SOLELY based on that issue, completely ignoring all others and letting politicians get away with piss-poor policies on the others. Just about half of the country is unhappy about the current abortion law, and if it switched, the other half would be. However, more local government with more varied laws would allow people to live in communities that shared their values (and had law to reflect it).

Futhermore, another strength of competition is that, assuming well-intentioned programs are put in place or experimented with, a lot more things can be experimented with at once and progress can occur much quicker. The larger government is, the more likely any hackneyed policy or program it has will be an inefficient mess and a failure, but aside from that, competing governments allow for them to learn from each others' failures and successes, and people can choose to live in the best place for them.

3.) Even if I was wrong about the #1, which I'm not, tyranny is at least a possibility, and with just a one world government, the risk, however "small," is simply unacceptable. Even if you don't accept the rationale that tyranny is inevitable, instead just think: What if tyranny were possible? Sure, the one world government could be governed by the best people in the world for centuries (yeah, right...but let's say it was), but what if someone like Hitler came into power? Even ignoring the complete inevitability (and the fact that it would happen quicker than with smaller and more numerous governments), just this very possibility should be prohibitive-enough a danger to turn anyone rational away from the idea of one world government forever. Even if it were a small risk, which it's not, the risk would be far too great!

4.) Why the heck does anyone need one world government? War can be solved without it. All issues we have can be solved without it. We're propagandized to think that there are issues unsolvable by sovereign nations and/or their people alone, not because it's true, but because it's a convenient excuse for tyrants to seize absolute power.

[Mini-Me]

I think a one world government would be great. All of these thoughts that it would be forceful and whatnot is utter crap. If it were a Constitutional Republic, and if it was done right, it would be the best thing that could happen for mankind. So long as we actually have a decent Constitution, unlike the one we have now in this country. However, we aren't quite ready for a one world government yet, in my opinion. We aren't mature enough for it yet.

I don't think you understand: Human nature is such that, if we ever become mature enough for one world government to be anywhere near safe, we'll be mature enough that NO government will be necessary.

[Truth Warrior]

"The thought of how far the human race [might] have advanced without government simply staggers the imagination."

[TurtleBurger]

Competition is always good for the consumer. The way things stand now, each government has a territorial monopoly, which makes them expensive and inefficient, but people do have the option to leave the country and live under a different government if things get bad enough. That is the one level of competition that remains and keeps government somewhat in check. If you take away that and form a global government monopoly, there is no limit to how corrupt, expensive, and inefficient that government could become.

[Bruno]

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[Truth Warrior]

Fire the government and let THEM leave for somewhere else.

They ARE just the employees of WE THE PEOPLE, after all. :rolleyes:

[Ozwest]

*head explodes*

Gotta laugh.

Rub the sticks together.

Then you get fire...

Or smoldering ashes.:confused:

[Kade]

Playing devils advocate here, and I know im gonna take heat for this thread, but I want to know why the GENERAL idea of a One World Government is bad.

I have a one word answer. SLAVERY. It will be the end result if our current course is not changed. But the idea of a One World Government by itself, depending on what type of government it is, cant be that bad. If it was a Republic Government (what they keep telling us is our Democracy, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the DEMOCRACY, uh, hey wait, that dont sound right...), based on the Constitution, might not be that bad of a place to live in, but what were gonna end up with is some sort of Super Monarchy where the super super super super rich (owners of the private central banks will be the only true rulers, hell even oil tycoons wouldnt be allowed into that club) will be your new kings and queens.

But, as I said, I want to hear your thoughts about One World Government, not NWO, OWG.

We can't get any one government right... why would we combine them together.. "With our powers combined, I am CAPTAIN USELESS".

Yea right. I'm an advocate for a Technocracy.

[Ozwest]

To be a Libertarian, is to believe in community.

Reducing the size of government and beaurocracy is the goal!

What planet are some of you on?

I drive a Plymouth Satellite... Faster than the speed of light.

[Truth Warrior]

To be a Libertarian, is to believe in community.

Reducing the size of government and beaurocracy is the goal!

What planet are some of you on?

I drive a Plymouth Satellite... Faster than the speed of light.

Humph. I didn't realize that you are an LP member. :rolleyes:

[Ozwest]

Humph. I didn't realize that you are an LP member. :rolleyes:

I am an individual.

Go join a club if you want to.

[Truth Warrior]

I am an individual.

Go join a club if you want to.
Nope never did, nor will.

An individual that capitalizes libertarian, it's kinda confusing. :p

[Ozwest]

Nope never did, nor wiil.

An individual that capitalizes libertarian, it's kinda confusing. :p

Now you are confusing?

Individual = Libertarian.

[FindLiberty]

I think the NWO, one world government types have bought into the biggest ego trip yet imagined by man (though some may say it's even mentioned in the Bible).

I see it as big trouble - A dark sci-fi movie with lots of unhappy people slaving or starving under a omnipotent ruling class. Quite a kick in the teeth for our nation's founders and the U.S. Constitution.

But, who knows for sure?

[Conza88]

I think a one world government would be great. All of these thoughts that it would be forceful and whatnot is utter crap. If it were a Constitutional Republic, and if it was done right, it would be the best thing that could happen for mankind. So long as we actually have a decent Constitution, unlike the one we have now in this country. However, we aren't quite ready for a one world government yet, in my opinion. We aren't mature enough for it yet.


http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10063/RonaldMcGTFO.jpg

For a non ad hominem reply; to your retarded comments...
I present to you an entire thread of my own creation: Arguments against One World Government. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=131472)

[Truth Warrior]

Now you are confusing?

Individual = Libertarian.
Hopefully clarifying:

Libertarian = "Libertarian Party" statist member or sympathizer.

libertarian = opposite of "statists" on the Nolan Chart, etc., etc., etc. :)

[Ozwest]

Whatever...

"Statist," is a new word to me.

Why make things more complicated? It's all sounding a bit "airy fairy" to me.

One good "snot," deserves another.

[Truth Warrior]

Whatever...

"Statist," is a new word to me.

Why make things more complicated? It's all sounding a bit "airy fairy" to me.

One good "snot," deserves another.

Complicated, confusing? Ask the LP, they STOLE the name. :p The libertarians did not.

[Ozwest]

Straight talking works for me.

Fuck the semantics. Fuck the Feds.

Start at the community level.

[Ozwest]

Complicated, confusing? Ask the LP, they STOLE the name. :p The libertarians did not.

When a dog pisses in your house, once, twice, repeatedly...

You get rid of it.

You got political parties pissing on you through the ceiling.

[Tommy Watts]

I think a one world government would be great. All of these thoughts that it would be forceful and whatnot is utter crap. If it were a Constitutional Republic, and if it was done right, it would be the best thing that could happen for mankind. So long as we actually have a decent Constitution, unlike the one we have now in this country. However, we aren't quite ready for a one world government yet, in my opinion. We aren't mature enough for it yet.

HERE IS YOUR ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!

C.F.R. CONTROVERSY:


The Council has been the subject of many controversies, partly due to the number of high-ranking government officials in its membership, its secrecy clauses, and the large number of aspects of American foreign policy that its members have been involved with, beginning with Wilson's Fourteen Points. The John Birch Society believes that the CFR plans a one-world government. Wilson's Fourteen Points speech was the first in which he suggested a worldwide security organization to prevent future world wars.


"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
- David Rockefeller, "Memoirs" autobiography (2002, Random House publishers), page 405


Historian Carroll Quigley included the CFR in his discussion of the Anglo-American Establishment's efforts to shape international developments during the 20th century. His book "Tragedy and Hope" was cited by conspiracy theorists as showing that the CFR was engaged in a conspiracy against American interests, though Quigley himself denied this.


Assistant Secretary of Commerce David Bohigian says that there is no truth to the rumors.[39] Senator Kit Bond, who is a member of committees that would have to authorize funding for a NAFTA superhighway, has said that there are no plans for a North American Union and the theories are not valid. However, Rep. Ron Paul has said that Congress has provided "small amounts" of money to study the feasibility of such a highway. Paul also suggested that because the funding constituted "just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill... most members of Congress were not aware of it." Rep. Virgil Goode introduced a resolution in September 2006, with 21 co-sponsors, to prohibit the building of a NAFTA superhighway and an eventual North American Union with Canada and Mexico. The resolution remains in committee.


In 2005, CFR task force co-chairman Robert Pastor testified in Congress in front of the Foreign Relations Committee: "The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada, but at the borders of North America as a whole." The CFR task force he headed called for one border around North America, freer travel within it, and cooperation among Canadian, Mexican and American military forces and law enforcement for greater security. It called for full mobility of labor among the three countries within five years, similar to the European Union. He also appeared at a CFR forum called "The Future of North American Integration in the Wake of the Terrorist Attacks" on October 17, 2001, discussing the prospect of North American integration in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Conservative commentator Phyllis Schlafly wrote of the 2005 report, "This CFR document, called 'Building a North American Community,' asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and assigned 'working groups' to fill in the details." The document advocated allowing companies to recruit workers from anywhere within North America and called for large loans and aid to Mexico from the US. It called for a court system for North American dispute resolution and said that illegal aliens should be allowed into the United States Social Security system through the Social Security Totalization Agreement. The report called for a fund to be created by the US to allow 60,000 Mexican students to attend US colleges. The report says the plan can be carried out within five years. Other members of the task force included former Massachusetts governor William Weld and immigration chief for President Clinton, Doris Meissner.


Pastor wrote in Foreign Affairs:
"The U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments remain zealous defenders of an outdated conception of sovereignty even though their citizens are ready for a new approach. Each nation's leadership has stressed differences rather than common interests. North America needs leaders who can articulate and pursue a broader vision... Countries are benefited when they changed these [national sovereignty] policies, and evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete."


Pastor appeared at a CFR-sponsored symposium at Arizona State University on issues that would face the next president.
*******


How can they get away with this you ask? Simple. Keep the public stupid. Adolf Hitler once said, "How wonderful that the people which the government administers to don't think!" We have become a country of apathetic, condescending, gullible, losers! The bad guys know it and they are taking full advantage of it. For example; Al Gorella and his hot air theory. Even though science has proved over and over again that the Al theory is all wrong people still suck up to it!



Recommended Reading; "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.



How many of these CFR members do you recognize?

Corporate Members ABC News
Alcoa
American Express
AIG
Bank of America
Bloomberg L.P.
Boeing
BP
Chevron
Citigroup
Coca-Cola
De Beers
Deutsche Bank
ExxonMobil
FedEx
Ford Motor
General Electric
GlaxoSmithKline
Google
Goldman Sachs
Halliburton
Heinz
Hess
IBM
JPMorgan Chase
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Lehman Brothers
Lockheed Martin
MasterCard
McGraw-Hill
McKinsey
Merck
Merrill Lynch
Motorola
NASDAQ
News Corp
Nike
PepsiCo
Pfizer
Shell Oil
Sony Corporation of America
Tata Group
Time Warner
Total S.A.
Toyota Motor North America
UBS
United Technologies
United States Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Trust Corporation
Verizon
Visa [31]


[edit] Notable current council members
Angelina Jolie (UN Goodwill Ambassador)[32]
[edit] Notable historical members
Graham Allison
J. Bowyer Bell[33]
Zbigniew Brzezinski
George H. W. Bush
Dick Cheney
William S. Cohen
Warren Christopher
E. Gerald Corrigan
William J. Crowe
C. Douglas Dillon
Tom Foley
Alan Greenspan
W. Averell Harriman
Richard Holbrooke
Bobby Ray Inman
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Henry Kissinger
George J. Mitchell
Bill Moyers
John S. Reed
Brent Scowcroft
George P. Shultz
Theodore Sorensen
George Soros
Cyrus Vance
Paul Volcker
Robert Zoellick
Source: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996:Historical Roster of Directors and Officers [34]
[edit] List of chairmen and chairwomen
Russell Cornell Leffingwell 1946-1953
John J. McCloy 1953-1970
David Rockefeller 1970-1985
Peter George Peterson 1985-2007
Carla A. Hills (co-chairman) 2007-
Robert E. Rubin (co-chairman) 2007-


[edit] List of presidents

John W. Davis 1921-1933
George W. Wickersham 1933-1936
Norman Davis 1936-1944
Russell Cornell Leffingwell 1944-1946
Allen Welsh Dulles 1946-1950
Henry Merritt Wriston 1951-1964
Grayson L. Kirk 1964-1971
Bayless Manning 1971-1977
Winston Lord 1977-1985
John Temple Swing 1985-1986 (Pro tempore)
Peter Tarnoff 1986-1993
Alton Frye 1993
Leslie Gelb 1993-2003
Richard N. Haass 2003-


Source:The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996: Historical Roster of Directors and Officers


Mr. Thomas D. Watts
Ron Paul Advocate
Freedom Fighter
Political Activist
Self Appointed Educator To The Masses
Student of the US Constitution

STOP THE INSANITY !
VOTE RON PAUL !
www.ronpaul2008.com

Visit My ‘Constitution Revival’ Web Site…
http://www.freewebs.com/thomaswatts/

Visit My ‘Constitution Revolution’ Web Site…
http://victomofthepatriotact.blogspot.com

Join My Yahoo Group…
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atimetofight

[SicSemper]

World government would not function as a democracy for the same reason that the federal government does not function as a democracy. Government for the people by the people goes against the natural order of power and thus is the anomaly. Sustaining this anomaly becomes only more difficult when an individual's representative power is minimized by sheer scale.

[acptulsa]

Works for me--provided the one world is not the third major rock from Sol...

[Truth Warrior]

Works for me--provided the one world is not the third major rock from Sol... Let's give them all one way tickets to Venus. :D

[mediahasyou]

One government does not give options. No where to hide...No where to run.

[Pauls' Revere]

First, if this is really necessary, are you in the right place?

The biggest problem with a world government is the same problems with all government. Government=Force. The only thing that makes democratic systems less tyrannical than monarchy or other forms of government is that it requires 51% of the people, or elected representatives, to make law.

Im sorry, but just because 51% of the world says something is right, that does NOT make it so. That leaves room for 49% of the world to be killed for sport, taken to the extreme.

Given this. It is best to keep governments of all kinds weak. The best way to keep them weak, and dependent on public sentiment is to keep them small and local.

You see how monolithic, slow, burdensome and unresponsive our federal government is. How in the hell could you possibly think that letting some jokers run the whole world would be anything but an abysmal failure?

Bravo! (insert applauding happy face)

[jon_perez]

World government would not function as a democracy for the same reason that the federal government does not function as a democracy. Government for the people by the people goes against the natural order of power and thus is the anomaly. Sustaining this anomaly becomes only more difficult when an individual's representative power is minimized by sheer scale.
This is a very important observation to keep in mind. But many might say that the trend towards "scaling up" is inexorable. Human history, after all, progressed from tribes to kingdoms to nations...

The challenge [might be] to preserve so-called individual "dignity" in the face of such "scaling up". I'd say mankind hasn't done too shabby a job of it so far, although certainly there is still a lot of improvement to be made and a LOT of new challenges are now present.

[jon_perez]

One government does not give options. No where to hide...No where to run.The silver lining (hopefully) is that it applies to criminals as well...

[gutteck]

Why am I not surprised that only the members with Masonic pyramids and symbols on their avatars and the Jewish members are all for a one world government.

There will be a one world government and the people will be marked on their right hand or forehead and we won’t be able to buy or sell without the mark. I suppose you my Masonic and Jewish friends don’t see anything wrong with that…..

[Truth Warrior]

So whats wrong with a One World Government?

Government!

[jkm1864]

A one world government under Christ sure I would love it but under man I'd rather grab my rifle.

[Ozwest]

HERE IS YOUR ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!

C.F.R. CONTROVERSY:


The Council has been the subject of many controversies, partly due to the number of high-ranking government officials in its membership, its secrecy clauses, and the large number of aspects of American foreign policy that its members have been involved with, beginning with Wilson's Fourteen Points. The John Birch Society believes that the CFR plans a one-world government. Wilson's Fourteen Points speech was the first in which he suggested a worldwide security organization to prevent future world wars.


"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
- David Rockefeller, "Memoirs" autobiography (2002, Random House publishers), page 405


Historian Carroll Quigley included the CFR in his discussion of the Anglo-American Establishment's efforts to shape international developments during the 20th century. His book "Tragedy and Hope" was cited by conspiracy theorists as showing that the CFR was engaged in a conspiracy against American interests, though Quigley himself denied this.


Assistant Secretary of Commerce David Bohigian says that there is no truth to the rumors.[39] Senator Kit Bond, who is a member of committees that would have to authorize funding for a NAFTA superhighway, has said that there are no plans for a North American Union and the theories are not valid. However, Rep. Ron Paul has said that Congress has provided "small amounts" of money to study the feasibility of such a highway. Paul also suggested that because the funding constituted "just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill... most members of Congress were not aware of it." Rep. Virgil Goode introduced a resolution in September 2006, with 21 co-sponsors, to prohibit the building of a NAFTA superhighway and an eventual North American Union with Canada and Mexico. The resolution remains in committee.


In 2005, CFR task force co-chairman Robert Pastor testified in Congress in front of the Foreign Relations Committee: "The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada, but at the borders of North America as a whole." The CFR task force he headed called for one border around North America, freer travel within it, and cooperation among Canadian, Mexican and American military forces and law enforcement for greater security. It called for full mobility of labor among the three countries within five years, similar to the European Union. He also appeared at a CFR forum called "The Future of North American Integration in the Wake of the Terrorist Attacks" on October 17, 2001, discussing the prospect of North American integration in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Conservative commentator Phyllis Schlafly wrote of the 2005 report, "This CFR document, called 'Building a North American Community,' asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and assigned 'working groups' to fill in the details." The document advocated allowing companies to recruit workers from anywhere within North America and called for large loans and aid to Mexico from the US. It called for a court system for North American dispute resolution and said that illegal aliens should be allowed into the United States Social Security system through the Social Security Totalization Agreement. The report called for a fund to be created by the US to allow 60,000 Mexican students to attend US colleges. The report says the plan can be carried out within five years. Other members of the task force included former Massachusetts governor William Weld and immigration chief for President Clinton, Doris Meissner.


Pastor wrote in Foreign Affairs:
"The U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments remain zealous defenders of an outdated conception of sovereignty even though their citizens are ready for a new approach. Each nation's leadership has stressed differences rather than common interests. North America needs leaders who can articulate and pursue a broader vision... Countries are benefited when they changed these [national sovereignty] policies, and evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete."


Pastor appeared at a CFR-sponsored symposium at Arizona State University on issues that would face the next president.
*******


How can they get away with this you ask? Simple. Keep the public stupid. Adolf Hitler once said, "How wonderful that the people which the government administers to don't think!" We have become a country of apathetic, condescending, gullible, losers! The bad guys know it and they are taking full advantage of it. For example; Al Gorella and his hot air theory. Even though science has proved over and over again that the Al theory is all wrong people still suck up to it!



Recommended Reading; "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.



How many of these CFR members do you recognize?

Corporate Members ABC News
Alcoa
American Express
AIG
Bank of America
Bloomberg L.P.
Boeing
BP
Chevron
Citigroup
Coca-Cola
De Beers
Deutsche Bank
ExxonMobil
FedEx
Ford Motor
General Electric
GlaxoSmithKline
Google
Goldman Sachs
Halliburton
Heinz
Hess
IBM
JPMorgan Chase
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Lehman Brothers
Lockheed Martin
MasterCard
McGraw-Hill
McKinsey
Merck
Merrill Lynch
Motorola
NASDAQ
News Corp
Nike
PepsiCo
Pfizer
Shell Oil
Sony Corporation of America
Tata Group
Time Warner
Total S.A.
Toyota Motor North America
UBS
United Technologies
United States Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Trust Corporation
Verizon
Visa [31]


[edit] Notable current council members
Angelina Jolie (UN Goodwill Ambassador)[32]
[edit] Notable historical members
Graham Allison
J. Bowyer Bell[33]
Zbigniew Brzezinski
George H. W. Bush
Dick Cheney
William S. Cohen
Warren Christopher
E. Gerald Corrigan
William J. Crowe
C. Douglas Dillon
Tom Foley
Alan Greenspan
W. Averell Harriman
Richard Holbrooke
Bobby Ray Inman
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Henry Kissinger
George J. Mitchell
Bill Moyers
John S. Reed
Brent Scowcroft
George P. Shultz
Theodore Sorensen
George Soros
Cyrus Vance
Paul Volcker
Robert Zoellick
Source: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996:Historical Roster of Directors and Officers [34]
[edit] List of chairmen and chairwomen
Russell Cornell Leffingwell 1946-1953
John J. McCloy 1953-1970
David Rockefeller 1970-1985
Peter George Peterson 1985-2007
Carla A. Hills (co-chairman) 2007-
Robert E. Rubin (co-chairman) 2007-


[edit] List of presidents

John W. Davis 1921-1933
George W. Wickersham 1933-1936
Norman Davis 1936-1944
Russell Cornell Leffingwell 1944-1946
Allen Welsh Dulles 1946-1950
Henry Merritt Wriston 1951-1964
Grayson L. Kirk 1964-1971
Bayless Manning 1971-1977
Winston Lord 1977-1985
John Temple Swing 1985-1986 (Pro tempore)
Peter Tarnoff 1986-1993
Alton Frye 1993
Leslie Gelb 1993-2003
Richard N. Haass 2003-


Source:The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996: Historical Roster of Directors and Officers


Mr. Thomas D. Watts
Ron Paul Advocate
Freedom Fighter
Political Activist
Self Appointed Educator To The Masses
Student of the US Constitution

STOP THE INSANITY !
VOTE RON PAUL !
www.ronpaul2008.com (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)

Visit My ‘Constitution Revival’ Web Site…
http://www.freewebs.com/thomaswatts/

Visit My ‘Constitution Revolution’ Web Site…
http://victomofthepatriotact.blogspot.com

Join My Yahoo Group…
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atimetofight


Sweet!

Nice research bro.