cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

straight up sounds like alien intelligence...7-eyed pigeon toed female martian.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Globalism in the sense I refer to it is the idea that the nation-state is obsolete, that wars over territory, resources and religious exclusivity can be eliminated by a one-world government. The process began in America with Wilson, with the backing of Moneyed Interests from the Gilded Age and continues to this day. Globalism has multiple personalities. Some refer to it as Fabian Socialism or Progressivism. Some refer to it as the Establishment. Globalism is a deliberate effort to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a political and economic elite. Bolshevism without the violent o*******w of governments. The trick is to convince free people to surrender their personal and national sovereignty...especially prosperous people like Americans

It is accomplished incrementally. First by joining economies and then by joining governments. First came the Common Market. Then came the EU. Now Germany is talking about a European Superstate with it's own army. We have the UN. World Court. World Bank. IMF. UNESCO etc...all geared to spread the prosperity of wealthy nations to the not so wealthy ones.

It would be a wonderful idea if it weren't for one thing...human nature. The "elite" will use global governance to their advantage and viciously quell opposition once they're in a position to do so. History proves it.

The Bible says there will be a world government, of sorts, and that it will not be a good thing. Given current events, I can see how that might come about. The hag is a g*******t. Bill is a g*******t. Bush I and II are g*******ts. We bombed Milosevic in the name of globalism. Bill won the Charlemagne Prize and a million bucks for that one. We destabilized the Mideast for globalism. Tens of millions of people are fleeing there for globalism. Stevens was sodomized and k**led for globalism. Every time we try to nationbuild anywhere it's for globalism. Ten or so various combatants have converged in the Euphrates River Valley for globalism. Obama refuses to enforce our present i*********n l*ws for globalism...just like Bush before him.

Here's a few quotes from just ONE pusher of globalism. Don't even get me started on the Pope(s), Bush, Clinton, Talbot, Warburg ad nauseum. The most rich, the most powerful want this badly. We can't let them have it.






"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) 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, page 405

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

---David Rockefeller, at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting

"We are on the verge of a global t***sformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." (g****l w*****g has become the pet crisis)

---David Rockefeller

"But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence."

---David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994

"Wh**ever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

---David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973

As far as what the UN might do...aside from pretending that c*****e c****e is not natural and we're all in terrible danger from it and that somehow they can fix it if we surrender enough personal and national sovereignty plus LOTS of dough...

Start a war with Israel that will go nuclear by demanding Jerusalem be divided...

Declare religious belief unacceptable in public discourse...

Declare our 2nd incompatible with global interests...

Regulate our trade in way that are unfavorable to us...

Those are just examples off the top of my head, there's no shortage of idiocy unelected bureaucrats can push on everyone else if they're given the power. It's the nature of the Beast.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Problem with globalism is it will be much easier to lower our standard of living to the rest of the world than raise theirs to ours.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

That's the PLAN in a nutshell.

straightUp Loc: California

Reagan did build a strong military but he did NOT build a robust economy, what he did was build a f**e economy on borrowed money. He was hoping that trickle-down policy would boost government revenue by creating more jobs and that increase in revenue could eventually pay off the debt, but that never happened.


That's one of those things people say that doesn't actually mean anything. We had the same allies when he left office as we did when he entered office and whether or not the ties were any stronger is a subjective matter of perspective.


The Soviet Union was trying to match it. This is the point people like you never get. You think everyone in the world in playing our stupid game. They had their own objectives and our over-inflated economy had nothing to do with it.


That's a very simplistic and stupid perspective. The rules change depending on what kind of country you are talking about. For third world countries it is often said that things don't happen in a vacuum because the countries are in fact owned by first world countries. But for the first world countries, especially countries as powerful as the Soviet Union, things do indeed happen in a vacuum. In fact most of the powerful nations in history collapsed under their own weight... in a vacuum.


That's a gross misunderstanding of reality.


OK... you're an i***t.

Mr Bombastic

I'll address your first point, since it's the only valid one you made, based on your limited understanding. Reagan did have a robust economy. This is a fact. Just look at the labor participation rate, and the GDP growth. We had plenty of manufacturing jobs. If I have this correct, we've lost over 70,000 manufacturing jobs under Obama, and the world is more dangerous. He is the sorriest excuse for a President in American history. That's a fact.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

I don't understand what is gained by.pointing the finger into the.past. Every.president we've had can be faulted one way or another. This accusatory mentality gets us no where. Instead of looking for solutions, too much time is wasted back tracking to find fault.

Hillary says we need to fix things. Until now, liberals have been telling us what a great job Obama is doing. Now Hillary says no. In 2008 Obama said Hillary says wh**ever she thinks will bring v**es. He said at that time that she wasn't fit to be POTUS. Now he says she is more qualified than anyone in history.

If.they can't stick to their stories, why should anyone pay attention?

straightUp Loc: California

OK... I see what you're talking about. I don't know exactly what to call it... it has so many faces and in my opinion they are not all connected the way some people think. But there is a general paranoia arising out of prophecy about a one-world government and all these things you've mentioned get rolled into this paranoia.

First, let me say that even though I am calling it a paranoia, I am not saying that it's without some merit.

Secondly, let me say that although a one-world government is obviously global in scale, it doesn't mean it's the same thing as globalism. The world-wide-web that you are currently plugged into is also global in scale and the fact that we are both using it to converse with each other makes us both fixtures of globalism.

That being said... Let's talk about this paranoia, or maybe you would feel better if I called it a concern. A concern about this one-world government. One thing I've noticed about this concern is how new it is for so many people. It's like the e******n of our first black president was somehow this Epinephrine injection that opened up the eyes of millions of Americans that were previously oblivious. I've been following this concern for the last 30 years.

So my perspective may seem a little jaded to you. But trust me, I was flapping my arms around during the Bush administration just like I see you folks doing now. Probably the biggest difference between my perspective on this and what I see expressed by many people here is that I don't see the one world government (or the New World Order, wh**ever we decide to call it) as an unfulfilled prophecy. I think it has already come to pass.

I like that you are able to see it's been a long time coming... You noted that it started in America with Wilson. I would say that it goes back at leasyt as far as the Roman Empire that for all practical purposes did rule the entire world and that power did indeed transcended the sovereign state in the form of the Holy Roman Church, which held sway over most of Europe long after the fall of Rome itself. There is much said about the Holy Roman Empire being the prophecy described in scripture.

I've often mentioned the significance of the Renaissance when the Church was fragmented and Holy Rome gradually lost it's control over money as banks drove the Age of Discovery and commanded ever increasing shares of imperialism, the bosom from which the United States was born. What the Roman church was to Europe in previous centuries is what the banks are to the United States now. They transcend the authority of our republic, not through the use of force but through the force of tradition and faith. Indeed, faithful Americans can be seen as those loyal to capitalism and believers can always compensate for the apparent t***sgressions of their masters by understanding that any alternative can only be worse.

So what I am saying here is that the New World Order is a historical constant and that God has been replaced by Mammon as the overlord of earthly nations and it's been this way for a while.

With this context in mind, you might understand how my perspective on the more contemporary issues might seem a little different. Is Obama a g*******t? Of course he is. He would have to be living in cave not to be. In a sense, it's a requirement for any POTUS to be a g*******t because every global aspect of the federal government, such as the State Department and the Armed Forces are under the command of the president. But is Obama an agent of World Order? I would say that he is only by virtue of the office which is why neither Hillary nor Trump would be any different if they occupied the office.

Where you might think the POTUS drives the Oval Office, I contend that the president is more a passenger offering suggestions and that ultimately it's not the personalities in the limelight that control us, but the faceless stakeholders in the shadows for which the White House is but one of their many puppets.

As a democratic republic, we need a president who can balance the interests of the one-world government with the interests of the people. Because a president that decides to side against the one-world government will fail if the people aren't ready to join the fight and considering so few Americans even know there *is* a one-world government it's safe to say that isn't an option yet. I see in Hillary a person who is capable of that balance. I don't see that in Trump.

straightUp Loc: California

You were already engaged in the back tracking... I was only saying that Nickolai was right. Also, bear in mind that one who never learns from the past will never find solutions for the future.


That really isn't changing. Liberals still think he's doing a great job and many of us wish we could v**e for him again.


She may be pointing out some mistakes... Like you just said -every president we've had can be faulted one way or another. But over all, she seems very positive on what Obama has done.


Eight years can make a difference. Are you suggesting that people can never improve their credentials?


Stick to their stories..? It sounds like you're judging candidates by how well they can lie.

straightUp Loc: California

Apparently, you didn't understand what I said about a f**e economy based on borrowed money. Your chart doesn't even mention the massive debt incurred by Reagan's economic policy. You also seem to subscribe to the i***tic notion that the economy changes with each president like the White House tableware does with each First Lady. Reagan initiated such a drastic decline in manufacturing that it continued long after his presidency. So naturally, there were more manufacturing jobs when Reagan was around because his bad decisions haven't had it's full effect yet. Likewise, global threats don't change with every president either and out of all the presidents since Reagan, it's abundantly clear that Bush caused most of the increase in global threats. Obama inherited a lot of crap from previous presidents and things like national debt and global threats are self-perpetuating, which means they often grow bigger on their own.

Finally, just to point out how much of an i***t you are... Take good look at that chart you posted and notice where the GDP is at the start of each presidency and where it is at the end of each presidency. It's actually showing you that under Obama the GDP went up and under Reagan it went down. Ironic considering it was Reagan that made the point to ask Americans if they thought they were better off. Maybe he was just testing to see how stupid we are.

Mr Bombastic

And yet Obamas highest gdp is worse than Reagans lowest gdp. How do you explain that?

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

anyone who questions the 80's economy is just blowing smoke. help wanted ads in all newspapers around an inch thick.

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

Sounds good on Mars, what about this planet? You are professional armchair asshole

Mr Bombastic

That would mean there were plenty of jobs available, wouldn't it?

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

That was because of small government large private business