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.