read more on www.wnd.comLost in all the chaos of the Gulf oil spill is Barack Obama's 52-page manifesto for a New World Order.
I invite you to read for yourself his misnamed "National Security Strategy" – misnamed because it is actually a blueprint for running the whole world like he's been running the United States since January 2009.
Obama is hardly the first president to plead for America to join a New World Order. It started with the first George Bush and has continued unabated through three more administrations. But Obama's so-called "National Security Strategy" has little to do with securing the U.S. from threats and much more to do with turning over the U.S. to the illegitimate authority of global organizations.
It starts early in the table of contents: "Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order."
Woodrow Wilson tried with the League of Nations. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried with the United Nations. I guess we're going to keep trying this path until we get it right.
Nowhere in this document will you see the word "sovereignty" used in regard to the United States – only about Iraq and Russia. (Maybe all of us who want to live in a free and independent nation need to move to one of those locales?)
The last seven pages of the document are about this new "international order" Obama wants to build – a pretty ambitious agenda for a guy who has never run any business or served in any executive capacity before assuming the presidency. But don't worry. His plan is to bring in some people with lots of experience running things – the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to name a few.
read more on www.whitehouse.govInternational Order
"As President of the United States, I will work tirelessly to protect America's security and to advance our interests. But no one nation can meet the challenges of the 21st century on its own, nor dictate its terms to the world. That is why America seeks an international system that lets nations pursue their interests peacefully, especially when those interests diverge; a system where the universal rights of human beings are respected, and violations of those rights are opposed; a system where we hold ourselves to the same standards that we apply to other nations, with clear rights and responsibilities for all."
—President Barack Obama, Moscow, Russia, July 7, 2009
read more on www.whitehouse.govInternational institutions—most prominently NATO and the United Nations—have been at the center of our international order since the mid 20th century. Yet, an international architecture that was largely forged in the wake of World War II is buckling under the weight of new threats, making us less able to seize new opportunities. Even though many defining trends of the 21st century affect all nations and peoples, too often, the mutual interests of nations and peoples are ignored in favor of suspicion and self-defeating competition.
What is needed, therefore, is a realignment of national actions and international institutions with shared interests. And when national interests do collide—or countries prioritize their interests in different ways—those nations that defy international norms or fail to meet their sovereign responsibilities will be denied the incentives that come with greater integration and collaboration with the international community.
No international order can be supported by international institutions alone. Our mutual interests must be underpinned by bilateral, multilateral, and global strategies that address underlying sources of insecurity and build new spheres of cooperation. To that end, strengthening bilateral and multilateral
read more on goodtimepolitics.comBarack Obama can call his new World Order anything he likes; it's still the old Karl Marx manifesto reworked. Their corps principles are the people are dependent on and responsible to the state. The state is the primary decision maker in all cases. The problem with Obama-ism [aka] socialism is it stifles the individual's incentives to perform to think to create. When the first pilgrims came to the new world they had no government, they were the government and as Americans we've struggled for nearly 400 years to keep it where we the people are the government and the bureaucracy is solely responsible to the people. Every so often the politicians must be reminded it's "We [not they] the people" who are in charge. When things go wrong it's the President who gets the blame, a president can't act without the support of congress. In the case of the Obama administration congress has completely acquiesced to their masters demands. In the past 16 months every safeguard the founders put in the constitution to prevent a dictatorial government has been violated by the Obama administration and the 111th congress, this can't be tolerated any further. READ MORE AT SOURCE
read more on www.thelandofthefree.net
Obama-ism Is Nothing But Ground Up Socialism
By: Ken Hughes Barack Obama can call his new World Order anything he likes; it's still the old Karl Marx manifesto reworked. Their corps principles are the people are dependent on and responsible to the state. The state is the primary decision maker in all cases. The problem with Obama-ism [aka] socialism is it stifles the individual's incentives to perform to think to create.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Obama's New World Order manifesto
Image via Wikipedia