Biden Rigs The Game

[Flanders]

So far, Judi McLeod over at Canada Free Press is the only one I’ve come across who appears interested in exposing the Administration’s fawning admiration for a Communist regime. A regime that is building an impressive military machine, not to mention being North Korea’s puppet master:

In typical Obama Artful Dodger fashion, it was vice president Joe Biden and not he who laid bare the plans for the coming One World Government that will steal America’s 237-year-old sovereignty.

With Obama nowhere in sight, until his next day golf rounds, Biden called for the creation of a “New World Order” with new financial institutions, updated global rules, a redistribution of free market strategies to bring in other countries and a prosperous China rather than a prosperous USA.

The scary part

Logically, any country with a military the size of China’s will expand its military’s function and purpose. In order to achieve a dominant global economy communism dictates oppression Soviet Union style. Bottom line: If Biden & Hussein have their way America’s military bases around the globe will be replaced by China’s military.

Also, disarmament treaties, and neutering America’s military capabilities, insures a “peaceful” transition to worldwide communism administered by China and the United Nations. Left to Hussein & Company, the day will come when the remnants of America’s military will be placed under the UN’s command. Before anyone calls my prediction a conspiracy theory look back at our own federal government’s long history of trying to make America’s military a universal police force —— administering a meals on wheels program in their spare time.

The way China is going is another example of Peking not making the same mistakes made by Moscow during the Cold War although the goal is the same: Communist expansion. In China’s case the game is rigged. Hussein & Company are giving the ChiComs the economic help that was denied to Soviet Communists.

One final observation. It should be called a ONE GOVERNMENT WORLD not a One World Government. There is a subtle and important distinction in the terminology.

We now know that the Fundamental Transformation America is just another name for One World Government.

XXXXX​

At 12:45 p.m. Biden calls for One World Government in remarks delivered at the 2013 Annual Conference of the Export-Import Bank at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.

Obama’s ‘Fundamental Transformation of America’ just another name for One World Gov’t
Judi McLeod Sunday, April 7, 2013

Obama?s ?Fundamental Transformation of America?* just another name for One World Gov?t

 

[Mad Scientist]

Biden calls for a "New World Order". Good thing it's just a Conspiracy Theory.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3g3KuEN7BQ]Repost: BREAKING Joe Biden calls to 'create a New World Order' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RoccoR]

Flanders, American Communist, et al,

I hear him say, "the Global Order is changing,"and America must lead. I don't hear him say anything about establishing a single world government, establishing a social organization based on the holding of all property in common, furthering actual ownership being ascribed to the community, or creating a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured. On the contrary, I hear him say prosperity (not just for America but for all nations), leveling the playing field economically so that America can better compete. He is talking about strengthening the Post-WWII (when we were at our height of power) advantages to America. He is saying we cannot be stagnate,and must adapt to the changing global economic and industrial condition that are evolving.

No where did he talk about a one world government.

There was nothing mentioned about the US military or placing it under foreign command (UN or otherwise).

Yes, he used an out of date phrase: "New World Order." So what! It is a fact that the world is changing. We can either be a part of the change and help lead it; or, we can be left behind.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Oldguy]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g]George Bush New World Order - YouTube[/ame]


I guess Obama is an ally of the Bushes?

 

[Flanders]

Flanders, American Communist, et al,

I hear him say, "the Global Order is changing,"and America must lead. I don't hear him say anything about establishing a single world government, establishing a social organization based on the holding of all property in common, furthering actual ownership being ascribed to the community, or creating a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured. On the contrary, I hear him say prosperity (not just for America but for all nations), leveling the playing field economically so that America can better compete. He is talking about strengthening the Post-WWII (when we were at our height of power) advantages to America. He is saying we cannot be stagnate,and must adapt to the changing global economic and industrial condition that are evolving.

No where did he talk about a one world government.

There was nothing mentioned about the US military or placing it under foreign command (UN or otherwise).

Yes, he used an out of date phrase: "New World Order." So what! It is a fact that the world is changing. We can either be a part of the change and help lead it; or, we can be left behind.

Most Respectfully,
R

To RoccoR: Do you honestly believe Biden will say what he is really after! Of course, he dresses up his true objectives with words the public will buy. Aside from the fact that he is an admitted liar, he never said a straight sentence about any of the dirty things he was doing to this country in all of the years he was in the Senate and vice president.

I no longer have the patience to repeat common knowledge about the people who are driving this country towards a one government world, except to say you must have missed this in the OP:

At 12:45 p.m. Biden calls for One World Government in remarks delivered at the 2013 Annual Conference of the Export-Import Bank at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.

If you want specifics about things you did not hear Biden say you’ll have to research my messages. I’ve covered them many times.

George Bush New World Order - YouTube


I guess Obama is an ally of the Bushes?

To Oldguy: What’s your point? I’ve often criticized Bush the Elder for being a global government advocate. Abandoning America’s independence is what he shares with Hussein —— each for their own reasons. The United Nations is the common denominator.

 

[Oldguy]

To Oldguy: What’s your point? I’ve often criticized Bush the Elder for being a global government advocate. Abandoning America’s independence is what he shares with Hussein —— each for their own reasons. The United Nations is the common denominator.

No, the UN isn't the common denominator. There are two competing visions of the coming world government (Yes, one is coming. The Bible says so).

There is the one which is basically supported by most governments around the world since at least WWI. It's a vision in which individual nation states retain their sovereignty, but cede a portion of that sovereignty to an extraterritorial entity like the UN, or it's forerunner, the League of Nations, for the common good. That ceded portion might include mutual defense, world peace, the environment, unified health care or whatever else they might deem appropriate through the jointly operated mechanisms of that larger organization. The impetus behind it all was two devastating world wars within a generation which brought untold misery to millions.

It is presumed by its adherents to better the living conditions of all mankind through joint, co-operative actions.

For the sake of simplicity, let's call that the Kennedy/Obama vision for America's future.

The competing plan would retain national boundaries and local elections, but the real decision making on important issues would be done behind the scenes by appointed government bureaucrats and corporate functionaries. It envisions a shadow government in alliance with a global economy and both parts would be run by the same people. The motivation for it is the same thing: two world wars within a generation, but the idea isn't necessarily to alleviate suffering, but to prevent disruption of business profitability. It's commonly thought that war is good for business, but it's not for most businesses. It's devastating. This idea for a world government we can easily call Corporatism and it's hallmarks are the end of worker unions, free trade agreements and a world economy and currency manipulated by corporations for their benefit.

It is presumed by its adherents to better the living conditions of all mankind through the process of "trickle down" economics: What's good for corporations is ultimately good for everybody.

For the sake of simplicity, let's call that the Bush/Clinton vision for America's future.

So...you have cause to be concerned if you don't want a world government, but you've got to learn to identify who is doing what and why. It's important to understand that not everybody who favors a world government wants the same thing.

 

[Flanders]

No, the UN isn't the common denominator. There are two competing visions of the coming world government (Yes, one is coming. The Bible says so).

There is the one which is basically supported by most governments around the world since at least WWI. It's a vision in which individual nation states retain their sovereignty, but cede a portion of that sovereignty to an extraterritorial entity like the UN, or it's forerunner, the League of Nations, for the common good. That ceded portion might include mutual defense, world peace, the environment, unified health care or whatever else they might deem appropriate through the jointly operated mechanisms of that larger organization. The impetus behind it all was two devastating world wars within a generation which brought untold misery to millions.

It is presumed by its adherents to better the living conditions of all mankind through joint, co-operative actions.

For the sake of simplicity, let's call that the Kennedy/Obama vision for America's future.

The competing plan would retain national boundaries and local elections, but the real decision making on important issues would be done behind the scenes by appointed government bureaucrats and corporate functionaries. It envisions a shadow government in alliance with a global economy and both parts would be run by the same people. The motivation for it is the same thing: two world wars within a generation, but the idea isn't necessarily to alleviate suffering, but to prevent disruption of business profitability. It's commonly thought that war is good for business, but it's not for most businesses. It's devastating. This idea for a world government we can easily call Corporatism and it's hallmarks are the end of worker unions, free trade agreements and a world economy and currency manipulated by corporations for their benefit.

It is presumed by its adherents to better the living conditions of all mankind through the process of "trickle down" economics: What's good for corporations is ultimately good for everybody.

For the sake of simplicity, let's call that the Bush/Clinton vision for America's future.

So...you have cause to be concerned if you don't want a world government, but you've got to learn to identify who is doing what and why. It's important to understand that not everybody who favors a world government wants the same thing.

To Oldguy: Your comments rehash all of the touchy-feely, quasi-religious, discredited moral crapola that began with Woodrow Wilson. Trying to legislate love did not work with a nation, nor will it work with a global government.

Every country that surrenders any part of its sovereignty to the UN surrenders it all. No nation can be partially independent just as no woman can be partially pregnant; either she is or she isn’t. Look at our states and the federal government if you want to see what will happen to nations after they hand their sovereignty to a one government world. How much independence do the states have even with a Constitution that enumerates the federal government’s authority. Answer: NONE.

 

[Oldguy]

No, the UN isn't the common denominator. There are two competing visions of the coming world government (Yes, one is coming. The Bible says so).

There is the one which is basically supported by most governments around the world since at least WWI. It's a vision in which individual nation states retain their sovereignty, but cede a portion of that sovereignty to an extraterritorial entity like the UN, or it's forerunner, the League of Nations, for the common good. That ceded portion might include mutual defense, world peace, the environment, unified health care or whatever else they might deem appropriate through the jointly operated mechanisms of that larger organization. The impetus behind it all was two devastating world wars within a generation which brought untold misery to millions.

It is presumed by its adherents to better the living conditions of all mankind through joint, co-operative actions.

For the sake of simplicity, let's call that the Kennedy/Obama vision for America's future.

The competing plan would retain national boundaries and local elections, but the real decision making on important issues would be done behind the scenes by appointed government bureaucrats and corporate functionaries. It envisions a shadow government in alliance with a global economy and both parts would be run by the same people. The motivation for it is the same thing: two world wars within a generation, but the idea isn't necessarily to alleviate suffering, but to prevent disruption of business profitability. It's commonly thought that war is good for business, but it's not for most businesses. It's devastating. This idea for a world government we can easily call Corporatism and it's hallmarks are the end of worker unions, free trade agreements and a world economy and currency manipulated by corporations for their benefit.

It is presumed by its adherents to better the living conditions of all mankind through the process of "trickle down" economics: What's good for corporations is ultimately good for everybody.

For the sake of simplicity, let's call that the Bush/Clinton vision for America's future.

So...you have cause to be concerned if you don't want a world government, but you've got to learn to identify who is doing what and why. It's important to understand that not everybody who favors a world government wants the same thing.

To Oldguy: Your comments rehash all of the touchy-feely, quasi-religious, discredited moral crapola that began with Woodrow Wilson. Trying to legislate love did not work with a nation, nor will it work with a global government.

Every country that surrenders any part of its sovereignty to the UN surrenders it all. No nation can be partially independent just as no woman can be partially pregnant; either she is or she isn’t. Look at our states and the federal government if you want to see what will happen to nations after they hand their sovereignty to a one government world. How much independence do the states have even with a Constitution that enumerates the federal government’s authority. Answer: NONE.

I was just trying to inform. I'm sorry that you don't like the answer.

In any case, if you believe in Bible prophesy, you're just pissing against the wind when you oppose a world government because you're not going to stop it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

There was nothing mentioned about the US military or placing it under foreign command (UN or otherwise).
Most Respectfully,
R

Maybe because the Military is ALREADY under UN Control?
Obama to Boehner on Libya : The U.N. gave us the ok - Washington Times

 

[Mad Scientist]

I guess Obama is an ally of the Bushes?

Obama is RELATED to the Bushes.

Interesting take on World Government OldMan. But you're wrong thinking Govt's will surrender just a little sovereignty, they're gonna' surrender ALL OF IT! Why do you think the US is in such a hurry to erase the Southern Border?

Can't have World Government with Individual Rights, The US Constitution, Borders and Sovereignty.

Funny that you think there is a "Democrat" and "Republican" version, because the only one I see is a Banker version.

 

[RoccoR]

Flanders, American Communist, et al,

To RoccoR: Do you honestly believe Biden will say what he is really after! Of course, he dresses up his true objectives with words the public will buy. Aside from the fact that he is an admitted liar, he never said a straight sentence about any of the dirty things he was doing to this country in all of the years he was in the Senate and vice president.

I no longer have the patience to repeat common knowledge about the people who are driving this country towards a one government world, except to say you must have missed this in the OP:

(COMMENT)

VP Joseph Biden is one of those people that sees a future that is almost Hollywood SYFI like into the future. The are any number of concepts out there that see a consolidation of political power and influence on a global scale. If it ever happens, it will be several hundred years into the future, (again if at all). But the idea is sound in that it fosters the idea that humanity and all its cultures will, someday, advance and develop to the point that we are all working towards a common interest; for the benefit of all. The VP is just a little ahead of himself.

There was nothing mentioned about the US military or placing it under foreign command (UN or otherwise).

Maybe because the Military is ALREADY under UN Control?

(COMMENT)

There are many people that believe the US is such a powerful and righteous force in the world (a political-military hegemony), that it can operate independently as a "World Police and World Court." The SECDEF (Panetta) in this case, was attempting to express a concern for UN Consensus, as opposed to US unilateralism. The Congress (Senator Sessions) on the other hand, believes the US is one nation that does not need to operate under UN Consensus; that it can (with the approval of Congress) go where it wants and do what it wants. That the US Executive does not need to seek UN Consensus and Support when contemplating military action, such as the involvement in Libya. This was grandstanding by Senator Sessions.

US Foreign Policy has not been kind to the US and its people either economically, militarily, or culturally since the end of Vietnam. One look at the state of the economy, the growth of industry, the disrepair of the national infrastructure, and employment and underemployment of its middle class, and the skyrocketing cost of education, lack of scientific and technical research, and rising cost of health care, it becomes obvious --- even to the most optimistic of us. The US is losing ground on all these fronts, not to mention that its reputation has been tarnished politically and militarily. Senator Sessions, it a 20th Century thinker; not a 21st Century thinker. While he and his kind, separated from the middle class by light years, see the world and America one way, the fact of the matter is, that none of his generation as aspired to improve the wealth, health and prosperity of the average American in over four decades. America deserves better.

The US needs to quit thinking of itself as a political-military Hegemony, which it can no longer afford to be, and rise above other nations as an economic and industrial hegemony, that is more prosperous, healthier, the best educated, and having the highest standard of living in the world. In this way, we become the envy of the world with the power and influence to attain our objective, not through military might --- but because we do it right.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Flanders]

(COMMENT)

But the idea is sound in that it fosters the idea that humanity and all its cultures will, someday, advance and develop to the point that we are all working towards a common interest; for the benefit of all. The VP is just a little ahead of himself.

Most Respectfully,
R

To RoccoR: The idea is unsound because it presupposes a monumental change in human nature.

Biden is not ahead of himself. He is a filthy lying sneak who says the things he says to impose his political beliefs on everybody else.

 

[RoccoR]

Flanders, et al,

Well, it might be a bit forward thinking, but not unsound (not based on reliable facts). Based on human cultural development to date, it is not unreasonable to assume that humanity and all its cultures will, someday, advance and develop to the point that we are all working towards a common interest; for the benefit of all. The probability it will happen in our lifetime, is not too good.

(COMMENT)

But the idea is sound in that it fosters the idea that humanity and all its cultures will, someday, advance and develop to the point that we are all working towards a common interest; for the benefit of all. The VP is just a little ahead of himself.

Most Respectfully,
R

To RoccoR: The idea is unsound because it presupposes a monumental change in human nature.

Biden is not ahead of himself. He is a filthy lying sneak who says the things he says to impose his political beliefs on everybody else.

(COMMENT)

It is change, that is for sure; but not monumental (gradual) over hundreds of years. It was only a century ago that the last of the remaining empires fell; four fell after WWI.

The Vice President is a politician.

"Jeffrey Pelt, National Security Advisor: Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open."

All politicians come with an agenda. There is no such thing as a politician that works for the benefit of the constituents; only their agenda. It may be the case that re-election is the agenda, and therefore mimic the constituent concern. But that is only temporary. The politician would never, say ..... introduce legislation that would base their compensation on productivity. They don't live and operate under the same criteria as the middle class. Thus you cannot use middle class criteria to judge them.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Flanders]

It is change, that is for sure; but not monumental (gradual) over hundreds of years. It was only a century ago that the last of the remaining empires fell; four fell after WWI.

Most Respectfully,
R

To RoccoR: Empires, nations, cultures, have been falling for thousands of year while human nature remained the same. The one is not related to the other.

By the way, an individual may change behavior, while any change in human nature must be universal.

human nature (noun)

The sum of qualities and traits shared by all human beings.