1 On Aug 7, 12:18 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

The Constitution states that it … AND any treaties … are the “supreme law of the land”. So our Rights can be treatied away.

A “one world gov’t” doesn’t necessarily mean one governing body ruling a united world. It can also potentially apply to the UN. If we need UN approval for something before we do it, we have lost our ability to act as a sovereign nation. That’s the road we’re currently travelling.

Which is why it’s so important that philosophy and civics be taught to future generations. Because people need to re-discover the centuries of philosophy behind our founding. Among it, that ultimate power rests with The People … and they temporarily gives a limited amount to a local gov’t … and that gov’t temporarily gives a limited amount to a higher gov’t.

3 On Aug 7, 03:01 pm, lee wrote:

If we need UN approval for something before we do it, we have lost our ability to act as a sovereign nation.
————
Bolton is doing elite bidding. Not Kofi Anan. The Un is not perfect but I would like to understand your problems with it. If Arab nations say don’t bomb Iraq, We convince them (with lies) that the motive is destroying WMD. Bush gets to do what the crazy neocons wanted to do. The UN couldn’t stop us.
The UN is supposed to be a humanitarian orgainization but they didn’t do much in the congo or Darfur, but they were probably vetoed by the Genocider Nations.

As far as miliarty goes, NATO, i think , is under the thumb of the big banks and oil and natural resources interests. Nato, Israel and the US are the big guns, so far.

I wish they would come out of the shadows and have a come to Jesus meeting with some of our smarter diplomats. Make things work for countries (humans) as they gobble their caviar and control something that is less harmful to human life or the planet.

Eugenics under the guise of destroying terrorists is so obvious.

I think they’re is a division among these elite about Iran. Bushco has finally gone to far. But they don’t care about us, yet.

5 On Aug 8, 10:21 am, Carrie wrote:

Just as the USA demonstrates that it loosely is the ultimate power with each individual state I believe that a one world government will be the same thing, yet even more loosely governing. Its primary task will be to monitor peace and provide for the easy flow of commerce. Just as today people must be on their toes to see to it that more is not taken by greedy people thirsty for power, tomorrow will be the same. USA is supposed to be doing the same thing nationally, providing for peaceful negotiations between the states and the steady flow of commerce, yet each state still has its own governing body, still has laws and still decides which federal laws are actually over reaching the state constitution and so forth. Atleast now we do see that states do not come to blows with one another so the national governing body is doing one thing correctly. The world government will use the USA as a model and will learn from what has made it prosper as well as what led to its decline.

Yes, study our history. Find out that our constitution is based on the Constitution of the Iroquois Nations, the Great Binding Law, Gayanashagowa and the only parts they got from the romans/greeks were those pertaining to slavery and not allowing women to vote. Yes, study our history well, and learn to pay our teachers well. Allow them to teach students how to think not what to think. Allow teachers to teach according to what a child is ready to learn and not what is dictated according to some agenda that has never been scientifically tested with empirical evidence concerning curriculum forced to be used in the system is working (and with a drop out rate of 22% one would think it wasn’t).

Sorry to hijack the thread.

One world government is a no brainer and no more of a threat to the USA than the USA is to an individual state or than what threat a state is to each individual city. We have are a global community now and there is no turning back.

7 On Aug 8, 06:29 pm, Carrie wrote:

“Yeah. Just disregard all those powers the federal gov’t has stolen from the states. And how much liberty we’ve lost to gov’t. Just disregard how much the federal gov’t is ignoring the Constitution. It isn’t a threat.”

No, in my post I said:

“The world government will use the USA as a model and will learn from what has made it prosper as well as what led to its decline.”

I did not say it is perfect here but surely there are good things that have come from the idea that multiple states could ban together for protection and commerce while enjoying autonomy for self governance? Or, should we throw the baby out with the bath water and go back to the caveman days w/each family looking out for itself?

9 On Aug 11, 06:10 pm, Carrie wrote:

I see your points, Walter.

I don’t think any philosophy, as it is practiced now, is capable of being a world government. Seeing that would cause anyone to have a pretty negative outlook on the possibility of one of them taking over as the dominating power.

I do think, howevever, that a world government is not only a possibility, it is inevitably, in our future. I think that just as many kingdoms and sovereignties first laughed at and then feared(including both the British and the indigenous) the creation of the United States people are doing the same at the thought of a world government. However, I think, in the end, the change will be a very gradual one.

11 On Aug 13, 11:27 am, anon wrote:

May I point out that you have also said “countless times previously” something like this….

Everything would be alright if only we wouldn’t let anyone take our guns away.

“Only when the British threatened to take away the colonists’ means of self-defense against the natives and foreign armies (French, especially) by seizing the armories at Lexington and Concord, were the colonists forced to fight (rather than continuing to use diplomatic channels).”

It’s just never that simple. Nobody took Israeli guns away. In fact not only are they destroying every possible way they can think of in Lebanese infrastructure and population to import weapons for hezbollah, but Israel is “purchasing” billions of dollars of weapons from our PUBLICALLY TRADED weapons manufacturers. Are you in?

13 On Aug 13, 11:50 pm, Carrie wrote:

Well, Walter, the historians you read and the ones I do are obviously different.

A few online sites that can help you research the correlation between the two documents can be found below. As to pirates, you will have to find that correlation for yourself since you are the one looking for it.

If you could provide me with some documentation to support your contention that the founding father’s philosophies were not only widely known but also widely accepted ones I would appreciate it. I had the understanding that most people of the time felt that countries needed to be have a sovereign leader in order for the country to be divinely protected. The idea that individuals could take ownership of the government, that it was of the people, was a concept that many said would not endure because most men were not ready for the responsibilities of such a government. The constitution was hard to pass, it was hard to get people behind the revolution, and many didn’t even fully understand what it was they were fighting about until it was almost over.

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/FF.html
http://photosbyjj.com/gracemillennium/sojourn/winter98/html/iroquois.html
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/
http://www.ipoaa.com/iroquois_constitution_united_states.htm
http://www.constitution.org/cons/iroquois.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=SIBzepBRoXIC&dq=Iroquois+constitution%2Bthomas+jefferson&pg=PA61&ots=NdBSgaP0si&sig=dVpzd7qjShpB4taStCzK52V7wps&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-33,GGLD:en%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd%3D1%26q%3DIroquois%2Bconstitution%252Bthomas%2Bjefferson%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1
http://www.southerntierwest.org/about%20stw/native%20american%20history.htm
Bothwell, Anthony Peirson Xavier, “We Live on Their Land: Implications of Long-ago Takings of Native American Indian Property.” Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law, Golden Gate University School of Law 6(Spring, 2000):175.

15 On Aug 14, 02:11 pm, Carrie wrote:

Walter, how many times have you been out of our country? What other countries have you visited? What other systems of government have you studied?

17 On Aug 15, 11:08 am, Carrie wrote:

What is your suggested solution? Or does nothing work? Just get used to the fact that we will be at one another’s throats forever because that’s the way its supposed to be?

The modern national state came into existence as a unifier of diverse races and peoples. It has been a social truce observed by or enforced upon communities previously separate, independent and hostile. Historically the nation represented a great moral victory, a definite and important stage in human progress. It has raised the condition of the masses of people, substituted constitutional law for the arbitrary authority of the tribe, extended education and knowledge, mitigated the effect of sectarian disputes, and enlarged the social world of the average man. It provided conditions under which natural science could develop, inventions be put into operation, and industrialization give man mastery over nature.

The obligation and right to live in a moral society has become crucial, a test of our will to survive. The modern struggle which employs nations as its instruments is not a war of peoples nor of dynasties: it is a war of values. The dispute about values resolves itself into a struggle between those human beings who would and must unite in a common humanity and a common social body, and those who would and must remain separate, diverse and autonomous. The national state is itself torn and divided in a struggle which involves primarily the conscious attitudes of individual human beings. But to the degree that the national state can act as a united body, it is unable to avoid participation in the decision. No person and no social body is immune from destiny.

The true destiny of the national state is to build the bridge from local autonomy to world unity. It can preserve its moral heritage and function only as it contributes to the establishment of a sovereign world. Both state and people are needed to serve as the strong pillar supporting the new institutions reflecting the full and final expression of human relationships in an ordered society. In delaying to fulfill the historic mandate given the peoples and nations of our age to unite, we give opportunity and encouragement to subversive forces whose weapon is confusion and whose aim is chaos.

The new powers and resources made possible by the nation could not be confined within the national boundary but produced an internationalism of cause and effect in social relationships which no nation could control. The national state has reached the limits of its development as an independent, self-directed social body. A world science, a world economy and a world consciousness, riding the wave of a new and universal movement of spiritual evolution, lay the foundations of world order. Conceived of as an end in itself, the national state has come to be a denial of the oneness of mankind, the source of general disruption opposed to the true interests of its people.

Conceptions of elementary human rights have been adopted in the past by different peoples under varied social conditions: the right to citizenship, when the nation became the people and not the dynasty, the right to a code of law, when written constitutions replaced custom and tradition; the right to security of person and property, when the state could enforce peace upon warring factions; the right to select occupation and residence, when the individual was no longer bound to one landed estate.

But a right is only valid and effective when upheld by an independent sovereignty. Our inherited scheme of rights has become jeopardized through the loss of real sovereignty by the national state. To reevaluate the elementary rights of the past, and establish essential new rights in keeping with our own age, a world sovereignty is required. The whole conception of right has undergone change. A right formerly was a defense against an invasion; a right today is a sharing of social status among mankind. Moral and social law can for the first time in human experience blend and unify when humanity as a whole becomes subject to the same law.

This is what a Baha’i believes. If you want to read the whole of the statement, presented to the United Nations, it can be found at the Baha’i Intentional Community website.

19 On Aug 15, 01:38 pm, Tryan Hartill wrote:

Links

“link tag here”: http/website address here (without the space after the colon)

“Bahai”: http://www.bic-un.bahai.org (without the space)
=
Bahai