One world? Obama's on a different planet

Obama was letting the establishment know that he will be loyal to the New World Order just like Bush, McCain, Clinton and most of congress.

 

The author is one of the most radical of the NeoCons perhaps second only to Paul Wolfowitz. Bush had the gaul to try to appoint him to the U.N. when he had called for the U.N. to be abolished for years. If you support war instead of diplomacy this is your man.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bolton has been a strong critic of the United Nations for much of his career. In a 1994 Global Structures Convocation hosted by the World Federalist Association (now Citizens for Global Solutions), he stated,
“ There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."[44] He also stated that "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."[45] ”

Both Bolton's opponents[46] and his supporters[47] have used the same video of his remarks at the 1994 event in support of their points of view.

When pressed on the statement during the confirmation process, he responded, "There's not a bureaucracy in the world that couldn't be made leaner."[48] In a paper on U.S. participation in the UN, Bolton stated "the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy."[49]

A member of the Project for the New American Century, Bolton was also one of the signers of the January 26, 1998 PNAC letter sent to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power.[50] The letter also stated "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."[51]

The November 15, 2005 Washington Times article "Can the U.S. find a substitute for the U.N.?" noted that Bolton advocates "a revolution of reform" at the UN. Specifically, he called for:

* The five permanent members of the UN Security Council to work more closely to craft powerful resolutions and make sure they are enforced, and to address the underlying causes of conflicts, rather than turning them over to the Secretariat and special envoys;
* A focus on administrative skills in choosing the next secretary-general; and
* A more credible and responsible Human Rights Commission.

Bolton warned that the U.S. had the option of relying on regional or other international organizations to advance its goals if the U.N. proves inadequate.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton

 

John Bolton is a neo-con

I agree he is a Neo-con and did not serve this nation well and alienated allies.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqNWG9sbuE

 

There are other mainstream sources where you can find the same information.

Bolton doesn't like the UN. I'm with him on all that right up to the point where he believes as most neocons seem to that the USA should be top dawg of the planet and rule by military intimidation, pre-emptive warfare and regime change. Which BTW have little to nothing to do with "fighting terrorism".

We should get out the UN it's about the most anti American institution there is just ahead of the American Heritage Institute the Coucil On Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

 

I agree. He blasts the UN, but then supports it's sanctions that starve civilian populations. Seems like a coward's way out. I do try to like the guy, but he is part of this endless war machine.

 

Have you noticed how many of the CFR and State Department docs are now referring to the "International Order"??

IMO, it really doesn't matter who they allow to be elected, they are all puppets.

 

Check out Rudy ghouliones paper "Towards a realistic peace"at the CFR website.
He mentioned an International system 29 times in an 8 page article.

 

Then why use sanctions at all? What purpose do they serve other than to force sovereign nations into compliance with the new international order? By now you'd think all these experts on foreign policy and affairs would have figured out that imposing sanctions may ultimately end up harming those least able to defend themselves. Wouldn't ya?

But if you're a Malthusian elitist 500,000 or so dead children are well worth the price to bring (a new) order to the world.

 

Sanctions that starve the poor civilian population cannot possibly be in the will of God.

 

What's the purpose of a sanction?

 

Thought On Topic

Rev. Mitchell hit this comment "out of the park!" BHO is not of this world, this I know, for the Bible tells me so! IMHO, He may not even be a member of this universe or any other universe:laugh:

Pastor Paul:type:

 

Neither is an unjust war that kills hundreds of thousands of them.

 

I got an idea then! Instead of getting out of the UN and refusing to send our children and treasure over seas to enforce the sanctions imposed by dishonest leaders, why don't we just keep working with the dishonest leaders and sending our children and treasure over seas to enforce sanctions imposed by dishonest leaders?

That sounds like a good plan to me, how bout you Rev?