Obama’s New World Order Part 2: The War on Terrorism

this is crazy ok so who ever send this two me just don't send this stuff two me nomore ok

I mean what i say about this world is crazy

in pace, ut sapiens, aptarit idonea bello

Pareo Nullus

I just call it as I see it. I guess what I see on CNN about Obama continuing the war in Afghanistan and trying to pledging to "capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and Time Magazine writing about Obama's New World Order doesn't really exist. Ok.

Maasanova, where have you been for the past 7 years? This isn't Obama's War on Terror, its the United States! Obama is a political figure who is heading our government as of January 20th, 2009. This CNN report is essentially meaningless, they are suggesting that he begin making decisions before he is even appointed President. Its not meaningless, but it is nonsense. This is a 24-hour news outlet that needs to keep stories going and going and going and going.

Its about time we take a month off of Obama speculations. We have the next four years to be riding his ass on every word he says. I'm not interested in perpetuating this conversation any more this year at least! You have you're opinions, and I have mine.

But remember, this CNN clip is citing examples of his potential actions from CAMPAIGN PROMISES. We all know too well what campaign promises usually end up being.

Isn't NWO that old professional wrestling "crew"??? I didn't know Obama wrestled too!!!

Coming soon to Pay-Per-View...New World Order Part Two: The War on Terrorism featuring the return of NWO vs. WCW

the world's gone mad

You are an idiot. Bush is the one who declared the War on Terror, not Obama. The climate crisis is real, and the financial collapse is the natural outcome of our way of life. Obama didn't create any of these problems, but he has stepped up to help solve them, which is more than Bush ever did. Get a clue, there is no "New World Order." There is only a world in a lot of trouble.

I have no clue what you're talking about, buddy. What's your point? All that I saw in your piece were vagaries and lame duck speculation. Rabble-rousing, really.

Ricky84 thanks for the response. I to hate the term New World Order and I swore I would never use the term in public and on the internets, until I came across Time Magazine's "Obama's New World Order" article.

So I read the article, and of course it's got nothing to due with any conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word.

So I go to Wikipedia and there are two definitions of New World Order so I read both and decided to write three articles from the definition of New World Order from the historical context as opposed to conspiritorial context.

The first article I wrote was the Financial World Order. In that article I sort of break down what the New World Order means from a historical perspective.

If you read that first this write up might make a lot more sense.

I don’t really like the term “new world order” for two reasons. One there is not a universally accepted definition of the term and two; it conveys the image of a conspiracy theory.

That being said the idea that Barak Obama is a president opposed to the “new world order” ideology is definitely false. At best Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq but as the article reveals he still voted to fund it, which as a constitutional lawyer he should be smart enough to know in court such a vote can be construed as a vote in favor of war. Indeed, this argument was used to dismiss Doe v Bush.

You can find the full text of the courts decision here
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf

Here is an excerpt from the ruling.

“The court found that other actions by
Congress, such as continued appropriations to fund the war over the
course of six years, id. at 34, provided enough indication of
congressional approval to put the question beyond the reach of
judicial review:

The war in Vietnam is a product of the jointly supportive
actions of the two branches to whom the congeries of the
war powers have been committed. Because the branches are
not in opposition, there is no necessity of determining
boundaries. Should either branch be opposed to the
continuance of hostilities, however, and present the
issue in clear terms, a court might well take a different
view. This question we do not face.”

Now we know Obama is not a dumb man, but he is a politician. The way I look at it he decided to help fund the war not because he wanted to “help the troops,” (even though stopping the war would of done a lot more than just buying flak jackets) as he said but because he wanted to score political points by not appearing to be soft on the enemy.

There are plenty of other examples but I’m not going to go down that road at the moment. What I will say is that Obama will not change the most destructive element of US foreign policy. Under his administration we will continue to maintain a bloated, overstretched military. We will continue to stick our nose in the affairs of others, and the federal government will continue to spend tax payer money on the world. Then again this is just business as usual.

What really scares me is that Obama has little if any plans to restore the civil liberties lost to the American people. By that measure he does not deserve any support. I could honestly care less about all the nice things Obama plans on doing; if I don’t have rights then I might as well move to Cuba where they already have universal healthcare.

When the great upheaval comes, it will not be due to runaway terrorism. There will be many who will lose it and and go running into the streets convinced that the world is coming to an end, but many among us will merely keep our heads about us... that and a steady well organized government is what will bring the balance of the control of the masses back into equilibrium...

Change will come more naturally than one may imagine. It will be based, though, not on a forced policy, but on one that reflects the needs of the people...not the desires of the wealthy elite...

Then, the meek WILL inherit the earth...

New World Order or not, I think the world needs one government to address the problems humanity is currently facing or will face.

The debate on multiculturalism will still wage on, but with the current wave of self-righteous bigotry prevalent amongst the peoples of the world, the clash of civilizations seems to be very imminent and likely inescapable.

For instance, Islam explicitly prohibits loaning with interests, which is an antithesis to the west's banking ideology. As in the past, a war for control will have to be fought before ideas are forced to be junked by either sides.

now all these americans that voted for OBAMA are gonna feel stupid...We need a revolution...Obama cant change the world America, wake up, unite, and take it to the streets, the banks, the mortgage companies, and all the greedy politicains...We need get organized like the people n Greece and Europe...

Sheesh, the world IS crazy!

this is crazy ok so who ever send this two me just don't send this stuff two me nomore ok