|
 |
The Gauntlet: Barry's Dangerous Truths |
 |
Considering Barack Obama's "Citizen of the World" Speech, examining the idea of GLOBALISM
|
|
 |
|
Although Barack Obama did not at any point officially title his speech in Berlin, the “Citizen of the World” speech, I fear that there may be a day when our global governance, unelected and potentially very wicked without the checks-and-balances our Founders intended, may teach us in school how instrumental this speech was in finally breaking down the sovereignty of the United States of America, and helping usher in our acceptance of a more global government. Regionalized Unions, united into one global standard, represented by a European one, African one, Asian one, North American one, South American one, all under one rule, elected not by the people, but by the bureaucrats selected by international banking and corporate interest. As it stands, the one last thing blocking this is the remaining thread of sovereignty and nationalism in the United States.
Destroying this sovereignty through the logic less, anti-intellectual, emotional pleas(guilt trips) about invisible injustices the world over has been the plot for nearly a century, and it is finally beginning to take real root in America. It’s avatar is Barack Obama.
In this speech, Obama, a self-described “citizen of the world”, addresses a crowd of German citizens, for an unknown, bizarre reason, in what is essentially a campaign stump stop to run for President of a nation literally half-way across the world. Any U.S. Nationalist would be quite fearful that any Presidential contender who concerned himself so much with the interests of other nations so well above his own, that he would seek their support, despite an inability to vote for him for President, may have treasonous intent. With all that common logic aside, let’s dig further into some of the things he said.
First off, the tone of the speech. He addresses “People of the World” multiple times, which, if you don’t understand the Globalist intentions of Obama and his handlers, you might feel the Hubris of this, a freshman Senator and Presidential Candidate, as being well outside the boundaries of an authority invested in him by any citizen of the world. Where does he gain the respect and support of all the citizens in the world. Who died and made him King? After commanding them to view Berlin as a model for how you should learn to respect and trust America after being at war with us, he then digs into some more frightening language. The next American wars are hinted to, with a new face and new promotional image. “Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?” Here he outlines the next interventionist, police-action wars, that U.N. “Peacekeeping” troops, armed not with flowers and backscratchers, but guns, bombs, and troops from nations who torture, will step in to “referee”. He then carries on to wave the Bush Big Stick on Middle East foreign policy. “This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions.” Coming from a man who would not rule out a nuclear first-strike on Iran, this is truly frightening language. Where does he expect to come up with the money to fund another war? Why do we need to bomb a nation without a nuclear program, and no history of aggressive foreign policy? One who has westernized, and privatized all of its industries and seeks to sell them to the European Bankers?
“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.” Here is a call for globalism, and global socialism. He is claiming that traditional national borders, which now exist as one of the last checks-and-balances against a total global tyrant, cannot stand any longer. That we must force the entire world to get over any differences they have ever had, whether they be cultural, political, or emotional, and submit to some new sovereignty. That this is the plan. While some well-meaning liberal thinkers might feel that a global unity would make for a perfect world, this would no-doubt have to be a global unity built IN a perfect world, not in a real one. Obviously reducing national sovereignty, increases global sovereignty. This passes the governing from local, to state, to national, to international. The theory here being that global bureaucrats, fed by corporate interest, would be better at telling you how to live, than your neighbors, friends, family, and community. Americans have already felt their plan in action, feeling that China would make a better labor market than the U.S.; that our factories and jobs are more productive if they are placed there than here, where we can work in them for sustenance.
Do we feel that a Global Court in Europe can best decide what a Muslim in Iran should be allowed to do? Do we feel that this same Court can fairly dictate the way of life in Bolivia, for a farmer, by the same rules? Does a strong Federal government in the United States even successfully do that here? Do citizens of California and citizens of Alabama conform to the same rules happily?
Not to mention the only practical way to encourage people to accept this Global Unity, is by force, and the force of a gun. The force of a gun which bears no credibility without a body count on it. We will have to kill the nationalists of every country, the local governance advocates of every country, the independent thinkers of every country, to achieve global unity.
And that means, Obama, if you and your banker friends in Europe want to achieve a Global One-World Government, you will have to kill me and my family too.
Remember, that, despite the fact your U.S. History class didn’t tell you, we only needed to ditch the Articles of Confederation form of the U.S. Federal Government, because it wasn’t strong enough to raise a tax big enough to pay back our debts to European Bankers owed due to the Revolutionary War cost, and the arbitrary payments owed to the British Crown because of the “investment” he made colonizing our country.
We needed a stronger Federal Government to pay back the usurer, banker slimeballs who profit off of war, and the national debt we owe to this date is just a continuing tab of death, destruction, and theft, which lowers the quality of living for all these “citizens of the world”.
No thanks, President of the World. I’ll keep conferring with my neighbors about what kind of world we want to live in.
Date: 2008-07-28
As Reported by: Barry Donegan
|
|
|
|
|
Comments |
|
bleenus - 2008-08-12 12:03:39
Can you say ANTI-CHRIST? |
BarryDoneganLookWhatIDid - 2008-07-31 10:23:29
there is currently no check-and-balanced democratically and legally elected international body on earth. turning to them for support would de facto justify their existence. The thing you have to realize, is the wicked actions of the people in America are motivated by the interests of the international bankers, who are the ones funding our candidates through the CFR and other groups. these are the same ones who populate the IMF and World Bank, and the same ones who have their fingers on the fiat currency of every other nation on earth, nearly.
They would be more than happy to bring hell down on the United States, but not on your behalf. These international bodies such as the U.N. are guilty of more motivation for interventionism, and most of the conflicts we go into now are for UN Resolutions. The only just way to throw off a tyrant is to take it upon yourself, and start locally. It is massive centralized control that is causing the problems that we see today, and not intentionally, it is the costs of operation that almost require corporate corruption in order to do the job.
If it is made clear that keeping people in compliance with centralized governing will have to have a worldwide military dictatorship, it will become impossible and unaffordable.
ironically, this is the aim of the insurgents in iraq; to cause the United States and other "coalition"(globalist) forces to overspend and overextend trying to keep order. This is a task they are succeeding at. |
Austin Duggan - 2008-07-30 22:12:34
We're in agreement on what "free trade" really is. And your response to metlcat is right on. Obama is the next Jimmy Carter. In fact, Tim Shorrock points out in this article - http://www.progressive.org/mag/shorrock0708 - that Obama's "most important foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. He backed Carter’s 'aid' to the brutal Indonesian government in East Timor, and he infamously pushed for funding the jihadist rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviets." There are other "Hawks Behind the Dove," as Shorrock puts it. As for the Bierce quote, as I said I'm not a pacifist but just before the ammo box, I would turn to the international jury box and the international bank box. And why not? My point is that ANY institution that can fight for the minimal security of a nation’s population under that population’s authority is legitimate. If the sovereignty of the nation rests in the people of that nation, then the protection of that sovereignty can be extended across oceans as much as it can across the White House lawn. Again, there can be legitimate international institutions. That doesn’t mean they’ll work, of course. Wielding international law may be more effective than wielding a gun. Or it might just prolong the agony. I wrote recently on this issue at www.unisonous.blogspot.com |
BarryDoneganLookWhatIDid - 2008-07-30 21:12:43
I'm doing soap and ballot right now, they got about 4-8 more years before it might be time to switch to grand jury and ammo. |
BarryDoneganLookWhatIDid - 2008-07-30 21:12:07
to Austin, i agree with your idea that the "free trade agreements" are protectionist, but I do not agree that they are protectionist with regard to the United States. Most of the free trade agreements we have taken part in are by NO MEANS free trade agreements. Free trade agreements in a free market sense would simply be contracts between private citizens, no nation or corporation can have a set of rules regarding trade for its citizen and then claim that the market is free. that is a managed market, 100%. it has more in common with socialism and authoritarianism than it does free markets. However, that is a digress more for show, as I am sure you are aware of that.
as far as how far can we go to change the problems that are occuring? well, in my opinion we have the moral authority AND the moral obligation to use the classic american tools for political change...
the old Ambrose Bierce cliche works perfectly here... that we have to use the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box(in that order)....
That is the good ole' classic american constitutional way to deal with a lil case of the tyrants. |
BarryDoneganLookWhatIDid - 2008-07-30 21:06:04
metlcat, i think that your confidence in Barack Obama's intentions must come from a lack of scrutiny to his political past and voting record. I honestly believe that globalism, overriding of national sovereignty is not only on the menu, but has already occurred in the format of numerous overlapping "free trade agreements". These agreements have been drawn up by heads of multinationals, with their interests at heart, not the citizens of the nations involved.
Obama has verbally committed to an interventionist foreign policy, claiming in the very same speech that we need to put halting Iran's nuclear ambitions(which are currently nuclear energy for an alternative fuel source, not even weaponized) at the top of our list, along with our allies. This is neoconservative war hawk language to the extreme. we have no business policing that part of the world's decisions about what type of energy it would like to pursue, nor do we have a right on any level to change the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of which Iran is signatory, which allows them to lawfully produce nuclear energy plants without violating the terms of their agreement, the same agreement we regularly violate ourselves.
where do we get this moral authority? this is the same debunked, failed foreign policy of Jimmy Carter. Obama also still feels its ok to use Afghanistan as a wrecking ground for our endless search for the ghost of osama bin ladin, who cannot be found by a permanent military occupation of a nation we are unsure if he is even in. Obviously if we were going to actually get revenge on him, it would be done via intelligence, and, at this point, there is a lot of intel suggesting he may have already passed away, as he has been terminally ill for years.
Obama has the same distorted, disturbing neoconservative interventionist foreign policy of Bush, combined with the "anti genocide" interventionism of Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
We need to mind our own business before we radicalize the entire world. |
Austin Duggan - 2008-07-30 13:16:37
A good book on the subject of economic Globalization is Ha-Joon Chang's "Bad Samaritans." Chang points out that while many U.S. policy makers espouse (quasi)free-market ideology, they are typically eager to impose extreme protectionist measures, exacerbating the disequilibrium between first and third world nations. He runs through a few hundred years of such policies, and exposes so-called "free trade" agreements for what they are: exploitative of third world workers, and also American tax-payers. It is my feeling that Obama - along with a democratically led congress - will institute measures not so different, though perhaps on different grounds. It is also likely that he will use rhetoric similar to his Berlin speech to validate intervention. Wolves wear all sorts of blue and red clothing these days. These are great reasons to be suspicious of government moves towards world unification. But I feel that there is an important distinction to be made. We must distinguish between those global concerns that are fabricated or used as a pretext for repression and violence, such as Obama’s speech, and those that are very real, such as the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. If there is a legitimate international consensus on these issues, and I believe that there is, then we must decide on a course of action. For instance, when the U.S commits aggression against Iraq (or Afghanistan, Iran, South Vietnam, just about anywhere in South America, most of the world, outer space, etc…), there are naturally cries of protest, both in the U.S. and in the war torn country. These protests are heard around the world, and many join in the cry with appeals to basic human rights – such as the right to not be slaughtered. Now, if a legitimate government is one that provides for the minimum security of the intrinsic rights of those who fall under its power, and a particular government purposely breaches that security, then that government is illegitimate. Furthermore, when we lay out what does and does not constitute legitimate and illegitimate government action in terms of rights, we are laying out – just like the founders – a legal framework. When we look at our own laws and constitution, we see that our government is committing a crime. Namely, despotism; governing by fiat, completely outside of the will of its people. And we’re not talking about a government overstepping its bounds by raising taxes or creating a welfare system. We’re talking about the extreme use of force without consent of the people and without reasonable provocation. Suppose that the majority of the U.S. and Iraq population (who both agree that the war should end) exhaust every reasonable peaceful effort to DOMESTICALLY force the government to concede to their minimal requirements. What exactly would you advocate? I’m not a pacifist. So for me, a violent uprising is not out of the question. But I think that there are other reasonable options. Now right off the bat I would like to say that governments are naturally oppressive, violent institutions. It follows that they are ill-suited to dictate virtue at missile-point. So I don’t feel that calling up France and saying, “can you overthrow our president” is a smart, or even moral course of action. This is the same reasoning that you and I would both use against Carter, Clinton, or Obama in their appeal for humanitarian intervention. But what about an international institution such as the I.C.C, which prosecutes on the grounds of very basic international laws such as the U.N charter, which in many ways parrots the U.S. constitution? Or how about international boycotts of war industries such as defense and private security contractors? If we agree that a government is only legitimate insomuch as it provides the minimal security…, then it follows that ANY institution – international, local, doesn’t matter – that will fight for that minimal security is legitimate. There can be legitimate international institutions. |
metlcat - 2008-07-30 12:25:46
I think you are reading far more into Sen. Obama's words than is necessary. What you take as a call to eliminate boarders is a call to bring down actual, physical walls such as those being built by Israel and the United States. It is also a call for understanding and recognition of the differences between people and what has caused conflicts between people. Just like in his speech on race, here Sen. Obama is not saying the same old talking points that are normally repeated over and over.
Being a citizen of the world does not mean throwing away the sovereignty of each nation and replacing it with one. Being a citizen of the world means realizing that the interests of your nation do not override the interests of any other. That means no more overthrowing of democratically elected governments because their policies favor the poor of their country over the US corporations who exploit the poor workers. It means no longer supporting military dictators who use force to eliminate dissent and assassinate their political opponents just because they have agreed to act as a US puppet. |
|
|
|
|
|
