On March 6, 1991, President George Herbert Walker Bush, at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, uttered some words that shivered down the spines of Americans who appreciated their country as an independent, sovereign experiment in constitutional self-government.
"Now, we can see a new world coming into view – a world in which there is the very real prospect of a New World Order," he said.
He went on to expand on this idea, explaining that he envisioned the United Nations freed "to fulfill the historic vision of its founders."
In 1991, that was scary talk. It sounded like Bush had forgotten what America represented in the world – a nation founded on the principles of independence, the rule of law and accountability to the people, rather than just one of many states responsible to a global community that didn't share its ideals.
Last weekend, speaking in Prague, Barack Obama took the New World Order rhetoric to soaring new heights.
"All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime," he said.
Assert your right as a sovereign citizen of the U.S. and repudiate moves toward global government: Sign WND's new petition, a Re-declaration of Independence
While Bush's earlier phrase set off alarms in some circles, it was ambiguous enough to allow for plausible deniability that he actually intended to work toward some sort of "world government." Obama's choice of words leaves little doubt about what he means.
Though few have so far questioned his desire "to build a stronger, global regime," the words are clear.
Let's consult the Random House dictionary for the definition of "regime."
- a mode or system of rule or government: a dictatorial regime.
- a ruling or prevailing system.
- a government in power.
- the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power.
How about the American Heritage dictionary?
- a form of government: a fascist regime.
- a government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
- the period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
Not only are the definitions clear, so are the connotations. They are uniformly negative for those who support liberty, accountability, limited government and the will of the people operating under the rule of law.
Few freedom-minded people would choose to live under any kind of "regime." In America, we are supposed to live under a decentralized form of government in which most powers are reserved to the states. We are supposed to be a self-governing people, not only free from the shackles of government oppression and dictates, but actually the masters of our own governments. We are supposed to be sovereign individuals with our interests protected by the rule of law. And we are supposed to be independent of foreign interests and rules.
So why would any American seek to be a part of building "a stronger, global regime"? The very idea should be anathema to all of us. Yet, the notion is being championed by none other than the president of the United States.
Worse yet, the idea is receiving little scrutiny and even less criticism.
What has become of Americans?
Are we just too fat, lazy and stupid to recognize the threats to our most cherished and basic freedoms?
Are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?
Do we not recognize what has made America great and different from all other nations in the world?
Are we really ready to give up our liberty so easily?
For what did our forefathers sacrifice? Why were they willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for independence and liberty? Why are we ready to give up our independence and liberty for nothing?
Assert your right as a sovereign citizen of the U.S. and repudiate moves toward global government: Sign WND's new petition, a Re-declaration of Independence
Posts
