Sorry, but I am not able to grasp your meaning.

Remember, I went to US public schools.

Try smaller words and try spelling out your meaning for me.

My view is influenced by Dr. Quigley's book and an example of that view is cited below. From that perspective, in comparing a warfare-state and a welfare-state I gather that the warfare-state can only perpetuate itself by manufacturing "enemies of the state" and is limited by that objective, which also requires extensive use of less efficient command economics.

A welfare-state does not have that limitation and can be considered an inexhaustible "instrument of expansion" since promoting and providing for the general welfare is always a worthwhile goal and can be done in a market friendly manner.

Thanks for the explanation. If those are my only two choices, then I would choose a welfare state, but I don't like the two choices and I believe they are not the only choices.

Why not a small, limited, frugal government? What's wrong with that choice?

US foreign policy has been controlled by the CFR for decades. The CFR is controlled through the foundations. Some of this is explaned by Quigley.........
"More than fifty years ago [circa 1914] the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States. This was relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds and eager for a voice to reach the people. Wall Street supplied both. The purpose was not to destroy, dominate, or take over but was really threefold: (1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left- wing or liberal groups; (2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could "blow off steam," and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions, if they ever went "radical." There was nothing really new about this decision, since other financiers had talked about it and even attempted it earlier. What made it decisively important this time was the combination of its adoption by the dominant Wall Street financier, at a time when tax policy was driving all financiers to seek tax-exempt refuges for their fortunes, and at a time when the ultimate in Left-wing radicalism was about to appear under the banner of the Third International.[3]

It was this group of people [the Wall Street allies of the Morgan Bank] whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the framework of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930s. It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie, and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused, as they were by 1950, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers. Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations....[4]

By the 1964 election, the major political issue in the country was the financial struggle behind the scenes between the old wealth, civilized and cultured in foundations, and the new wealth, virile and uninformed, arising from the flowing profits of government-dependent corporations in the Southwest and West.... These new sources of wealth have been based very largely on government action and government spending but have, none the less, adopted a petty- bourgeois outlook rather than the semiaristocratic outlook that pervades the Eastern Establishment. This new wealth, based on petroleum, natural gas, ruthless exploitation of national resources, the aviation industry, military bases in the South and West, and finally on space with all its attendant activities, has centered in Texas and southern California."[5]

Philanthropists at War

Here is Carroll Quigley telling us how things really are, yet you still defend the globalists philosophy, knowing full well the cause of many of the world's problems were intentionally created, or made worse by these "elites" in order to steer the people of the world towards a world government.

Of course Quigley claims the "elites" didn't realize how they were dealing with communists because of their lack of experience and understanding is a pathetic joke. They knew exactly who they were dealing with and used it to their advantage.

Quigley had much to say on the goals of the bankers and their allies. He also stated.........

"freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits." This would be "nothing less than a world system of financial control in private hands ... able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system [will] be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert"

Is Belief In A Planned One World Government

"Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within the very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits."

WorldNetDaily: Clinton and Quigley


Is this what you want?

I mean, do you really support the death of personal choice?

I mean really?

Yeah, sounds great, where do I sign up?

Promoting and providing for the general Welfare of the United States does not preclude forms of limited government. However, my view of that matter is that government will always grow, even if only proportional to the citizenry it must govern.

Even in the early 20th century, there must have been a recognition of the potential of forms of social-ism on the part of the public sector; made more cost effect, in my opinion, because of the Industrial Revolution and advances in manufacturing technologies.

I am not sure the "Red Menace" was ever anything more that a species of "reefer madness" propaganda implemented by a government already knowledgeable in the pragmatism of a "socialized" warfare-state economic model. In my opinion, socialism merely showed the potential, of more effective collective action on the part of the public sector in relation to previous forms of government. Our socialized Space Race was demonstration of the potential of forms of promoting and providing for the general Welfare, enabled by more central planning by a public sector.

On the more political side of the Red Menace, what happened to limited government that fully acknowledged the individual right and liberty to forms of redress of grievances as specifically enumerated in our Constitution? Since our government engaged in sufficient socialism to effectively discourage that form of free speech, I am not sure any remonstrances against expansive government are very credible. Our current "socialized" Drug and Terror wars are a testament to the influence of that menace, despite having "under God" in the pledge.

I think Dr. Quigley was pretty clear that the trend towards economic globalization is an economic fact. Why is political globalization lagging so far behind, especially with specious argumentation concerning sovereignty? The "monied interests" of the private sector are not bound by a Constitution as effectively as a government. Why is there any de facto abdication of our political sovereignty by not establishing a more perfect Union, that clarifies the powers delegated, at the UN?

As for the "doomed efforts" to impeach a former president, for political purposes, using the prop of archaic laws is, in itself, somewhat specious. What if there had been no "religious-ness" (in the form of adultery laws) involved? That president would not have faced that particular political gambit if that had been the case.

We have already discussed the emancipation of the corporation as the legal fiction of an individual. I am under the impression that modern civil rights simply haven't evolved to meet that particular challenge, yet; especially, when you consider that there was any outcry, at all, over non-enumerated religious laws being declared unconstitutional, as recently as a few years ago.

I do not understand what your post has to do with my last post.

The red menace was real, more real than most people realize, but it was not a danger to our entire government, only to small pieces of it. The puppet masters do not really care what type of government they are dealing with, as Quigley also told us.

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates to some extent, the way the Radical Right believes the Communist act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it and to many of its instruments[in] general, my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

I was wondering, have you ever read Norman Dodd's testimony on regionalism and have you ever seen his interview with Griffin?

Regional Governance | Norman Dodd Testimony on Regionalism

Transcript of Norman Dodd Interview

You can also watch the video of his interview, if you would rather not read the transcript...

YouTube - Yale graduate Norman Dodd speaks of corrupt education (1/6)

I, suppose, my previous post was merely an opposing viewpoint to currently accepted dogma.

Aside from the military perspetive, what was the real, and actual, danger from a socialist state in our global economy?

In my opinion, that menace was exagerated for political purposes much as the sovereignty issue is exagerated for political purposes. Many of that point of view, do not share the same attitude when it comes to the loss of state sovereignty in dealing with the general government of our Union.

From one perspective, with a federal UN, the US could provide an impetus for the revival of the theory of nullification. That theory, when applied via common law priniciples, could have the effect of bolstering state and individual rights, in much the same manner as the emancipation of the corporation (as a legal fiction of an individual) has not yet done for either the states or the individual.

I am beginning to wonder why the political establishment seems to be as, apparently, disenfranchised from those monied interests as they are. Why is there such a, seeming, disconnect from those interests and the political propaganda espoused by our politicians?

Since the "monied interests" of those special interest groups are in the (usually more market friendly) private sector, it is not surprising that there is any capital related influence in public policies.

However, one the reasons for having politicians, is the primary consideration of their responsiblity towards the general welfare of the Union - on a not-for-profit basis. Those competing interests are also a basis for our federal form of government.

From that perspective, I am not sure I understand your level of focus on those special interests when they have some influence on public policies. They are not the ones being paid to promote and provide for the general Welfare of the United States, in congress assembled.

You seem to keep forgetting I had a public education.

Keep it simple. We are not signing a contract. We do not need legalese. Thanks.

Anyways...

You say you do not understand my focus on the special interests, well who the heck do you think is pushing us towards world government? You surely don't think it is the politicians, do you? I mean their idea?

As to your comment where you said....I am beginning to wonder why the political establishment seems to be as, apparently, disenfranchised from those monied interests as they are. Why is there such a, seeming, disconnect from those interests and the political propaganda espoused by our politicians?

This I do not understand. Are you asking why there is talk of global warming, even though this will likely hurt the bottom line of many corporations? Things like that?

If yes, then the answer is easy. The powers that be, already have all the money they need. While they will take more and do so every year, it is not like they need it. These people make their will felt, not heard. These people are furthering their globalist agenda, even if ti hurts US corporations. In fact, these people are intentionally harming the US economy. They want to bring us down a few notches and bring developing nations up a few notched, economically, so that we can be more comfortably merged together in the near future.

I see you still haven't bothered to read about Norman Dodd yet. It would answer a lot of your questions.

I keep forgetting your area of current interest. I didn't think I was being overly complicated since I have recently been reading some of that stuff.

I am not sure I can agree with your position. Who voted on our current federal Union or other treaties involving cooperation between sovereign states if not politicians, even if they are only reacting to current political pressures?

I meant a, seeming, disconnect from what those special interests want concerning globalization and the rhetoric being espoused by our politicians. Are they simply pandering to what they think an inadequately informed electorate wants to hear?

I have an opposing viewpoint on the globalist agenda and US corporations. Some of those wealthy corporations are based in the US. Why would they advocate policies that are not conducive to their bottom line? In any event, I think our politicians are more to blame for not creating more market friendly public policy in our global economy.

Concerning bringing us down a notch to bring themselves up a notch, that is a political view, not an economic view where all market participants can improve their standard of living by mutually beneficial, market friendly trade.

Did you read nothing I provided?

Oh well, I thank you for the discussion. Again.

Hopefully someday you will get bored and at least look into the information I presented. Until then, stay cool.

I thought I was explaining my rationale for the points of view concerning the issues you brought up. I apologize if that is not the case.

Concerning another state in historic Palestine. Who believes that our global economy would be better off by having that issue unresolved?

I would like to hear our current candidates having a position on that issue that includes, either another state or a convention on unification with a greater Israel by the end of their first term in office.

Concerning environmental conservation. Which candidate is more likely to transition to alternative fuels and technologies that will either reduce the need to drill in nature preserves or develop the technologies necessary to use extended reach drilling to drill from outside of nature preserves?

Concerning the general Welfare of the Union. Which candidate is willing to upgrade our standard of living by upgrading infrastructure while creating jobs that cannot be exported?

I can tell you exactly what ALL of the candidates will do if elected, assuming Ron Paul is out of the race.

They will all do exactly the same thing...........

.....they will all do what they are told.

Do you think Bush is actually smart enough to lead this country?

All of the high level cabinet members all come from the same groups. Almost all of them are members of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, or both.

It makes all of your questions moot.

The only questions remaining are what the goals of these two groups are.

I tend to lead towards Barry Goldwater's claim for the goals of the Trilateral Commission and towards Rear Admiral Chester Ward;s claim for the CFR.

You have a choice. You can believe them also, or you can choose to believe that the CFR and Trilateral Commission are not working towards world government.

The choice is yours.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the goals of those organizations are well underway.

What I find specious, on the part of the opposing viewpoint, is why they would oppose a UN federal government, while seeming to go along with a "private" international government that is accomplishing via the private sector, what many would consider the proper role of a public sector.

How much worse off, or better off, would we be with a UN federal government with powers delegated similar to our own federal government?