NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label new world order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new world order. Show all posts

24 June 2014

Says Barack Obama said that "ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs" and that individuals should "surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign." 23JUN14

HERE'S another example of the ordinary men and women who are too small-minded to think on their own, and for whom order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to all-powerful plutocrats who will lead them, through manipulation of their fear, racism and hatred, with lies and deception, to their own self destruction. How very sad that these people are so stupid they believe and forward e mails like this. From +PolitiFact .....
The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Video of Barack Obama speech circulating on the Internet was edited to change his meaning

A reader recently asked us to look at a YouTube video clip of President Barack Obama that puzzled them.
The chain email that included the link to the video said, "You may not believe this 20 second sound bite. I had to listen to it twice ... to be sure that I heard what I thought I had heard. This is the most amazing statement ever uttered by Obama, or by any American."
The brief video showed Obama giving a speech in which he said, "And for the international order that we have worked for generations to build, ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign."
The YouTube video originated with a group from Germany that appears to dabble in conspiracy theories, including a focus on the "new world order" -- the notion of an emerging, worldwide, totalitarian government. Translated into English, the YouTube video is titled, "Obama explains the new world order 2014 in short ^^ – montage." It had received more than 88,000 views through June 20.
It’s unclear whether the video was posted seriously or in jest by the German group; the emoticon "^^" sometimes communicates sarcasm. Still, that doesn’t play into our fact-check, because what we’re checking here is how the video circulated in English in the United States -- where there was no indication that it was intended as satire.
We tracked down the speech Obama was giving. It was an address to European youth at the Palais des Beaux Arts in Brussels on March 26, 2014. But while the clip comes from a genuine White House video, it has been edited to make an entirely different point than the one Obama was making.
Here’s the actual context of Obama’s comments:
Leaders and dignitaries of the European Union; representatives of our NATO Alliance; distinguished guests: We meet here at a moment of testing for Europe and the United States, and for the international order that we have worked for generations to build.
Throughout human history, societies have grappled with fundamental questions of how to organize themselves, the proper relationship between the individual and the state, the best means to resolve inevitable conflicts between states.  And it was here in Europe, through centuries of struggle -- through war and Enlightenment, repression and revolution -- that a particular set of ideals began to emerge: The belief that through conscience and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose. The belief that power is derived from the consent of the governed, and that laws and institutions should be established to protect that understanding.  And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across an ocean, and they wrote them into the founding documents that still guide America today, including the simple truth that all men -- and women -- are created equal.
But those ideals have also been tested -- here in Europe and around the world.  Those ideals have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. Often, this alternative vision roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or faith or ethnicity, some are inherently superior to others, and that individual identity must be defined by "us" versus "them," or that national greatness must flow not by what a people stand for, but by what they are against.
In other words, the creator of the video slyly spliced together two separate passages of Obama’s speech during a cut-away shot -- in a way that totally changes the meaning. Obama wasn’t saying that "ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs" or that individuals should "surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign." Rather, he was saying that those two sentiments run counter to the ideals of free will and democracy.
Our ruling
The chain email claims that Obama said that "ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs" and that individuals should "surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign." Those are two separate thoughts from an actual speech, spliced together through video editing in a way that twists Obama’s argument beyond recognition. We rate it Pants on Fire.
About this statement:
Published: Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 2:50 p.m.
Subjects: Foreign Policy
Sources:
Chain email with link to YouTube post, Mar 26, 2014
White House, Barack Obama’s address to European youth at the Palais des Beaux Arts in Brussels, March 26, 2014
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

26 April 2014

"The President wants the U.S. to sign on to the U.N.’s International Criminal Court." 24APR14

PEOPLE who forward chain e mails without checking if they are true are stupid and lazy, voluntarily ignorant and generally prejudiced and religiously hypocritical (thou shall not bear false witness....). This is a false chain e mail attacking Pres Obama and the International Criminal Court / ICC. To be honest, I wish it was true. Our government has demanded prosecution by, and even captured and turned over heinous international criminals to the ICC. As a nation we hypocritically demand the world try these criminals but refuse to be subject to these same standards. Politicians of all stripes use the propaganda that our system is superior to that of  the ICC and so Americans will not be subjugated to inferior ICC trials. Extreme right wing political and religious fanatics see the ICC as another way the U.N. will take over America and establish the anti-Christ's New World Order. The truth is there are Americans, politicians, government agents and U.S. contracted mercenaries, who have committed serious crimes around the world and could be charged, tried, and if convicted, jailed by the ICC. While these people may seem to get away with their crimes now, there will be a day of reckoning, and they will be held accountable, if they do not make amends with God before then. From PolitiFact.....
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Chain email

"The President wants the U.S. to sign on to the U.N.’s International Criminal Court."

Chain email on Thursday, April 24th, 2014 in a chain email

Chain email says Barack Obama wants U.S. to join International Criminal Court

A reader recently sent us an email that had a meandering -- but strongly critical -- message of opposition to President Barack Obama.
The email, which can be read in its entirety here, urges veterans and their families to vote in the 2014 midterm elections in order to send Obama a message. Here are excerpts:
"The President, the Commander in Chief, has made the Rules of Engagement (ROE) so difficult, that our troops are often killed before they can even get permission to fight. Nothing has been done to stop our troops from being murdered by the Afghanis they are training, either.
"Now, the President wants the US to sign on to the UNs International Criminal Court (ICC), which would allow the UN's ICC to arrest and try US troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under US Law, and from which there is no appeal. The President, with his Democratic control of the Senate, has nearly all the power. If the Non-Establishment Republicans, and Conservatives, can take back the Senate in 2014, our troops can once again be protected from unnecessary danger. Please consider this, and send it on to your mailing lists."
We will be checking a few claims from this email, but in this report, we’ll look at the claim that "the President wants the U.S. to sign on to the U.N.’s International Criminal Court."
First, some background on the International Criminal Court and its relationship to the United States.
The ICC is a permanent, independent court headquartered in the Hague that investigates and brings to justice individuals who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, according to the Congressional Research Service. Cases may be referred to the ICC either by a member state, the court’s own prosecutor, or the U.N. Security Council. The court only investigates or prosecutes serious crimes by individuals (not organizations or governments), and then, only when national judicial systems are unwilling or unable to handle them.
The court’s founding document, known as the Rome Statute, entered into force on July 1, 2002. So far, 122 nations have become members of the court. But while the United States signed the Rome Statute under President Bill Clinton in 2000, it has not moved on to ratification -- the step that would make membership official.
This position is intentional. Under President George W. Bush, the United States actually went so far as to "un-sign" the Rome Statute. The reasons included concerns that the court could exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens or military officials, as well as a perceived lack of checks and balances on court pursuits.
More recently, United States opposition has softened -- within limits.
In 2008, the United States decided not to veto a Security Council resolution to refer a case from the Darfur region of Sudan. Then, when Obama took office, it began attending sessions as an "observer" nation in 2009. In January 2010, a Justice Department review found that "informational" support for "particular investigations or prosecutions" would be legal under laws passed under Bush.
In theory, the Obama administration could choose to seek Senate ratification. But even if it did, experts say, the administration’s ability to win the 67 votes in the Senate is almost nonexistent, given the extent of lingering concern about U.S. membership in the court.
"President Obama has made no indication that he ‘wants the U.S. to sign on to the U.N.’s International Criminal Court,’" said Steven Groves, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Since everyone knows such a transmittal would be dead on arrival, the likelihood that the president would do so before the end of his term is negligible, if not zero."
Steven R. Ratner, a University of Michigan law professor who specializes in international law, agrees, calling the email’s claim "completely wrong."
"Although the U.S. is no longer actively opposed to the court's existence and operation, as was the Bush administration, the Obama administration has no intention of submitting the ICC statute to the Senate," Ratner said.
In other words, the email is wrong to claim that Obama, "with his Democratic control of the Senate, has nearly all the power." All Obama could theoretically do is ask for Senate support. Even if the Democrats had 67 votes -- which they don’t -- ratification for this particular agreement would be an uphill battle.
We should add that the email has some other misleading elements about the court, such as when it says the court can "arrest and try U.S. troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under U.S. Law, and from which there is no appeal."
While the ICC can issue "arrest warrants," it cannot enforce them. The ICC "cannot ‘arrest’ anyone -- it has no police power whatsoever," said Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service Anthony Clark Arend. Instead, it has to rely on its member states to do so, and "a state would not want to cooperate with the ICC if it sought arrest based on trumped-up charges," Ratner said.
Ratner added that, contrary to the email’s claim about weak legal protections, the ICC procedures are "generally on par with U.S. law, with small exceptions such as trial by judges rather than a jury, and looser rules for admission of evidence."
Our ruling
The chain email says Obama "wants the U.S. to sign on to the U.N.’s International Criminal Court." While the Obama administration has been more willing to engage with the court than the Bush administration, which was strongly opposed to cooperating, Obama has made no sign that he wants to become a full-blown member of the court. Even if he did, doing so would require 67 votes in the Senate, making it essentially a nonstarter. We rate the claim False.
About this statement:
Published: Thursday, April 24th, 2014 at 5:45 p.m.
Subjects: Foreign Policy, Legal Issues
Sources:
Chain email received by PolitiFact
United Nations, status of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, accessed April 24, 2014
Congressional Research Service, "International Criminal Court Cases in Africa: Status and Policy Issues," July 22, 2011
Congressional Research Service, "International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute: 2010 Review Conference," March 10, 2011
National Review, "Beating the ICC," Feb. 18, 2013
Email interview with Steven R. Ratner, University of Michigan law professor, April 24, 2014
Email interview with Steven Groves, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, April 24, 2014
Email interview with Brett Schaefer, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, April 24, 2014
Email interview with Anthony Clark Arend, Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service, April 24, 2014
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/24/chain-email/chain-email-says-barack-obama-wants-us-joint-inter/ 

28 May 2010

Rand Paul and His 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Friend 20MAI10 from MOJO

Rand Paul continues to amaze with his honesty. He definitely is not your typical politician, and maybe that is what makes him attractive to some....with Rand Paul we have found out what he believes. I would never consider voting for him, this article from MOJO provides more reasons why.

Paul has repeatedly appeared on Alex Jones' radio show and agreed with his dark conspiratorial view of the New World Order.
Thu May. 20, 2010 10:10 AM PDT
Rand Paul, after winning the Kentucky Republican Senate primary on Tuesday, has run into reality—that is, the gap between his political and policy positions and mainstream notions. The Tea Party darling hit immediate trouble when he defended holding his victory celebration at a private country club by citing Tiger Woods. More serious, appearing on Rachel Maddow's show, Paul noted that he would not have fully endorsed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is because he doesn't support the government infringing upon property rights—such as the right of a business owner to discriminate on the basis of race.
Paul, like his father Ron (the libertarian Republican congressman), fancies himself a strict constitutionalist opposed to globalists and what he and others in the so-called "Patriot movement" call the New World Order. And this view of politics has led Paul to keep unusual company—such as his appearances on the radio show of Alex Jones, an anti-government conspiracy theorist and one of the more prominent proponents of the idea that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
Jones, who sees big government conspiracies elsewhere, as well, has been an enthusiastic supporter of both Ron and Rand Paul. Both men have appeared on his show, which, of course, doesn't mean they endorse his 9/11 views and other opinions. (Last December, Rand Paul's campaign communications director, Chris Hightower, resigned after a blogger exposed Hightower as an anti-Christian who believed that the US government was responsible for 9/11. The Paul campaign, asked by a local newspaper, if Paul agreed with Hightower on 9/11, said it was a "complicated situation" with "truth on both sides.") But Rand Paul has shown sympathy for Jones' overall view of a world of global conspiracies, and he has expressed support for some of Jones' unconventional ideas.
During a July 23, 2009 show, Jones, decrying the Wall Street bailout, asked Paul, "This isn't really socialism….Isn't this more akin to fascism?" Paul replied, "You're exactly right." Later on the show, while Jones was denouncing cap-and-trade legislation (which he says could lead to "toilet paper taxes") and calling for investigating Al Gore, Paul noted that should the climate bill become law, "we will have an army of armed EPA agents--thousands of them." These EPA troopers, according to Paul, would be free to burst into homes and apartments to determine if they were meeting energy-efficiency standards.
Paul also didn't say anything when Jones raised an odd charge about the Federal Reserve. During a rant about the Fed, Jones claimed "we know that the Federal Reserve was clearly implicated in the kidnapping of a congressman's baby" and commended Paul for his "courage" in taking on the Fed.  Paul replied, "I appreciate that," and he told Jones that he could not mount his Senate run "without you."
Throughout this particular show, Paul graciously accepted Jones' support for his pending Senate candidacy. He gave the impression that he and Jones were like-minded foes of the globalists and international financiers plotting to undermine, if not destroy, the United States for their own gain. And Paul noted that career politicians are no match for this enemy force: "the ones that evolve to the top of the Republican and the Democratic Party end up being the people who don't believe in anything…and they get pushed around by the New World Order types."
A month later, Paul was again a guest on Jones' show. "I can't stress enough how important this race for the Kentucky senator is," Jones exclaimed. Paul replied, "You're right."