{Must-Watch} Ron Paul Exposes United Nations Plan to Destroy US and Take Over the World

I did a search and did not find this video posted
This is fromt he great John Birch Society

Video is from the 1990s

It talks about the UN
Perhaps that's the body that the elitists of the elite uses to do what they want
Perhaps that's the top of the VISIBLE ladder

So either it's the UN that's the top of the visible ladder or it's G20
Because G20 has much less members, therefore much less voice from other countries to voice their concerns
So more control overall

What are your thoughts on this ATS?

LMAO

Ol Ronnie says it best a few minutes in... "It's been the same story for years"

Well Ron, it's at least 20 MORE years since you tried spooking everyone with the UN boogeyman.

What have they done? Nothing. Ron Paul is Alex Jones with a different job title, but same career... fear mongering.

Anyone or any organisation that has delusions of ruling the world is a tyranny, period.

Originally posted by DaTroof
LMAO

Ol Ronnie says it best a few minutes in... "It's been the same story for years"

Well Ron, it's at least 20 MORE years since you tried spooking everyone with the UN boogeyman.

What have they done? Nothing. Ron Paul is Alex Jones with a different job title, but same career... fear mongering.

Really?

26 September 2011 – Sovereignty can no longer be used as excuse by States to oppress their own people or prevent the international community to intervene to stop gross abuses of human rights, Belgium and Italy said at the United Nations.

“Instead of non-interference, Belgium believes in non-indifference. Sovereignty is no longer a wall leaders can use as an excuse to violate the rights of their citizens.”

He noted that the uprising against authoritarian governments in North Africa and the Middle East had demonstrated that democracy and accountability are universal ideals valued by people across the world.

www.un.org...

And what do you have today?
You have every leader in almost every middle eastern country in a state of Coup D'etat

Also he spoke of socialism

Will U.S. Sovereignty Be LOST At Sea? Obama Supports U.N. Treaty That Redistributes Drilling Revenues
www.forbes.com...

Also you already know about Libya!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


*sigh*

This is the type of ass-backwards thinking Ron Paul and the John Birch Society desire.

Peaceful operations COULD be masquerading tyranny, so let's never try for peace and instead keep a world separated by invisible lines and nationalism.

DERP!

reply to post by DaTroof

*sigh*

This is the type of ass-backwards thinking Ron Paul and the John Birch Society desire.

Peaceful operations COULD be masquerading tyranny, so let's never try for peace and instead keep a world separated by invisible lines and nationalism.

DERP!

Could you please elaborate on your elusive comment about what you meant by that statement? Or are you just trying to derail this thread?

I am not talking about Nationalism either, I am referring as to how you apparently think that what is happening today is in the name of peace!

I would love to be enlightened by your knowledge!

reply to post by seeker1963


Sure, I'll elaborate.

The UN, while far from perfect, has the interest in peaceful progress, where gun-happy paranoids like Ron Paul are for stagnation and isolationism.

www.un.org...

All those organizations for humanitarian aid are just facades for tyranny? I don't buy that. Nationalism and Isolationism are far more efficient tools for tyranny. Wake up.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

*sigh*

This is the type of ass-backwards thinking Ron Paul and the John Birch Society desire.

Peaceful operations COULD be masquerading tyranny, so let's never try for peace and instead keep a world separated by invisible lines and nationalism.

DERP!

The UN is far from peaceful. It uses violence to ensure peace, and not just physical violence. Structural violence is built into the UN. Certain countries have significantly more power than other countries in decision-making, which is contrary to the very "democratic" ideals they pretend to support.

With that said I agree that completely eliminating the possibility of outside intervention lacks compassion. However the guiding principle in the UN is certainly not compassion; it is power.

reply to post by DaTroof

Sure, I'll elaborate.

The UN, while far from perfect, has the interest in peaceful progress, where gun-happy paranoids like Ron Paul are for stagnation and isolationism.

www.un.org...

All those organizations for humanitarian aid are just facades for tyranny? I don't buy that. Nationalism and Isolationism are far more efficient tools for tyranny. Wake up.

First off, how does someone who supports the 2nd ammendment qualify as "gun happy"? Quite frankly, contrary to belief of how the MSM portray gun owners, not all of us are happy to have to own a gun! We do it for protection! Have you not seen that a judge came out and said it is "not the duty of the police to protect us"? So if that is the case, who needs to wake up?

As for the UN, your right, is FAR from perfect! How can you take ANY organization seriously that does something as dumbfounding as this? Not to mention some of the countries that were appointed to womens rights councils!

Genocidal Criminal to be appointed to Human Rights Council

I appreciate your reply to my previous post!

Originally posted by DaTroof
Peaceful operations COULD be masquerading tyranny, so let's never try for peace and instead keep a world separated by invisible lines and nationalism.

So the absence of nationalism means we HAVE to invade other countries that we think are oppressive?

Everytime a country invades another country to 'help' that country it was never for selfless reasons.

Know your history!

Originally posted by DaTroof
The UN, while far from perfect, has the interest in peaceful progress, where gun-happy paranoids like Ron Paul are for stagnation and isolationism.

Not invading countries but being friendly with other nations is in which way isolationist?
You are just parroting media talking heads

Originally posted by DaTroof
www.un.org...
.

Really????
You might as well say that Monsanto is a great company, just look at their about us page on their website

Originally posted by DaTroof
All those organizations for humanitarian aid are just facades for tyranny? I don't buy that. Nationalism and Isolationism are far more efficient tools for tyranny. Wake up.

Again you are using those words incorrectly

Do you know know what isolationism means?

reply to post by DaTroof


Your right, we should suspend the 2nd amendment and allow the U.N. arms treaty to be signed and ratified, then all Americans could turn in their guns and we would all live happily ever after right? Try not thinking in absolutes, there is a common sense approach! Just because the U.N. has a humanitarian aid program doesn't make them a force for good, when 1 billion people are still starving. (link)

How about that oil for food scandal a few years back (link), ya the U.N. are the good guys if your talking doublespeak.

reply to post by DaTroof

Peaceful operations COULD be masquerading tyranny, so let's never try for peace and instead keep a world separated by invisible lines and nationalism.

No kidding. The U.N. is a totally great organization and all they really want is peace. It's not their fault they couldn't be bothered to lift a finger in Rwanda to stop that genocide. The U.N. is a peaceful organization and not equipped to stand up against a crowd with machetes. It is totally understandable why they refused to help stop that atrocity and only backward thinking fools would argue otherwise. What the hell, they were only Tutsi's, right?

Just a couple of words. agenda 21 . Learn it .know it. Also try "global biodiversity assessment . Smart grow. Towards a sustainable America. They have a plan and it has been in effect for many years. google "agenda 21 explained full version". This is all a part of that plan

reply to post by ModernAcademia



Yes, I'm well aware of what isolationism is, and particularly Mr. Paul's foreign policy stance which he has made quite public.

This isn't the 20th century anymore. We're on the INTERnet with access to news from around the globe in real time.

The ONLY difference between the US Constitution and any kind of One World Bill of Rights would be the absence of the right to bear arms.

Is that so bad? Why are so many Americans scared of progress? Violence, or the threat thereof has only subdued innovation and destroyed knowledge (Pyramids, Library of Alexandria, etc...).

If you truly value human life and want your offspring to live in a better world, put down your guns.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



So what you're saying is that because of the indifference of the members of the Security Council (USA, France, etc...), the Rwandan genocide was worse than it could have been. Again, the only way the UN has any power is if a decision is made by the Security Council. You're either blaming the US or asking the UN to be equal in power or greater in power than the US. You can't have it both ways.

reply to post by DaTroof


The use of logical fallacy and strawman arguments do not help your arguments. Instead of telling me what I'm saying, why don't you listen to what I'm saying. If a military force exists, and The U.N. with their "peacekeeping" force is a force. Do you need the word force defined for you?

It is beyond disingenuous to make excuses for why The U.N. twiddled their thumbs while Hutu's massacred Tutsi's. You can point your fingers at whomever you want, blame is irrelevant. If you foolishly believe that standing by and watching genocide is a path to peace, then I'm arguing with a fool instead of debating a wise man.

Yeah but...but...but...it was factions in The U.N. that kept The U.N. from doing what I'm claiming they do...so...so...so...

That kind of argument really doesn't work.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Yeah but...but...but...it was factions in The U.N. that kept The U.N. from doing what I'm claiming they do...so...so...so...

That kind of argument really doesn't work.

Actually it completely works. If we can blame a President, or Congress, we can blame a Security Council.

You can try to invalidate my points by labeling them, but they are still valid points.

reply to post by DaTroof

Actually it completely works. If we can blame a President, or Congress, we can blame a Security Council.

Just because you can blame something doesn't make it anymore relevant. If The U.N. is what you claim it is then it isn't what history claims it is. That's where your argument runs into trouble. Blaming accomplishes nothing. Blaming will not bring about peace. Peace is what you're after, isn't it?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Actually it completely works. If we can blame a President, or Congress, we can blame a Security Council.

Just because you can blame something doesn't make it anymore relevant. If The U.N. is what you claim it is then it isn't what history claims it is. That's where your argument runs into trouble. Blaming accomplishes nothing. Blaming will not bring about peace. Peace is what you're after, isn't it?

Yes, peace and prosperity are the goals.

History shows the UN hasn't lived up to its ideals, but a major factor in that is the amount of sway the permanent members of the Security Council have.

I've made it clear that the UN is not perfect, but without the support of the SC, any measures to right wrongs will go unperformed.