I did not vote for Obama. Nor did I vote for any elected official. I found none of them ethically palatable, personally.
But with that said, I have a question. It has become apparent to me that when people discuss the "NWO," there are actually two conceptualizations
thereof, depending - evidently - upon where on the political spectrum one falls.
One is seen as using the U.N. and other supranational or international bodies and organizations to undermine national sovereignty, take away people's
gun rights, weaken the U.S. military until it can no longer defend itself or project power abroad without the aid of its NWO masters, indenture the
population through the perpetuation of a welfare state, bankrupt the country through the use of socialist and/or communist social programs while
stealing the hard earned wealth of free citizens, and expand and centralize government power and oversight over the people. This form of the NWO is
often associated with and attributed to the actions and policies of the political left by those who adhere to this belief (which are usually those on
the right, in my experience.)
The other is seen as using the military industrial complex to expand the power of the U.S. and NATO allies' military capabilities and strategic
influence, curtail civil liberties, create and use a massive domestic surveillance apparatus, move free societies gradually into (essentially) police
states, expand the wealth and financial control over the global and national economies by the international banking cartels, cause or allow a large
portion of the human population to perish via war, disease, and abject poverty, and gradually consolidate control by the financial and industrial
elite over the people of the world through a modern form of quasi-feudalism. This form of the NWO is often associated with and attributed to those on
the political right by those who adhere to this belief (who are usually those on the left, in my experience.)
Which of these NWOs are you suggesting Obama is a part of? And is it possible that if such machinations actually exist, they are really one and the
same? Can we consider the possibility that this is a false dichotomy, intended to divide and conquer? Perhaps, for all I know, without even the
candidates themselves' willing cooperation. Their advisers, policymakers, and writers after all, shape their dialogue and policies as much as they do.
Case in point...
Romney's campaign advisers included policy architects of the war on terror, a co-author of the PATRIOT Act, the head of the NSA during warrantless
wiretapping of American citizens in the wake of 9-11 and the aforementioned war on terror, George W Bush's second head of the DHS (the DHS itself
being in my view a prime example of expanding and centralized government power, despite the GOP's "smaller government" platform,) and the former Vice
Chairman of Blackwater. In my respectful opinion, this does not sound like someone very far removed from either conception of the supposed NWO.
Obama for his part likewise signed the NDAA. He allowed Guantanamo Bay to remain open, and did not outright ban any and all forms of torture under all
circumstances. Under his watch, controversial domestic data mining and surveillance have also continued. Our use of unmanned aerial drone strikes in a
variety of countries has expanded considerably, continuing the trend established by the Bush administration.
The alleged NWO or elite "PTB" ties to GWB and the Bush and family in general are often discussed and speculated about. Yet I know few people who
believe GWB was actually capable or knowledgeable enough (not an insult, just an observation of people's attitudes) to implement his administration's
far-reaching, precedent setting policies and doctrines on his own. He had, among others, arguably the most powerful and policy-driving vice president
of all time.
My point being that regardless of what either man's real intentions and motives may be, their associations and actions do not seem particularly far
removed from the supposed NWO agendas people put forth in my opinion. There are agendas that both parties, regardless of platform or administration,
and despite evidently staunch differences on key issues, maintain and perpetuate unabated in my view. To me, saying that one candidate is more of an
"NWO" subordinate than another in this case is like splitting hairs. Whatever their "better angels" might be driving them to try to accomplish
alongside those agendas, and whether or not they pursue them themselves or are driven and "handled" toward them.
This is only one person's opinion/thought/speculation. Consider it as you will. Also note that I did not note a belief in the supposed NWO
necessarily. Just speculating. Peace.
edit on 11/7/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typos
edit on 11/7/2012 by AceWombat04 because:
edit on 11/7/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Elaboration