Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
~CFR journal, Foreign Affairs endorsement for world government (1924).Obviously, there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as [the Earth] remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government.
The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded. [con't]
As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met. [con't]
Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.
Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change
All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.
Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.
Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.
Conclusive evidence that Romney's policies are CFR policies and that he is supported by the CFR
skmo wrote:Be nice to Mitt. After all, he's really just a bad joke.
Mahonri wrote:Though Mitt is no friend of good govt or the Gospel, he is not a member of the CFR.
lundbaek wrote:How, pray tell, is Mitt Romney personally responsible in any way for the construction of internment camps and the failure of any banks?
Cowell wrote:Romney very likely is a member of the CFR,
Mahonri wrote:Cowell wrote:Romney very likely is a member of the CFR,
What are you talking about "likely"? The roster is public, he is not a member
caddis wrote:You're exactly right Lundbaek. I tried to enlighten my family about Mittens when he was running for the GOP nomination. Every time I tried to point out his disdain for the constitution and his denial of the first vision, they would look at me like I was from another planet. I finally gave up. I even had family members voice concern with my support of Ron Paul. I'm not kidding, they even tried to link RP to the Anti-Christ. Must be because they couldn't understand why a very active member of the church (me) couldn't support a "good" brother in the gospel unless he had been deceived in some way.