U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause

[Sterben]

        The idea of national sovereignty is becoming an archaic concept in my opinion. It serves little purpose since we in the digital age, were one the last hold outs who still maintain this concept. I don't think a governing body should in place but, there needs a form of it that has more power then the U.N to hold power house nations like Russia, China, and America accountable for there actions.

I used to think the same thing, but after a lot of research, found out those that want to destroy national sovereignty, just want to be able to control the world, and not just various nations. Earth is full of a diverse amount of people and cultures, and how do you know that if we relinquish our national sovereignty, we will be ruled by people that agree with our principles? I'm sure you wouldn't want to live under Shariah law for example, so it's important for each nation to rule itself. However obvious problems arise because nations are competing against each other which will cause conflicts. The answer is not to give up our ability to be free and hand it over to the UN or some other world body. It would be guaranteed suicide and we would end up as slaves on a global plantation. Especially if you look at the powerful banking interests behind this plan.

Be careful what you wish for, but it's likely to happen our lifetime. 

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." 

David Rockefeller,
( founder of the Trilateral Commission), 
in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, 
in June, 1991. 

"The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species." 
Richard A. Falk, 
in an article entitled 
"Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions," 
in the book On the Creation of a Just World Order (1975)

"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." 

Harpers, July l958

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."
-Arnold Toynbee, "The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International Affairs, November 1931, p. 809

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler from his book, and , UN NGO


"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderlhttp://atheistforums.org/newreply.php?tid=41364&replyto=1197519y and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." 
-- Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

"The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'" -- Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- New York Times (February 1962)

"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of 
them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." -- H. G. Wells, in his book entitled "The New World Order" (1939)

      You do make some good points but I have to disagree with you on some of them. I'm not saying for countries to give there national sovereignty, I'm just calling for a better system when other countries commit such acts as contributing financially to other countries elections. This form of power brokering should not be not be tolerated. If a invasion of others country is not provoked as in America's invasion of Iraq, the actions done by The Bush administration was an injustice to Iraq. Rigging some evidence together and launching an invasion for your own befit is a war crime. We had no right to take away Iraq's national sovereignty as we do not have a right to control the world as an Empire. Internal disputes inside of country is hardly a concern, unless there is formal alliance between two powers and the other requests assistance. I think of it this way, if your out with friends and one couple starts fighting in front of you. Should you try to deescalate the situation? If your out with a friend and you see a couple fighting, it's there sovereignty your invading if you try to interfere based on your views that a major
issue is at hand.