There is a conspiracy by a group a powerful people to establish a one world government on Earth.

There has been a misunderstanding of the definition of "conspiracy". I apologize and concede this point. ----- "The United States government was designed to prevent in single part of the government from becoming too powerful or acting outside of the will of the people. .. " Congress does act against the will of the people often, how else would an all time low approval rating of Congress (9%) be achieved? Congress is working hard, but WHO are they working for? (NWO) Most people were strongly against the bailouts and against the spending bill (with pork filled projects), as evidenced by the national TEA party, yet these bills passed. But if in fact they do need the will of the people, I have also shown how these groups work to actually get the approval of the people by creating the problem, waiting for the people's reaction, then offering their solution, this leads back perfectly to my quote by Kissinger in Rd. 1 which proves my point ". .. if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated. .. when presented with this scenario, individual rights will be WILLINGLY relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by a World Government". "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. " - David Hume ----- "the UN would seek to peacefully and lawfully seek to form a one world system. This is not a conspiracy, but the purposeful intent of the UN. " I think the real origins of the founding of the UN (especially by whom it was created) needs to be carefully considered in order to understand the real reason it exists. In rd. 2 I exposed that many of the creators of the UN were members of the CFR (47) and I also reemphasized what the goals of the CFR are (global government). By this a person can infer a lot as to the ultimate goals of the UN. "President Bush said that the New World Order was in tune and that was what they were working for, and the UN is part of that government, they are working now very significantly for a North American Union, that's why there's a lot of people in Washington who don't care too much about our borders, they have a philosophic belief that national sovereignty is not important. It is also the reason I have made very strong suggestion that we need not be in the United Nations for our national security. " - Ron Paul (Congressman) from Endgame - Blueprint for Global Enslavement . http://video.google.com...(7:20) ----- "Although it may be illegal for various leaders in the government to meet in secret and discuss world policy, there is nothing of that nature occurring. The summit meetings are not in secret and are well-covered by media outlets around the world. " My opponent must not have noticed in my link I cited in rd. 1 which exposes the Bilderberger group (Bernake is spotted at the meeting, at the time being chairman of the Fed). I will also give another example: the list of Bilderberger attendees (2007) . http://www.rense.com... It included: Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA), William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA),also Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State (USA). Pro would argue that it is in fact happening. Indeed, at the G-20 The New World Order was openly talked about. The fact that they can openly talk about it now doesn't mean that there wasn't and isn't a conspiracy to establish a one world government. What it means is that they are having success at it and are able to talk about it openly now. This actually proves that the conspiracy is REAL and is now being implemented. We are simply able to see the evidences of it more plainly now as it is becoming impossible for them to hide. . http://www.huliq.com... "Countless people will hate the new world order and will die protesting against it. " - H. G. Wells (The New World Order)(1939) ----- "Anyone who votes for something as significant as the President of the United States should. .. understand. .. the kind of people that he would recruit to accomplish his intentions. " I would make the "leap" that many people are uninformed who vote. Also just because one candidate is voted for doesn't account for the fact that maybe they are just seen as the "the lesser of two evils". However, my main rebuttal is that if both candidates are globalists and placed there by the powers that be, then there are no options in the Presidential election to choose a non-globalist (McCain was also). . http://www.globalresearch.ca... ----- "My opponent also stated that people could be deceived if a group of people had control of all of the media outlets. This point is accurate, however, that was not the case. NBC vs Fox for example. " Hmmm, this idea leads right into the heart of my points of monopoly/ central control/ globalism (especially through the media) This reminded me of the monopoly "break up" of Standard Oil (owned by John D. Rockefeller)(1904). Due to anti-trust laws Rockefeller had to break up Standard Oil. So now today we don't have a "monopoly" by Standard Oil, but what do we see today? Is the free market hard at work with many major players keeping the oil prices low (or allowing new technologies)? No, the prices are discussed and set (this has been a topic of discussion at Bilderberger meetings even). So instead of a monopoly with 1 company name we have a monopoly with 5 company names. "ExxonMobil, the direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil company. It is now the world's largest company by revenue, at $477.359 billion for the fiscal year of 2008. It is also the largest publicly held corporation by market capitalization, at $391.672 billion on January 29, 2009. Currently, the company ranks #1 in the world in net income, which was $45.220 billion in 2008. ". http://www.ibrattleboro.com... Media ownership is an important concept. A similar thing is happening in the media (monopoly)(obviously Rockefeller knows how to work around them). Many things are allowed on their stations to get profit but nothing is allowed which will remove their power. For ex: GE (the NBC parent company) Is NBC going to report on GE scandals? (ex: of them moving to Mexico for cheap labor, or that they are a major polluter? ) Perhaps that is why they BOUGHT the network in the first place (damage control). Other connections exist as well. (CBS/Disney etc. ). My point is that many conflicts of interest exist in the media, don't count on them to be fair and balanced. It may very well be (read "it is") what they are NOT reporting is the actual problem (ie. NWO). "Propaganda is to democracy what force is to totalitarianism" - Noam Chomsky . http://www.sprword.com... (6:00 = quote) "We falsely think of our country as a democracy when it has evolved into a mediaocracy. Where a media that is supposed to check political abuse is part of the political abuse. " -Danny Schechter "These commercial entities now vie with the government for authority over our lives, they are not a healthy counterweight to government, they are as big as or bigger than government and they work closely with government. " - Mark Crispin Miller (Professor of Media Studies at New York University) "The most powerful special interest in Washington today is the media, not only do they give money and lobbying and all the things that industries do in Washington, but they of course control whether a politician's mug gets on the tube, now that's power, that's the ultimate power in the political realm, controlling perceptions. "- Charles Lewis (Former 60 Minutes Producer) From "Orwell Rolls in his Grave" . http://www.sprword.com... (0:00 =3 quotes)