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

I welcome my opponent and thank him for debating me. I accept my opponent's definition of conspiracy 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. Points 1 Pro does not have to prove if it is unlawful or not, but only that there are forces at work trying to establish a one world government. It is plain to see that those forces are there. But I would argue that establishing a new world order is unlawful in that it violates national constitutions and oaths of the leaders and the governments to represent the people of their particular nations. Ex: In the USA the supreme law of the law is the constitution, and the President when taking the oath of office promises to uphold the constitution of the United States. If the president, or any entity in the USA puts global considerations ahead of upholding and obeying the constitution then it is in violation of the supreme law of the land and therefore illegal. CFR - In round 1 my quotes explained how the CFR is really seeking that "national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established" and that it"is dedicated to one-world government". UN - The UN is basically the same thing, being founded by at least 47 CFR members. "This is the group which designed the United Nations — the first major successful step on the road to a World Superstate. At least forty-seven C.F.R. members were among the American delegates to the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945" http://hidhist.wordpress.com... (about 1/2 way down page) Trilateral Commission - co-founded by David Rockefeller, I probably don't need to elaborate more than that. It is actually illegal (Federal Crime) for various leaders in the government (USA) to meet in secret and discuss US world policy decisions with non-federal workers. They are committing a crime simply by being there at these meetings. http://www.documentarywire.com...(32:20) I can go into the motives and foundations of other groups as well if desired, but basically the fact that these groups exist at all proves the point. By doing and allowing these things, nationalism is being undermined by globalism and therefore is illegal. 2 If my opponent himself had been in one of the said secret organizations (and taken an oath of secrecy) but then later renounced them and came out speaking against them, would my opponent's words be "invalidated"? I don't think so. So why would it be different for any other person? I think a person should judge each person individually. The fact that these groups exist has been documented. For example to prove the existence of the Bilderberger group I would use: "The Obama Deception" http://www.documentarywire.com... (29:30) 3 What I believe my opponent is implying is that Obama had to be elected in the first place. This implies that the people should have known the kind of advisors he would pick, therefore they are ok with Obama appointing members of Bilderberger, CFR, and the Trilateral commission, because the people obviously would not have elected him if they were not ok with that. I don't believe that the various advisors a president chooses is known to the public before they vote and elect the president. Therefore the general public may or may not be ok with the advisors he chooses. In this link it talks about his advisors and their connections to various organizations: http://www.documentarywire.com... (40:30) Also if a particular group of people had control of all the major media/ news, I believe it would be quite easy for them to get whoever they desire to be president to get elected. Just because people chose a particular candidate doesn't mean that they were not led into that decision by other powerful forces such as through controlled media. 4 I would again say that Pro does not have to prove whether it is unlawful or not, but rather that the plans have been made for globalism to happen, and that it is indeed happening. If the powers that be which are pressing forward the globalist agenda are doing it legally, it doesn't matter. If they are doing it illegally, it doesn't matter. If they are doing it in secret, or in the open it also doesn't matter. All that matters is that this agenda to promote globalism exists and it is indeed working for a new world order. That Wells and Quigley have written about it simply reinforces the fact, that "There is a conspiracy by a group a powerful people to establish a one world government on Earth." and they have pointed this out. 5 My opponent has not addressed the formation of the European Union or the African union. I would state that the fact that these exist is evidence of globalization. I also would add that there has in fact been talk of merging Canada, the USA, and Mexico into a "North American Union" and I would say that this is further evidence of a push for globalization. 6 Whether or not a one currency system is preferred or not, is not the point, but rather whether or not it is happening. The pros/cons of if globalism would be better than separate nations is a separate debate. The fact that the "Euro" exists now as a common currency in Europe is evidence of monetary globalization. Therefore it is happening. As relating to the establishment of the Fed and the associated assassination attempts I would refer you to this source: http://www.libertyforlife.com... Not mentioned on that site is also the engraving on Andrew Jackson's tombstone which reads "I killed the Bank." It was important enough to him that he wanted to be remembered for it on his headstone. 7 Labeling a nation as "terrorist" is a tactic used to bring pressure to bear on a nation which is not "in the club" so to speak. It is used to coerce them into accepting the demands of the globalists (ie. economic slavery). Basically this kind of labeling is known as "Vilifying". In order to implement their "solution" (getting the nation into debt to them) they can vilify the nation. By doing this they can create fear in the general population (fear of nukes etc.) this causes the masses to demand that "appropriate" action be taken against the "terrorist" nation. This allows the use of force or sanctions against the country to be acceptable. Eventually the nation may give in, thus coming under globalist control. 8 How NAFTA works is basically that a rich corporation in a rich country goes into a poor country and sets up shop. The locals are competing fine for a while, then the rich corporation simply lowers their prices far below the locals, then the locals go out of business, then the corporations raise the prices back up, as now they have a monopoly. How the rich corporations can afford this is through the "Free Trade" benefits that they get from the government. The rich corporation is able to collect a subsidy for what profits they "should" have been making but weren't for some reason (hmm, I wonder why). 9 Nations are coerced into borrowing from the IMF. This can be done through "economic hit men" http://video.google.com...(24:55) 10 I would say that the fact that they can talk this openly, threatening countries outright that practice "protectionism" (ie. not buying into their global system) doesn't mean that globalism is not taking place, it is simply being pushed for openly under the guise that it is needed or that there will be something terrible that happens if people don't comply with their demands. See a pattern here? They create the problem, generate fear which gets public support, then they offer the solution (the thing they wanted to implement in the first place but couldn't until conditions were right). The more they can get acceptance for their policy of globalism and world government the more they will be allowed to talk about it openly.