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

I appreciate your rebuttal and will continue to establish your addressed points as they are needed. My opponent's profession of acceptance of the given definition of conspiracy should be considered invalid due to his implication of the term made known in his first post. He presented a "new world government" as an idea that was undesirable and built up a debate, using quotes such as "Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States". Due to the context of my opponent's debate, the definition of conspiracy can only be assumed as unlawful desire or activity. My opponent proclaims that, and in support of my given definition of conspiracy that assumes unlawful behavior, that President of the United States would be acting unlawfully if he pursued global consideration. Not only is this simply untrue, but impossible considering the design of the government. 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 or constitution. To say that the president, alone, could submit the Unites States to a one world government without the approval of congress or the supreme court is unreasonable and not valid. The UN was created with the purpose of protecting law, human rights, social progress, and peace on a global level. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) By mandate, 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. 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 proclaims that a person who would be willing to break a vow is be considered credible. I do not agree that someone who willingly violates moral or ethical law should be considered as trustworthy. Since this debate is not focused on the trustworthiness of a particular person and neither side is willing to agree, I will not continue on it. Anyone who votes for something as significant as the President of the United States should, by logical assumption, studied into his philosophy and intentions. Anyone who studied Obama's intentions would know the goals that he wished to accomplish and anyone who studied his philosophy would have an understand as to the kind of people that he would recruit to accomplish his intentions. 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. Labeling nations are terrorist may be used as a tactic, however, the results of labeling nations as such has strained relations between countries like the USA and North Korea. Diplomatic strains such as this are counter-productive toward a goal of "one world government". I have established the point that, considering the context, the term conspiracy acknowledges unlawful activity.