AKrob,
Okay (pant, pant) let me calm myself a bit. (Deep breath...)
My point number one was agreeing with your indication of thawing Sino-Soviet relations and with Clinton being at least a partial cause.
The rest of my post was a rant against Clinton and a whine that we have no "real American" candidates for President.
While I agree with the logic of your post, I hope and pray we don't get into a WW3. With our "technological advances", future all-out wars will not respect geography. Much of the U.S. *will* be destroyed and millions of Americans *will* be wounded, maimed, disfigured, and killed.
I believe Clinton is making this horrible scenario more likely by weakening America and its military while simultaneously creating and developing enemies against us.
I must stop here. You may continue by applying all of your known vulgarities and curses against this cur of a man.
-----
Pertaining to the New World Order. I believe it is inevitable.
As communication and involvement increase in both volume and geographical area, we become more and more dependent upon outside influences.
For example: I drive a Ford Crown Victoria. It is "made" in Canada from parts manufactured all over the world: Canada, USA, Japan, Mexico, and elsewhere. It is impossible to buy an "American" car - parts come from lowest bidders around the world.
This lends itself to government expansion and (worse, in my opinion) to additional governments (plural).
Picture the U.S. in the 1700s. Governments were VERY local. Although much "rule" was provided by the church, there were governments but they governed small geographical areas such as towns. So-called "higher" governments were virtually non-existent or had little local effect.
Later, governments expanded to govern counties. Eventually state governments became powerful and (roughly at the end of the Civil War) the federal government became supreme.
Regional governments, ruling over previously independent nations therefore would seem to be the next logical step in the progression.
Some people maintain regional government rule already has been established by "international" treaties such as NAFTA, GATT, NATO, etc.
After regional governments would come a world government. The United Nations is trying to become such a world government. It may not succeed quickly because they are skipping the "regional" government step; but the U.N. sure is putting up a good fight and have succeeded far beyond what I would like to see.
Personally, I believe the farther (or higher) a government is from the governed, the more despotic and intrusive the government becomes. The greater the geography ruled by a government, the greater the lack of reality in its "one-size-fits-all" rules.
I prefer government at the lowest possible level. I believe in states' rights with the federal government playing a supervisory role - as established quite clearly in our U.S. Constitution.
I fully realize that this marks me as a pre-civil war troglodyte. However, I believe limited government provides the greatest effectiveness and efficiency for government rule while securing the greatest freedom and liberty for the governed. Greater government has proven consistently to deteriorate all those values I've just named. Therefore, I shall fight government expansion and fight for the right (and tools) to do so.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
