First of all, GUEST, you question Little Hawk about why he uses the term "communist" in reference to the helmsmen of the "New World Order" express puzzlement at his use of the word. Yet, it was you who have been using the word in that context, and it was Little Hawk who first questioned your use of the word.

But no matter. I've grown used to your eel-like slipperiness..

I have been thinking long and hard about this, examining my own beliefs, and I have come to the following conclusion:    as far as GUEST is concerned, I am definitely part of the problem. I favor a world government.

I recall following the radio coverage (this was before television) of the formation of the United Nations in San Francisco, beginning in late April of 1945 as World War II was coming to a conclusion, then the actual inception of the United Nations in October of that year. That was a very hopeful and optimistic time.

But from the outset, the United Nations had a couple of fatal flaws. First, several powerful nations such as the United States and the Soviet Union insisted on having absolute veto power. If they disagreed with any UN decision, they could terminate it right there. The result was that much that could and should have been done for the benefit of the population of the entire planet was aborted because it was not necessarily in the selfish interest of the governments of one or more of those countries (even if it was to the benefit of the population of those countries). Second, the United Nations had no way of enforcing its decisions (militarily, if necessary), except with the cooperation of the very same nations that often constituted the problem being addressed.

If the United Nations is seen as ineffective, then those are the reasons.

How do most Americans really feel about the United Nations? Read THIS. And note the links to further articles in the right column.

The kind of controls that have proven essential in local and national spheres to maintain peace and order must be extended to the global sphere if such things as war and genocidal atrocities are to be eliminated, and if we are to ever have a chance of addressing the widespread hunger, poverty, and disease that affects so much of the world's population.

Barring a miraculous change in the character and ethical sense of humankind (don't hold your breath!), a world government based on law and backed by force is the only solution to the present world anarchy, just as a national government, based on law and backed by force, was the only solution to national anarchy.

The development of weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, potentially capable of obliteration millions, if not, possibly billions—or ALL—of the world's population, make it essential that the rule of law on the world level is not just an ultimate goal, but an immediate necessity. In addition, the continued fouling of our own nest must be addressed by all nations, including those most responsible for that fouling.

Be it by divine providence or random happenstance, we find ourselves on a planet that can provide for everyone if we have the intelligence to govern ourselves and use that planet—and each other—with a measure of regard and respect

Gleaned for several web-sites:

ESSENTIALS OF A WORLD GOVERNMENT

1. A Constitution and a Bill of Rights.
2. An elected legislature to enact laws.
3. A world court to interpret these laws, with compulsory jurisdiction over world disputes.
4. A civilian executive branch with the power to enforce world laws upon both nations and individuals.
5. A foolproof system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power by any branch of the world government.
6. Control of all weapons of mass destruction by the world government, with the disarmament of all nations, under careful inspection, down to the level required for internal policing.
7. Carefully defined and limited power of taxation to support the functions necessary to preserving and maintaining world peace, and providing solutions to problems affecting the welfare of all humankind.
8. Reasonable provision for amendments to the constitution.
9. Participation in the world federal government to be open at all times to all nations without right of secession.
10. All power not expressly delegated to the world government to be reserved to the nations and their people.

Sorry, GUEST. I don't buy David Rockefeller's mode of world government, at least as interpreted by you, but I definite favor world government. At the rate we're going, the human species won't survive much longer without it.

Don Firth