Thread: Leader Of The Free World?

I just heard an introduction to a story on CNN calling Bush the Leader of the Free World. Not the President of the United States, but the Leader of the Free World. The story was about Janna Bush being on the Ellen show, and the broadcaster was saying . . . "when it's okay to call your father. Well, if your father is the Leader of the Free World . . . "

To me this is a subtle way for the media to slowly ease the idea of a one world government into the minds of the people. Ordinarily, I don't let this kind of thing bother me, but when a major network stops identifying the President of the United States for what he is, then I take isssue with that.

I can understand your feelings about this TinyBob but the key is to try and not read too much into things like this. The President of the US has long been called that......for as long as I can recall, in fact.

Here, maybe this will help:










The Free World is a Cold War-era term often applied to or used by non-communist nations to describe themselves. The term was used to contrast the greater personal freedom enjoyed by citizens of non-communist countries that were democratic, such as the United States and Western Europe, with the Soviet Union and its East European allies. The usage of this term, however, generally does not take into account the many other non-communist states allied with the "Free World" during the Cold War, most notably in South America, Asia and Africa, many of which have been criticised as repressive and dictatorial.

Because of America's prominent role in the Cold War, the President of the United States was often dubbed the "leader of the Free World", particularly in the United States itself.

I know I just didn't read what my monitor showed me ?! Well, now I am forced to present certain facts that now will no longer label me as a "Conspiracy Theorist." The Conspiracy has begun to manifest itself. Right before your eyes America on your big screen t v 's.

Prescott Bush, [GW's grandfather] was on the original Federal Reserve Board in 1907, and was part of numerous bank run rumors that effected this country, and made the bankers rich. He was also part of the Gold Theft of OUR Gold in 1937, & in 1939, had a steel plant in Germany, thanks to, yes you guessed it. Adolph Hitler.

In 1941, after trying to have F.D.R. austed and this country turned into a fascists regime then, his failings to do so thus resulted in a some what disappearance off the map.

But years latter, when GHB was in office, he was the first really to boast his engagement of US to a One World Order. And GWB, has been quoted 17 times saying this country would be better off being a dictatorship, and he our dictator. And just 2 weeks before taking his oath to the office... said and sippy can back me up here I'm sure, how our Constitution was a worthless piece of ...... paper !

And now, from National T V, we hail the Leader of the Free World ? WE are introduced to the new propaganda that will ease his taking over of the United States... and never fired a shot ! What A Deal !

This may be my last testimony here after saying this, but it will be a cold day in Haiti's before I hail this self appointed King. And have but one thing left to say.... away with you King George II ! Away With You !

To A Better Day America !

Your Loyal Son & Servant ~

____________________________

Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death !

I don't think there is anything wrong with our Presidents wanting freedom across the globe. We all want that. However. Bush's track record for wanting everyone in the globe to be "one" and fighting for a North American Union, takes the meaning to a whole new level. For instance, what kind of President stands by and lets a foreign government interfere in America's policies as he has done with Mexican officials. He has refused to stand up for the American people by his stance, and by allowing the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. This term "Leader of the Free World" may have been okay with past Presidents, but I feel really uncomfortable when it's used to identify this leader of our land.

Well, if your father is the Leader of the Free World .




I believe we used to refer to the United States as "leader of the free world".
Not as a title for a single person. Bush is not the leader of the free world.

I've heard the president of the US be referred to as the "Leader of the free world" for my whole life. I think it may have started after WWII ... ?

I too have heard the President of the U.S., called the Leader of the Free World, all my life. Nothing to get excited over!

I, too, have heard the President referred to as that - HOWEVER -

If we think about it - this one world order thing has been on the agenda for many, many years. It didn't just start with this President. Nixon was the one that went to China - but truth be told, it surely dated back farther than that.

Just because we are used to hearing something and it has been drummed into us for decades doesn't mean that it isn't dangerous and isn't propaganda.

Perhaps we just know the true meaning and the purpose of the phrase now.

Hello All,
I, too, have heard the President called the leader of the free world for as long as I can remember. That having been said, there is a plot afoot to rob us of our soverignty, and make us a socialist nation. By the UN, and by some traitors in this country. The illegal immigration issue is only a small part. When you look at how the SCOTUS has bowed to international law, as well as George W. Bush, one can see that it is only a matter of time.....unless one stands against it with ANY means necesary. Take a look at the Law of the sea treaty. If this is signed into law, we are basically under the UN jackboot

"The Law of the Sea Treaty
by Carrie E. Donovan
WebMemo #470
The Law of the Sea Treaty ("Treaty") was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U.N.) as a method for governing activities on, over, and beneath the ocean's surface. It focuses primarily on navigational and transit issues. The Treaty also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries--as well as sections regarding marine trade, pollution, research, and dispute resolution. The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan's original objections to the Treaty--while modified--still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place.

National Security Issues
Under the Treaty, a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are established. This sets a definitive limit on the oceanic area over which a country may claim jurisdiction. However, innocent passage--including non-wartime activities of military ships--is protected. Even without the Treaty, these boundaries, and the precedent of safe passage, are protected under multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law. Additionally, given the United States' naval superiority, few countries would attempt to deny safe passage. However, under the Treaty, intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.

Environmental and Economic Issues
Former President Reagan refused to sign the Treaty in 1982 due to its innate conflict with basic free-market principles (e.g., private property, free enterprise, and competition). Twelve years later, the Clinton Administration submitted to the U.S. Senate a revised version of the Treaty. This revised version allegedly corrected many of the original objections to the Treaty, but still failed to receive Senate ratification: Therefore, the United States' provisional participation expired in 1998. The Treaty still requires adherence to policies that regulate deep-sea mining, as well as forcing participants to adopt laws and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution. Additionally, under the Treaty, a corporation cannot bring suit, but must rely upon its country of origin to address the corporation's concerns before the U.N. agency.

Reagan's Objections
Former President Reagan's first objection to the Treaty was the Principle of the "Common Heritage of Mankind," which dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind and cannot be claimed by any one nation or people. In order to achieve this goal, the Treaty creates the International Seabed Authority ("Authority") to regulate and exploit mineral resources. It requires a company to submit an application fee of $500,000 (now $250,000), as well as a bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts. Additionally, the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 million, as well as a percentage of its profits (increasing annually up to 7%), and must agree to share mining and navigational technology--thereby ensuring that opportunities aren't restricted to more technologically advanced countries. The decision to grant or to withhold mining permits is decided by the Authority, which consists disproportionately of underdeveloped countries. Technology-sharing is no longer mandatory, however, there are remaining "principles" to guide its use and distribution. Additionally, the Council has been restructured so that the United States has a permanent seat, and developed countries can create a blocking vote.
Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world's supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been removed.
The third--and still valid--objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements. "

And, I agree with Patrick Henry
"GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

As I said, perhaps we are just now realizing the true meaning of the phrase ------------