Q: Did President Obama call for a “new world order” in a speech in Europe?

[pampango]

The far-right is at it again claiming that Obama spoke in Europe in favor of a "New World Order".

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/no-new-world-order/

FULL QUESTION

Did Obama, in a televised speech with German subtitles, utter these words: ”Ordinary men and women are too small minded to govern their own affairs. That order and progress can only come when men and women surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign”?

FULL ANSWER

Our inbox is full of emails from readers wondering if President Obama made some ominous remarks advocating for a totalitarian government. We can assure you he didn’t.

The title of the video, posted by a German group, translates to “Obama explained shortly the New World Order in 2014 — Compilation,” according to Google Translate. The video purportedly shows Obama saying: “And for the international order that we have worked for generations to build. Ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs. That order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign.”

That does sound frightening. But it’s not what Obama said. Here, in proper context, is what Obama said during the March speech to European youth in Brussels, Belgium — not Germany. The parts included in the edited video are in bold:

Obama, March 26: Leaders and dignitaries of the European Union; representatives of our NATO Alliance; distinguished guests: We meet here at a moment of testing for Europe and the United States, and for the international order that we have worked for generations to build.

Throughout human history, societies have grappled with fundamental questions of how to organize themselves, the proper relationship between the individual and the state, the best means to resolve inevitable conflicts between states. And it was here in Europe, through centuries of struggle — through war and Enlightenment, repression and revolution — that a particular set of ideals began to emerge: The belief that through conscience and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose. The belief that power is derived from the consent of the governed, and that laws and institutions should be established to protect that understanding. And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across an ocean, and they wrote them into the founding documents that still guide America today, including the simple truth that all men — and women — are created equal.

But those ideals have also been tested — here in Europe and around the world. Those ideals have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. Often, this alternative vision roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or faith or ethnicity, some are inherently superior to others, and that individual identity must be defined by “us” versus “them,” or that national greatness must flow not by what a people stand for, but by what they are against.

He was actually speaking against the "alternative vision" (potentially a NWO, if you will) that people are too 'small-minded' to govern themselves and need a strong state and an "us vs them" mentality based on "race or faith or ethnicity" to structure the world.

[djean111]

1. The new trade agreements are the new world order.

[mmonk]

2. +1

[pampango]

3. The John Birch Society contends that NAFTA, the WTO and the UN already did that.

The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming it violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped individual states' rights to enact laws regarding civil rights. The society opposes "one world government", and it has an immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

[djean111]

4. Oh, I do hope that being opposed to the TPP and other "trade" agreements is not going to be

marginalised by calling opponents John Birchers. Sigh.

[pampango]

5. That would only be reasonable if one also agreed with the JBS positions on the WTO, UN, civil rights

globalization, the Federal Reserve and gold-backed currency among many others. If we happen to agree with wackos on an issue or two, that is one things. That does happen in politics. If we were to agree with wackos on a host of issues, that would be a different matter. Thankfully that is not usually the case around DU.

The marginalization of opponents of trade agreements is no more justified than is the marginalization of supporters.

[djean111]

6. That does not seem to apply here.

If Putin likes puppies and I like puppies I am a Putinista.
If I agree with even one little thing Rand Paul says, and abhor everything else - I am a dirty libertarian.
edited to add - yesterday, because I like Liz Warren, I was informed that I did not care about AIDS deaths.