Kevin, may I add to my "Thank you for your thoughts" post. It is important that we arrive at the same place with truth on our side. In philosophy - for instance - you can have a syllogism that is sound, or one that is false but reaches the same conclusion, for instance:
All dogs are animals.
Lassie is an animal.
Therefore, Lassie is a dog.
Here the conclusion is correct as well as the premises. However, the logic or truth of this deductive argument is false. Here is a true syllogistic argument:
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Truth is outside the realm of personal belief. You may "personally believe" in the former, however, speaking un-truths has no power in the world of ideas, outside of power. Let me explain with a quote from Mussolini:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
This understanding of truth is, unfortunately, the "ethos" of yours and my generation. Professor Allan Bloom agrees when he said that "there is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative." So us walking lockstep towards the same goal is a fantasy that persons like myself, who have read hundreds of books by NWO authors on the NWO just cannot accept. Which is why "Loose Change" has been revamped and altered many times... because their stated propositions just didn't fit the facts.
You don't trust your government, maybe I don't as well (at least in its current form), neither do anarchists. However, I can only join hand-and-hand with people whom define liberty and government thusly:
"Old-fashioned liberalism embraces neither statism nor libertarianism, whether in social and economic policy or on lifestyle issues. Though it insists on constitutional checks on government to protect honorable liberties and the integrity of the family and other institutions of civil society, it does not regard government as an evil. Rather, it understands well-functioning and limited government as indispensable to the common good. While principle dictates government involvement in some matters and forbids it in others, old-fashioned liberalism emphasizes the prudential nature of most policy judgments concerning the regulation of markets or morals. Though they reject unprincipled pragmatism, old-fashioned liberals prize moderation and caution in the vast range of political decision-making that is not determined by principles alone."
k.blogspot.com/2009/12/wha t-is-conservatism-is-it-li beral-or.html)
(In other words, I cannot walk hand-in-hand with an anarchist even though we both do not trust our government.) So again, confronting Al Gore with proper science and "rousting" him in his comfort zone is great. Following it up with clap-trap about the New World Order undermines the entire presentation of him not debating the issues at hand. Truth is powerful, cases built on false logic and facts are not.
"…right and wrongPapa Giorgio
(Between whose endless jar justice resides)
Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Then everything includes itself in power,
And appetite, and universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself."