Even Liberal CNN 's
Anderson Cooper Knows We Are Headed For A New World Order
The Kingdom Of The Anti-Christ
NWO Will Not Be The Utopia
The World Longs For
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? Revelation 6:8-10
What Is In This Communiqué?
Some Sort Of A New World Order
The Beginnings Of A Global Regulator
April 4, 2009
What Is In This Communiqué?
Anderson Cooper
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/02/acd.01.html
COOPER: And Ed Henry is with us now, along with Richard "Argy- Bargy" Quest.
Let's talk about this communiqué which the president talked about. That's what has come out of this (G-20 Summit 2009) at the end of the day.
Richard, what is in this communiqué?
RICHARD QUEST, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The communiqué is extremely long. It's very detailed.
COOPER: That is it?
QUEST: This is it, yes, absolutely...
QUEST: ...some 10 pages' worth.
What it basically does is set out the framework for the future in terms of financial regulation, what will happen to the IMF, how much extra money is going to be given, trade imbalances, protectionist, anti-protectionist measures, and, most important of all, of course, rewriting the financial rules.
COOPER: And does the Obama White House leave here tomorrow morning happy?
HENRY: They feel happy that this is a framework. But the key is, it's only a framework. This does not have the force of law, this communiqué, obviously.
These 20 leaders can't get together and just dictate to the entire world this is a new regulatory system. But what they can hope is, they can take the fact that there are principles here on executive pay, for example, saying that executive pay should be tied to performance, not to risk-taking.
And then Secretary Geithner can go to Capitol Hill and say, look, most of the world, 85 percent of the world's economy, has now gotten behind these principles. It's time to pass the regulations that the president wants.
Is Congress going to respond just because these leaders said it? Not necessarily so, but they hope they get a little bit of momentum out of it.
QUEST: And bear in mind that these communiqués are renowned for being ignored as soon as the meeting -- the meeting is over.
QUEST: Take, for example, the protectionist measures.
Well, we heard back in Washington, in November, they pledged to themselves against protectionism, and probably headed off and introduced all sorts of protectionist measures.
COOPER: Which they all deny, none of them will actually step up and admit to.
QUEST: Absolutely.
So, we take it with a pinch of salt, but it's a huge, huge improvement that they managed to even come up with such a detailed document.
COOPER: And in terms of how President Obama did on the world stage?
HENRY: Certainly, he was able to rise to the occasion in some respects.
We spoke last night about Russia. On the sidelines of this, beyond the financial crisis, he had a major breakthrough in terms of arms control. That's very important, obviously.
In terms of the financial crisis, he was clearly able to hold his own. A lot of these leaders didn't want to spend this much money, $1.1 trillion, he was able to get that at the least -- the details, not so much. He wasn't able to make this sort of the stimulative kind of spending he pushed for. But just getting here, getting 20 leaders together is obviously not easy. And he couldn't change the whole world in a couple of days.
COOPER: Richard, what happened to all those threats from France's president about storming out and -- and about having a global regulator who was going to reach across borders and be able to -- to -- to deal with markets, no matter what country they were in?
QUEST: Well, I might be alone on this one. Ed might not agree with me. But I think buried in here somewhere is the beginnings of a global regulator.
HENRY: Show me. Where?
QUEST: We may not...
QUEST: We may not see it this year. We may not see it next year, but they have opened up the idea of there being some form of other regulator across countries. And I think that's going to come...
COOPER: So, is this some sort of a new world order, which -- which Gordon Brown kind of alluded to?
HENRY: That's where President Obama was drawing the line and saying, look...
COOPER: That concerns a lot of people in the United States.
HENRY: You can't, all of a sudden, have a super-regulator, even if we're in a desperate crisis now. You can't, according to the U.S., take that and say, OK, all of a sudden, there's this super cop who is going to dictate what the U.S. does, what Great Britain does. That ruins the sovereignty of individual nations.
You can't just, all of a sudden, do that. And that's a big tipping point.
COOPER: Timothy Geithner, who I talked to today -- and we're going to show that interview shortly -- flatly denied that -- that was going to happen.
QUEST: I hate to disagree with you, gentleman.
QUEST: But I believe section 15 of this communiqué...
... sort of establishes a new financial stability board.
HENRY: But what does it say? It replaces what used to be a financial stability group of some kind, right...
HENRY: ... that's been around for 10 years. It hasn't done anything.
QUEST: Yes, with strengthened -- strengthened mandate.
COOPER: This is all arcane diplomatic language.
COOPER: We will see if it actually means anything coming down the pike.
UN Is Evil
April 4, 2009
UN Is Evil
Ayn Rand
http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm
There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China [Taiwan]—an action forbidden by the U.N.'s own Charter—was a 'moment of truth,' a naked display of the United Nations' soul. What was Red China's qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China [Taiwan]? The fact that she was a friend of the United States. It was against the United States that all those beneficiaries of our foreign aid were voting at the U.N. It was hatred of the United States and the pleasure of spitting in our face that they were celebrating, as well as their liberation from morality—with savages, appropriately, doing jungle dances in the aisles. AYN RAND
UN vs. Individual Rights: The United Nations works to annihilate the concept of individual rights. UN Declaration of Rights Destroys Rights. Individual rights are precisely what the UN's declaration is designed to destroy. No, it doesn't openly attack individual rights; that would be rejected outright by freer countries. It destroys rights by internal corruption — by perverting the meaning of rights into its exact opposite. The Moral Bankruptcy of the U.N. Human Rights Commission: The re-election of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission--chaired by terrorist-sponsoring Libya in 2003--demonstrates once again the total moral bankruptcy of the United Nations.
Nations United Against Rights: Consider the meaning of the rights commission vote. The UN voted not to reappoint the United States to its seat on the commission ...but in the same vote, it gave a seat to Sudan, a country that tolerates the practice of slavery. Another United Nations Sham: Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi to Head the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Even the most creative scriptwriter couldn't top the real-life plot twist the U.N. Commission on Human Rights will have concocted when Libya becomes its chairman. The U.N. versus "Human Rights." The United Nations is becoming more a danger to human rights enforcement than a defender of such rights. The United States Should Withdraw From the United Nations. If America really cares about human rights, the best thing it can do is to take this opportunity and withdraw from the United Nations.
UN Prolongs the Middle East Conflict: The United Nations punishes Israel because it is a free country. U.N. Call for Palestinian State Spells Suicide for Palestinians. Arafat's "Palestinian self-determination" really means more despotism—it means granting legitimacy to a state that is utterly hostile to its own citizens. The United Nation's War Against Israel. In the United Nation's General Assembly, 429 anti-Israel resolutions were passed from 1967 to 1988. Israel was "condemned" 321 times. Arab nations? Not once.
UN Advocates Racism: The United Nations works to entrench and reward racism under the guise of opposing it. The United Nations Conference of Racists. The UN World Conference Against Racism has met and taken up its primary agenda: the praise and protection of racists. The tone was set on the first day of the conference, when that paragon of progressive politics, Yasser Arafat, took the podium to condemn Israel as a "racist" state that "practices racism and racial discrimination, that adopts ethnic cleansing." He called upon the meeting to issue a condemnation of Israel, a cause backed by many in attendance — not only the Arab states, but also Jesse Jackson and other Western leftists.
The United Nations of Reparations Hypocrisy: During the era of African slavery, capturing people to sell into slavery was the work of Africans in West Africa and of Arabs and Africans in East Africa. More Hypocrisy from the UN. The hypocrisy, so characteristic of the UN, is the reason why the racism conference and others like it should never be taken seriously.
UN vs. Science. The United Nations works to use junk-science to justify its regulations. United Nations Climate Panel: "More Politics than Science," MIT Scientist charges United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) panel misrepresents the work of its contributing scientists to fit a preconceived agenda.
UN Appeases of Dictators: The United Nations works to treat free countries and dictatorships as equals, thus obliterating the difference between the two. The UN's "Virtue" Is Its Vice: How The United Nation's Neutrality Props Up Evil Regimes. More than 170 political leaders from around the world recently met at the United Nations to consider what the New York Times called "the most sweeping institutional changes" in the organization's history. But this exercise was, predictably, hopeless. Although both detractors and defenders eagerly proposed "reforms," they skirted the UN's insuperable problem: its corrupt "ideal" of moral neutrality.
The Irrationality of Treating Dictators as 'Rational Actors.' To acknowledge that the violation of rights is a crime, whether by individual criminals or by the state, would call into question the liberal's entire worldview. Appeasement Never Works. By definition, every dictatorship's hands are drenched in blood, yet some people still think they can be placated by simply appeasing them.
UN Undermines the Sovereignty of Free Nations. The United Nations works to undermine the sovereignty of free nations—in particular the United States—while morally sanctioning slave states and dictatorships. Playing UN "Survivor:" Survivor is a perfect microcosm for the self-destructive nature of the recently much ballyhooed foreign-policy principle that states that only the approval of others can grant a nation's actions moral virtue – the principle of 'multilateralism.' 'Multilateralism' is based on the ethics of altruism - preaching sacrifice as the supreme virtue, and self-interest as the lowest vice. Only on this code could the great nations of the world be called upon to lay themselves across the sacrificial altar. No other ethics could so completely undermine a free nation's inclination to assert its right to self-defense.
The Corruption of the Concept Sovereignty: There is only one underlying reason why the Mandela-ites want to destroy the clear distinction between a totalitarian and a free "sovereign" state, why they want totalitarian states to be immune from attack and free states to be branded as evil for self-defensively attacking those states bent on destroying them. The Mandela-ites, too, want the destruction of the free, and subsequently prosperous, nations of the world — from Israel and Australia to Britain and particularly America.
U.S. Must Reject the Evil Doctrine of "Multilateralism:" Military decisions are decisions about life and death—about what should be done to protect us from enemies who seek our destruction. If our leaders are to fulfill their obligation to defend our country, they must—starting with Iraq—reject the poison of "multilateralism" and replace it with the virtue of independent, rational judgment.
Bureaucratic Leftism: The United Nations vs. American Sovereignty. Forwarded by progressives and garbed in post-modern lingo, bureaucratic leftism represents a throwback to a pre-modern age in Europe when rulers were unelected. Today's bureaucrats effectively fill the role of yesteryear's kings.
UN vs. Rule of Law. The United Nations works to undermine representative government. The UN's International Kangaroo Court: America's court system — the most fair, free and transparent in all the world — isn't perfect. But that doesn't mean its power should be usurped by jurists 8,000 miles away who are not elected, selected or directed by anyone responsible to American voters.
UN Advocates Global Taxation: The United Nations works to control your wallet via global socialism. Will the United Nations Become the Next IRS? It is bad news when politicians in Washington make us pay taxes, but just imagine how high taxes would climb if unaccountable international bureaucracies had that power. Think Global Warming taxes.
Proponents Of Globalized New World Order
Woodrow Wilson: The first usages of the term “New World Order” surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I.
Adolph Hitler: He exclaimed: "National Socialism will use its own revolution for the establishing of 'a new world order.' "
Edward VIII became King of England on January 20, 1936, but after eleven months he was bound to abdicate the throne for he married a common though an extremely beautiful woman. He became the Duke of Windsor, and afterwards, the governor of the Bahamas in July 1940. He is on record as saying: "Whatever happens, whatever the outcome, a New Order is going to come into the world... It will be buttressed with police power... When peace comes this time there is going to be a New Order of social justice.”
Winston Churchill: Winston Churchill had also promised a "world order" entailing "the principles of justice and fair play” for protecting the weak against the strong. “A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders, a world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.” A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order.
Richard Nixon wrote in the October, 1967 issue of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs: The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order. In 1972, while in China, in a toast to Chinese Premier Chou En-lai, Nixon expressed the hope that each of us has to build a new world order.
Pope Paul VI writes Populorum Progressio and states: "Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a world authority capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political planes? Delegates to international organizations, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators--all of you must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a new world order.
Pope John Paul II said: By the end of this decade (2000) we will live under the first one world government. One world government is inevitable.
Fidel Castro, Associated Press Oct 12 1979 at the United Nations. "Fidel Castro finger waving in the air and angry fist thumping the lectern, demanded a "new world order" and dressed down the United States today for "aggressive" and "exploitative" policies around the world."
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi : Russo-Indian talks, 21 November 1988. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi used the term in reference to the commitments made by the USSR through the Delhi Declaration of two years previous.
NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner: saying that the Soviets have come close to accepting NATO’s doctrine of military stability based on a mix of nuclear as well as conventional arms. This, in his opinion, would spur the creation of "a new security framework" and a move towards "a new world order."
Mikhail Gorbachev: The principal statement creating the new world order concept came from Mikhail Gorbachev’s 7 December 1988 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. His formulation included an extensive list of ideas in creating a new order. He advocated strengthening the central role of the United Nations, and the active involvement of all members—the Cold War had prevented the UN and its Security Council from performing their roles as initially envisioned.
Jimmy Carter: During the 1976 Presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter said: "We must replace balance of power politics with world order politics." On February 14, 1977 Carter said in a speech: "I want to assure you that the relations of the United States with the other countries and peoples of the world will be guided during my own Administration by our desire to shape a World Order that is more responsive to human aspirations. The United States will meet its obligation to help create a stable, just, and peaceful World Order."
Ronald Reagan: Sept. 1980 - At a "Prelude to Victory" party given by Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, Mr. Reagan is photographed with the place of honor, immediately to Reagan's right, given to none other than David Rockefeller, the leader of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission. Earlier in his campaign, Reagan had promised to shun the directions of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. [CFR member William Casey became Reagan's campaign manager and was later appointed CIA Director. George Bush, member of both the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, was chosen as Ronald Reagan's running mate. Cabinet members included Secretary of State Alexander Haig (CFR), Treasury Secretary Donald Regan (CFR), Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldridge (CFR), and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (Trilateral Commission). Ronald Reagan had also promised that he would cut spending and reduce the size of government, but once again rhetoric did not match reality. When Reagan took office the national debt stood at $935 billion. By the end of his second term it had almost tripled to $2,572 billion.]. You pretty much cannot become leader of a country unless you are a globalist, new world order-kind-of-guy.
David Rockefeller: "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Bush Sr.: In A World Transformed, Bush and Scowcroft craft a strategy of flooding Gorbachev with proposals at the Malta Conference to catch him off guard, preventing the U.S. from coming out of the summit on the defensive. The Malta Conference of 2-3 December 1989 reinvigorated discussion of the new world order. Various new concepts arose in the press as elements on the new order. A pivotal point came with Bush’s 11 September 1990 "Toward a New World Order" speech to a joint session of Congress. This time it was Bush, not Gorbachev, whose idealism was compared to Woodrow Wilson, and to FDR at the creation of the UN.
Bill Clinton: May 1, 1996 - A German airbase is established at Holloman Field near Alamogordo, New Mexico. This is the first time in U.S. history that a foreign nation has been allowed to set up a permanent military installation on American soil. Jan. 1997 - The Federal government announces that COSCO (Chinese Ocean Shipping Company) has been awarded a $138 million taxpayer-subsidized loan guarantee and will be allowed to build ships in a Mobile, Alabama, shipyard. July 17, 1998 - Gathered for a conference in Rome, 120 nations approve an International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.S. is one of only seven nations voting against the statute. The ICC is to become binding upon every individual on earth, once it is ratified by only 60 nations! [Under the ICC treaty, Americans would be faced with judges from totalitarian regimes, an unrestrained global prosecutor, no right to confront accusers, no protection against double jeopardy, no presumption of innocence until proven guilty and prosecution for vaguely defined "crimes." The definition of "genocide" includes "causing mental harm." An individual could be hauled before an international tribunal, convicted of genocide and imprisoned for years in a foreign land for merely expressing criticism of a lifestyle which he finds morally reprehensible! Nov. 1998 - Congress discovers that President Clinton has buried seed money for a U.N. standing army in a huge State Department funding bill. [If this U.N. standing army is created, American troops could be subject to: 1) Taking an oath to uphold the U.N. Charter, not the U.S. Constitution. 2) Serving under incompetent foreign commanders. 3) Fighting and dying in some far-away land in a U.N. war which does nothing to protect American security.
Kissinger: July 18, 1993 -- CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in the Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA: "What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system... a first step toward a new world order."
Dick Cheney: Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney gave three priorities to the Senate on fighting the Gulf War: prevent further aggression; protect oil supplies; and, further a new world order. The authors note that the new world order did not emerge in policy speeches until after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, maintaining that the concept was clearly not critical in the U.S. decision to deploy.
Putin: He called for a "fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all." He proposed certain initiatives such as establishing international centres for the enrichment of uranium and prevention of deploying weapons in outer space. In his January 2007 interview Putin said Russia is in favor of a democratic multi-polar world and of strengthening the system of international law.
Gordon Brown: United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who called for a "new world order" in a 2007 speech in New Delhi, to reflect the rise of Asia and growing concerns over global warming and finance. Brown said the new world order should incorporate a better representation of "the biggest shift in the balance of economic power in the world in two centuries."
José Manuel Durão Barroso, European Commission president, said, “We need a new global financial order." In reference to a planned series of World Economic Summits to be hosted by U.S. president George W. Bush.
Conclusion
Why the planned bankruptcy of the United States, Canada, and England? Americans, Brits, and Canadians will not stand for a common, regional currency. The forced bankruptcy of those nations will bring the citizens pleading for a common currency to maintain their lifestyles. England still has not accepted the Euro and they will be bankrupted into pleading to switch over to the Euro.
The Bible prophecies of 10 kingdoms that will arise during the end-times (see Playing Monopoly With The Devil). These kingdoms will be taken over by the anti-Christ and a one world government will be born, the new world order. The ten kingdoms will be 10 federated unions which are currently being formed. Each of these unions will form their own currency until the one world government will demand all currencies be joined to one central bank with one global currency. The "Phoenix" was a name for that currency being talked about during the early 1980's.
Once the global currency is established, a truly global and cashless society will be forged. All exchanges will be done electronically. No one may buy or sell unless they have an electronic number to bank with, which will eventually be implanted in the right hand or forehead. The new number will be tied to worship of the anti-Christ. Anyone who refuses to worship the anti-Christ and take his number will not be able to buy, sell, bank, or pay bills. If caught they will be executed.
And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; buy receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. (Rev.17:12-13)
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is
Six hundred threescore and six (Rev. 13:16-18).
_____________________________________
Are you saved? Are you ready for the tribulation to come? Are you headed to hell without hope and God?
Click here to go to our salvation page and learn how you can become born-again and live eternally.