Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Moving Towards One World Government: 'Galloping Towards Globalism'



When The World Will Be As One


By Jan Markell


In years of ministry, I have never met anyone quite like one-world watcher Gary Kah. He began in Indiana state government and saw the push for globalism as a trade representative almost 30 years ago. 
 
The effort had a giant leap forward in September with the U.S. visit of Pope Francis. On September 25, Pope Francis gave an address to the United Nations General Assembly. In it, he presented a list of what he called U.N. accomplishments. Then he said, "Without all those interventions on the international level, mankind would not have been able to survive."
 
It was a bizarre moment to hear this man praising the U.N. as mankind's savior over the last 70 years. Because he sees the U.N. in such a lofty role, it's only natural that he wants to give it more power -- even to the point of world government.
 
And so does Barack Obama. What a powerful three-way global punch they pack, Obama, the Pope and the United Nations.

Gary Kah was my radio guest again October 24-25. He stated, "This year has been a very active time for those in high places pursuing a new world order. Their agenda gained steady momentum throughout the spring and summer with proponents hoping to use the 70th session of the U.N. General Assembly as a springboard to larger one-world events later this year and beyond."

Kah says, "Two men in particular have appeared repeatedly on the global stage as strange bedfellows with a seemingly common vision. Francis, the first Pope to have come directly from the Jesuit Order, has been cooperating closely with Obama on numerous fronts which are shaping the emerging order."
 
Globalists decided long ago that the agent for a one-world system will be the global warming/climate change agenda.
 
Gary Kah writes in an insightful article found here, "On September 23, Pope Francis arrived at the White House for a one-on-one closed-door meeting with Barack Obama. The details concerning what was actually discussed are sketchy at best. But we can be certain the subject matter included a variety of topics ranging from the Mideast situation to gay rights. Near the top of the list was the subject of climate change as both men have personal track records of being devoted to advancing this cause."

On September 25, Pope Francis launched the U.N.'s new sustainable development campaign, being the keynote speaker before the U.N. General Assembly. World leaders will convene again in Paris November 30 - December 11, at the invitation of the United Nations, for the specific purpose of signing this controversial treaty.

Both the Pope and Obama have gone out of their way to promote and announce their support for the climate agenda and are expected to sign the treaty.
 
Kah goes on to point out that the Pope has also been actively garnering the support of the world's religious leaders.

 
So what is wrong with this? Why do some look with huge skepticism upon any climate change treaty?
 
Here's why. Kah states, "Along with the underlying spiritual deception associated with this push -- which is leading people to embrace earth-centered/pantheistic beliefs -- the treaty itself happens to be the cornerstone for the one-world agenda."

 
He concludes, "This treaty has been cleverly crafted in such a way that it goes way beyond typical environmental matters to cover nearly every facet of our lives...."
 
In recent years there has been a rush to global government. Now the pace is a galloping towards globalism. We must to save the planet. The vehicle to do that is battling climate change, though only God changes the climate. But these people believe that pollution knows no borders so let's have no borders.


Why can't millions of Christians who sign onto this see that the effort for the "common good" is just plain evil?
The Pope sees the U.N. as highly effective, except where it has lacked the ability to enforce its will. The implication is obvious. He believes the U.N. should be given the teeth to enforce its edicts on everyone. And maybe someday it will. 
 
Kah concludes, "Do not be deceived. The U.N. Climate Change Treaty is an intentional power grab. Unfortunately a majority of the world's most visible political figures -- including Obama and the Pope -- are fully on board."










 While it's not entirely clear whether this represents an explicit pivot or simply amounts to a reiteration of comments US defense officials made in the wake of the ISIS prison raid that freed some 70 captives in Iraq and led to the first US casualty in ground combat since 2011, the media is alive with reports this evening which indicate that Defense Secretary Ash Carter may be set to send more spec ops ground troops to Iraq and "engage directly" in Syria. Here's CNN with the official White House-approved line:


The U.S. is considering increasing its attacks on ISIS through more ground action and airstrikes, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday.

Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. "won't hold back" from supporting partners carrying out such attacks or from "conducting such missions directly, whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground."

The White House, however, has yet to make a decision on the options for upping the campaign against ISIS, according to defense and administration sources. They said that further involvement on the ground was one of the possibilities being presented.

Meanwhile, a few notable US lawmakers had some colorful remarks for Carter. First there was uber hawk John McCain insisiting that the Russians and the Assad regime are "slaughtering" the moderates:



Committee Chairman John McCain of Arizona peppered Carter with questions about how the U.S. would protect forces as Russia carries out airstrikes that have been hitting forces opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"Are we going to protect them from being barrel bombed by Bashar Assad and protected from Russia?" McCain asked.

"We have an obligation to do that. We made that clear right from the beginning of the train-and-equip program," Carter said.

"We haven't done it. We haven't done it," McCain disagreed.

Carter said to date, no forces that have been part of the U.S. training program have come under attack from Russian forces, but McCain once again disagreed.

"I promise you they have," McCain said. "You will have to correct the record. ... These are American-supported and coalition-supported men who are going in and being slaughtered."

In addition to increased ground action and airstrikes, or "raids," Carter also spoke of the need to increase pressure around the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa in Syria, where "we will support moderate Syrian forces" fighting the terror organization there.
When analyzing geopolitics it’s important to try and skate ahead of the puck, so to speak. That is, while it’s useful to understand what’s going on now, it’s even more imperative to analyze the situation in an attempt to understand how the situation is likely to evolve going forward. 
When analyzing geopolitics it’s important to try and skate ahead of the puck, so to speak. That is, while it’s useful to understand what’s going on now, it’s even more imperative to analyze the situation in an attempt to understand how the situation is likely to evolve going forward. 

As it relates to the Mid-East, that means looking past Syria and on to Iraq. As we’ve outlined in great detail of late, there’s every reason to suspect that Russia will expand its airstrikes across the Syrian border and indeed, Baghdad has reportedly given Moscow the go-ahead to hit ISIS convoys fleeing Syria into Iraqi territory. This is in direct contradiction to what PM  Haider al-Abadi told Gen. Joseph Dunford last week and suggests that Baghdad is about to pivot East, after becoming frustrated with a lack of results stemming from more than a year of US airstrikes against Islamic State targets. 














3 comments:

GG2013 said...

Life Worth Living

I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world. – John 17:15

It would be a great deal safer, in one sense, for believers to be taken at once to heaven as soon
as they begin to follow Christ. They would then have no temptations, no enemies to fight, no conflicts
and struggles to pass through. But who would then do Christ’s work in the world? There would be none
to tell sinners about the Saviour, none to show to men the beauty of Christ in a holy life, none to witness
for God and to fight His battles.

There is another reason why Christians are left here. They are not the most majestic trees that grow in the
sheltered valleys, where no storms break, but those rather which are found upon the hill-tops and on the
mountains, where they must encounter the fierce gales. It is so with men: the noblest are grown amid
difficulties and hardships, not in pampered ease. Even Jesus Himself was trained in the school of conflict
and struggle. It may be the easiest thing to have no battles in life, to grow in some sheltered plain where
the storms never blow, to meet no hardships, to have no burdens to carry; but what sort of life comes in
the end from such a career? If we would reach the heights of blessedness we must be content to pass
through the fields of struggle.

When armies return from victorious war, the loudest cheers are not for those who have fought the fewest battles,
nor for the flags which are cleanest, but for the regiments which are cut down to a few men, and for the colour
that are shot to pieces. So it will be in heaven when the redeemed are welcomed home: those who have fought
the most battles, and bear the most “marks of the Lord Jesus,” will receive the highest honours. It is better, then,
even for Christians themselves to stay in this world, and to grow to strength through duty and conflict.

ChristineInCleveland said...

Well said, GG! Maranatha!

Waterer said...

Thanks dear GG!