It's interesting how the news seems to be concentrated on certain themes on certain days and today is no exception. More and more publications are becoming aware of what seems to be a big push towards a global form of "governance" (more on this term later) from the EU, the U.S., the UN and now Russia.
Just a few years ago, such talk would have been considered as "conspiracy theory" - and that is a term that deserves some discussion. Be very very careful of falling into that trap. One thing I find interesting is the idea that many of the individuals and web-sites who have been calling attention to this movement towards "global governance" should be dismissed and considered as "wacko conspiracy people" - to be completely ignored. If you go back and look at what such people have been saying for decades now - those who were labeled as such (who is passing out these "labels" anyway?) - they have been uncannily accurate as we watch the evolution of the movement to a world government transpire before our very eyes.
Labeling those who closely follow the news - especially the "stories behind the MSM version" - as "conspiracy nuts" is actually a form of censorship. Obviously there are some crazy people and sites out there, but we must be very careful to lump a large group into the conspiracy category and then dismiss what they are drawing attention to.
Having said that - consider the news today in light of biblical prophecy and the coming Tribulation (the quotes from these articles are extensive, but this information is important):
While much of the Christian and post-Christian worlds were busy rushing about in last-minute preparations for Christmas celebrations, an important event took place in Brussels, Belgium, that went largely unnoticed and unreported. Leaders of the European Union and Russia met in Brussels on December 20 and 21 for the 30th EU-Russia Summit, continuing a process of convergence and interdependence that is leading toward political, economic, and social merger.
In his remarks at the conclusion of the summit, Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, made repeated reference to progress toward the goal of “global governance,” which has always been code in globalist circles for world government. Van Rompuy stated
By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance and regional conflict resolution, to global economic governance in the G 8 and G 20, and to a broad range of international and regional issues. I would like to congratulate President Putin for taking over the presidency of G 20.
As we have reported in this magazine many times, the term “global governance” is an intentionally deceptive term, used by political ruling elites because it is more vague and mushy and sounds less threatening than “global government” or “world government.” Hence, there will be less political opposition mounted to “global governance” than “world government.”
“Global governance” came into vogue in the late 1990s, following the publication in 1995 of Our Global Neighborhood, a report of the UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance. That report attempted emphatically to assure readers that they had nothing to fear; they were not proposing world government. It claimed:
Global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of the terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government.
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan practiced the same semantic sleight-of-hand and false assurance at the UN Millennium Summit in New York City in 2000. In his report We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, Annan called for “new forms of global governance,” “a new ethic of global stewardship,” “global norms,” and “global rules” — all of which assume a role for the UN as global legislator.
Many of the political elites who formerly dismissed concerns that “global governance” is a ruse for “global government,” now matter-of-factly admit that they are one and the same. Jacques Attali, an ardent globalist and an adviser to former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, for instance, has said: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.”
This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."
He said, "Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words.
It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy."
David Rockefeller, a longtime leader at Bilderberg conclaves, was even more explicit when addressing the 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg group. Rockefeller stated:
We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.
What seemed outlandish to many people at the time, and was frequently dismissed as kooky "conspiracy theory," is being confirmed daily in unfolding events — and admissions from those who are causing the events to happen.
The world is changing dramatically, and the 'world order' is therefore changing too. The western powers of the United States and Europe are in decline, whilst China and Asia in general are on the rise. Many 'developing' countries, such as the BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China, are becoming more wealthy and more powerful than the established 'developed' economies of the west. Whereas the old international order saw the vast majority of power wielded by western powers, with America as the undisputed global superpower, a new multi-polar world is now emerging, with Asia as its power centre. This new order will indeed see the importance of international organisations increase. The imposition of Western rules and systems will be replaced by negotiated solutions reflecting the needs and desires of a much wider range of countries. Led by countries such as China, which has always opposed western interventionism, this new way is likely to emphasise national sovereignty and non-interference in other country's affairs. There is one group who has the most to lose from this change – the corporate and banking elite. – World News Curator
There is, from our perspective, an effort to create global governance and the only sensible conclusion to reach is that those who control central banks are behind it. Creating such a scenario demands not just consensus but the manufacturing of consensus on a worldwide level. That takes unfathomable financial resources.
The methodology is what we call directed history
and like you we have been successful at predicting certain evolutions because we apply our understanding of current events to the evolution of power elite
The development and application of such insights is useful in terms of understanding the world around us and also for practical purposes such as investment. Once one understands the central banking economy all sorts of possibilities emerge
Another prediction we made for a long time was that the Muslim Brotherhood was being deliberately empowered in the Middle East in order to create religious tension between East and West. This then allows for the further implementation of anti-terrorist legislation that is extremely invasive and drains freedom from the West. That's happening, too.
The idea is to generate increasing levels of control throughout society. The mechanism is mercantilism, which allows those at the very top to gain and keep virtually unlimited power, as they are exempt from the laws and regulations being inflicted on everyone else.
Another meme that the article promotes is that China and the BRICs generally are rising up and diminishing Western power. But this is by design, in our view.
Europe and the US, from what we can tell, are being brought down while Asia and certain developing countries like Brazil are being raised up. The tool in use is the central bank that can create both booms and busts almost at will.
The West's topmost elites, the ones that control central banking, are as firmly entrenched as ever, in our view. Those who will be inconvenienced by the efflorescence of global government will be a secondary tier of political, banking, military and industrial types – those who may believe they are among the "untouchables" but actually are not. They may find this out over time to their dismay.
As for the emergence of China and other powers to challenge Western "dominance" ... well, this also seems perfectly predictable and we don't believe that such an emergence is in any way an unforeseen or untoward development.
It is all part of what may be called directed history.
The creation of global governance demands all sorts of stresses and strains. Only from fear and chaos can a new global society emerge. Enemies are necessary. The Soviet Union is no more, so new enemies have to be identified.
Terrorists are one such enemy. The war on terror is very useful because it is an amorphous one that can be used in any of a number of ways.
A terrorist, after all, is someone who has been branded as such by government officials. In the 21st century, many people who believe in freer, smaller societies will be labeled (ironically) as terrorists. And many bankers and industrialists will be labeled as part of the world's controlling "elite."
The link above is actually a long video/audio clip from Infowars/Prison Planet and it is worth listening to. It is highly consistent with everything we are reading from other wide-spread sources.
Why is our administration arming Israel's enemies?
Congressman Ted Poe, R-Texas, says it is irresponsible for Barack Obama to be “arming” a country that may be aiming for the destruction of Israel with a shipment of 20 F-16 fighter jets.
“It is reckless and unwise for the U.S. to give F-16s to Egypt and its new president/dictator, controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood,” he told WND. “This extremist group is notoriously anti-American and anti-Israel. The United States should not be arming a country ruled by a group that has the destruction of Israel in its charter.”
Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan said, “American tax dollars must not be used to aid and abet any dictatorial regime that stands with terrorists,” and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said, “We should also be cautious about the arms we provide.”
Obama is proceeding with his plan to gift Egypt with 20 brand new F-16 fighter jets as part of a $450 million aid package promised to Egypt in 2010 when it was led by the U.S.-friendly Hosni Mubarak regime.
Now Egypt is governed by the openly hostile Muslim Brotherhood, which has called for the destruction of America and Israel. The new President Mohammed Morsi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, recently joined in a public prayer to the effect of “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, disperse them, rend them asunder.”
There are also the more philosophical issues that are thought by some to represent an inherent anti-American default position on the part of the president. The Muslim Prayer Day in 2009 is one such example.
Imams were permitted by Obama to hold a Muslim Prayer Day near White House premises in 2009, the same year Obama prohibited a similar Christian “Day of Prayer” despite the longstanding precedent for such gatherings
. One of the speakers at the event is on record saying, “We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become … Muslim house.”
The hypocrisy of it all is stunning. While screaming, “GUNS ARE BAD!” to American farmers, ranchers and citizens, the government is buying up billions of dollars worth of guns and ammo itself. This isn’t ammo to be used in a foreign theater of war, by the way, it’s ammo that can only be used domestically, against the American people. (The hollow point ammo violates international war treaties and so cannot be used in international war actions.)
To help us all visualize the hypocrisy in the government’s gun control schemes, I came up with our latest Counterthink cartoon.
In addition to purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow point .40 caliber ammo, the U.S. government has also purchased:
• Over one million rounds of hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
• Over half a million rounds of non-hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
• 220,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #7 ammo (target ammo)
• Over 200,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #00 buckshot ammo (tactical anti-personnel ammo)
• 66,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun slugs (tactical anti-personnel, anti-vehicle rounds)
• Over two million rounds of hollow-point .357 Sig JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
• Over four million rounds of .40 S&W JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
• Over 60,000 rounds of .308 match grade anti-personnel sniper rounds (BTHP)
• Plus, hundreds of thousands of additional rounds of .38 special, .45 auto, 9mm, 7.62×39 (AK rifle) ammo, and others.
The political and media side show that is the so-called “fiscal cliff” will soon be overshadowed by the appalling and rapidly deteriorating situation regarding the U.S. national debt.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has alerted Congress that the nation will once again hit the debt ceiling on Monday, but that his department can take “extraordinary measures” to keep paying the bills for another few months.
Incredibly, the debt ceiling was raised from $14.294 trillion in August 2011, to its current level of $16.394 trillion. Thus in the span of only sixteen months, the Obama administration has added a whopping $2.1 trillion to the national debt.
U.S. unfunded liabilities are now estimated at between $50 trillion and $100 trillion and by the end of the decade (in less than just 7 years), runaway entitlement spending will require shutting down the military or crippling many other vital domestic spending programs to head off massive deficits that will likely lead to a dollar crisis and significant inflation.
No matter what deal is eventually agreed, whether before or after the new year, it will at best nibble at the edges of the trillion dollar annual deficits that are being piled up.
The question we face in this era is: Will America be a nation essentially organized around traditional families, largely free of government restraint, where individuals generally seek to order their lives according to the inalterable moral norms of the Judeo-Christian tradition? Or will it be a nation where the traditional family is essentially extinct, where people are largely dependent on government for some of their most basic needs and where the inalterable moral norms of the Judeo-Christian tradition are generally flouted and sometimes even criminalized?
Whether that crisis results in America descending deeper into socialism and moral decay or a rebirth of traditional morality and limited government will depend greatly on whether there now emerge national leaders who understand what has happened to us and have the moral courage to speak it plainly.
We have to end today's news on a positive note:
Here it is, in full - couldn't have said it better myself:
Every year the week before Christmas, St. Peter's Church in Purcellville, VA hosts a "Blue Christmas" service. The aim is to offer a message of hope and comfort to those who might not be feeling so holly jolly during the holidays.
Heaven knows, there are many reasons to feel blue this Christmas. From the senseless, tragic loss of innocent life in New Town, CT, to the seemingly intractable political divide paralyzing our nation's capital, to the escalating tensions in the Middle East. It would be easy to give in to feelings of hopelessness, to let the long and dark December nights lull us into a mood of depression and despair.
Joseph and Mary no doubt felt this way as they found themselves preparing for the birth of their son in a cold barn on the road to Jerusalem. Those were dark days. But with the birth of one tiny child, hope was restored to a broken world.
Fr. Tom Simmons, rector of St. Peter's, explained why the birth of Jesus changed everything on a cold winter's night two millennia ago, and why it changes everything for us today:
"Jesus was in Isaiah's words, 'despised and rejected, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.' We cannot gather at the manger with the grimy shepherds and see this tiny baby without acknowledging that over Jesus' manger lies the shadow of the cross.
It's NOT the most wonderful time of the year in all the ways we measure wonderful, and yet in a strange way it is! It is the most wonderful time of the year not because you have to be cheery and happy and merry, but because you don't.
You can have heavy hearts, and shattered dreams, broken spirits and deep wounds. And that's right where God comes to meet you. To comfort you, to restore you, to strengthen you, to give you peace. To die for you. To walk out of the grave for you, to hold you in the communion of the saints with those you have loved and lost. To offer you life that lasts forever. It's the most wonderful time of the year, for Christ is born! Light and love have come. God is with us!"
Immanuel, the Lord is with us indeed. No matter what life throws at us, God's love is unfailing and never-changing. So to all who are in danger, sorrow, or any kind of trouble this Christmas season, to the sick, the friendless, and the needy, may the peace of the Lord be always with you. Amen.