Global Government Headed Your Way

     How many of you have heard of the "Strong Cities Network"?  Have any idea what it might be?  It sounds like something rather benign, doesn't it -- like a supportive group of interconnected towns for the greater benefit of all?  Well, let's step away from our normalcy bias and take a look at this program and how it might possibly lead to further loss of our God-given freedoms.
     As an excellent article on World Net Daily discloses, this signature program of the Obama administrative was unveiled at the United Nations at the end of last month.  The implied target of the Strong Cities Network is "violent extremism".
     Just one day before the mass murder in Roseburg, Oregon, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced to world leaders at the UN that the time has come for a more globalized and comprehensive effort to combat violent extremism. She said: “Until now, we have lacked that mechanism. We haven’t had the benefit of sustained or coordinated cooperation among the growing number of cities and municipalities that are confronting this ongoing challenge. Communities have too often been left isolated and alone. But through the Strong Cities Network that we have unveiled today, we are making the first systematic effort in history to bring together cities around the world to share experiences, to pool resources and to forge partnerships in order to build local cohesion and resilience on a global scale. Today we tell every city, every town and every community that has lost the flower of its youth to a sea of hatred – you are not alone. We stand together and we stand with you.”

     With New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio by Lynch's side, the pair were careful to stress that such "a global coalition of cities seeking to combat extremism and terrorism in all of its many forms would not profile Muslims."  But as the WND article pointed out, then who do they have in mind?  Shadram Hadian, a former Muslim and now a Christian Pastor, says it’s no coincidence that the project was launched at the United Nations.  "So who are they going to target when they talk about violent extremism?" asked Hadian, who grew up in Iran and now travels nationwide teaching churches and law enforcement about the dangers of Shariah law. “Well, if you look at their track record, it always seems to be that your violent extremists are your Christians, your veterans and your Second Amendment advocates.”  Wow!  That's a bold and courageous statement!
     Yet, the lack of media coverage in the U.S., and the obvious choice of the UN to unveil this program, certainly calls into question the explicit and precise motives of this global policing initiative.  As Paul McGuire, (a minister, author, and World News & End Times events expert) pointedly asks, "The question is Why?  This is massive because it’s such a contradiction to the Constitution, and there was no consultation with Congress, and they did a complete end-run around everything that our Constitution stands for."
     So we have to ask ourselves... are we seeing any signs of an agenda that seeks to identify other groups (besides Islamic jihadists) as extremists?  Both Hadian and McGuire suggest that the use of the term "violent extremism" is intended to "draw a moral equivalency among all religions, even though 99 percent of all religious-based violence in the world today involves Muslims killing non-Muslims."
     What concerns them (and should concern everyone of us) is the apparent attempt to 1)  negate Muslim radicals with violence in the U.S. and world;  2)  paint conservative, religious people as perpetrators of discriminatory violence,  and 3) at the same time ignore (or at least whitewash) the fact that Christians are increasingly becoming the targets of such violence.  We see any or all of these efforts in the "official" narratives of Roseburg, Oregon; Garland, Texas; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Oklahoma City; Fort Hood, Texas; and the Boston Marathon.  In each of those attacks, Muslims or Muslim sympathizers were identified as the attackers, with their targets being innocent Christians, civilians or the military.  And we mustn't forget that it was black Christians who were the targets of the racist, anti-Christian Dylan Roof in Charleston, South Carolina.
      So, why push the narrative that "violent extremism" covers a broad spectrum of people?  According to John Whitehead, a constitutional lawyer, it serves a purpose .... global government.  Now, with the Strong Cities Network, U.S. cities will be cooperating and “sharing resources” with foreign governments around the world. Local police are already training with FBI, DHS and even the military.  This administration's new program lays the groundwork for them to train with foreign police units under the banner of the U.N.
     Among the first steps taken will be to merge some of the law-enforcement capacities within regions, with U.S. cops cooperating more closely with those of Mexico and Canada, Whitehead said. He warns, “They’re working to fuse them together, so local autonomy, local authority, will be diluted and eventually eliminated.  They’re already globalizing; technology demands it."

     And what should be a lightbulb moment for every American is the use of the terminology "U.S. and international standards".  McGuire points out that the U.N. will always pick a “politically correct” situation in which to intervene.  It will not intervene to stop the slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, but it will intervene to protect transgenders, Islam or perceived racial bias by police, as when U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for the protection of civil rights during the Ferguson uprising in August 2014 even as rioters were looting, turning over police cars and burning buildings.
     But it is McGuire's next words that should be the lightbulb moment for every Christian in America:  “I believe we are now reaching a tipping point that is going to happen very soon,” he said. “It could happen overnight and most likely after a crisis event. The U.N. is already in control of a great deal, but we are going to see the U.N. come out of the shadows and openly exercise its authority over the United States. They will still have some kind of illusion of the United States for the masses, but I believe the elites are ready to bring global government out of the closet, and we’re going to see a very radical, aggressive change. They want to do this by 2030, and in Paris they’re going to announce another round of sweeping changes (in November) and then you look at all the trigger points, the Syrian war, the international debt crisis, etcetera.”  To underscore this point, the WND article revealed that two dozen cities have signed up including Paris, London, Mumbai, Montreal, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Denver, Tunis, Oslo, Beirut and Palermo, among others.
     So, is McGuire alluding to the opening of the beginning Seals in Revelation 6?  It certainly seems as if he is describing a Conqueror, conflict on the earth, and crises that could cause massive famine and death.  And all we have to do is look at the chaos in Europe from the mass immigration and refugee crisis.  World leaders, along with the Pope, seem to be taking us to that tipping point that McGuire warns about.
     Perhaps you think that my concern regarding the Strong Cities Network is overblown and mischaracterized.  In response, I would like you to consider these words by global elitist Henry Kissinger in an address at a Bilderberg meeting in Evian, France, May 21, 1991, (as transcribed from a tape-recording made by one of the Swiss delegates):  “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
     In my Biblical worldview, this statement certainly seems to suggest what we are told in Revelation Chapters 6-11 --- that the disasters and wars and civil unrest described in this portentous Book of the Bible will be so devastating, and create such a monumental global crisis, that people will embrace anything and anyone who promises to give them relief.  Once entrenched in power, the beast (Antichrist) and the power behind him (Satan) will move to establish absolute control over all peoples of the earth to accomplish their true end, the worship Satan has been seeking ever since being thrown out of heaven.  And as national and world events are showing us, the devil knows his time is short.
     But this is not the time for us to give in to fear and despair.  We have a part to play in this End Times scenario ... and that is to endure and spread the Word that there is power in the saving blood of Christ; and to use our Authority in His Name to cast down Satan's evil plans.  Our natural state is to live in the freedom that was bought by our Savior's sacrifice.  Let us reveal our true identity to the world and point the path to deliverance from this chaotic world... the path to Jesus!

Revelation 13:7    "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."

The World On Edge

     It took only a matter of hours after his speech at the United Nations for Russian President Vladimir Putin to act.  It was a speech that argued that "certain" nations had circumvented the U.N. charter and acted selfishly, resulting in a power vacuum in the Middle East that has been filled by Islamic terrorists.  It was a speech that charged "it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms."  He went on to say, "It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them."
     To sum up his speech, it was one that seemed to indicate not only veiled accusations against the U.S., but also proposed that the UN had out-lived its original purpose, and nations must come together and build a coalition against global terrorism.  But he also stressed that state sovereignty must be recognized, and seemed to indicate that where this sovereignty came into conflict with the UN charter, that a nation's autonomy and dominion ruled.
   

     So, as I said at the beginning of this blog post, it took a very short time for him to act on the latter proposition.  On Wednesday, Russia, without U.N. authorization, began airstrikes in Syria, and have since conscripted a reported 150,000 troops to begin a ground offensive.  Depending on whether you listen to U.S. spokesmen, or Russian, these attacks are designed to prolong the sectarian strife in the Middle East, or to begin a campaign for wiping out ISIS, which Russia says other world leaders have let go far too long.
     I certainly cannot offer an informed analysis on what is really behind the actions of global powers.  Since when has any government been truthful to its people during wartime?  All I know is that my Biblical worldview is becoming clearer.   In the battle of Ezekiel 38-39, the armies come primarily from the north and involve only a few nations of the earth.  I am not ready to declare that this is what we are seeing at the moment, but it certainly feels like we are headed in that direction.  Russia and Iran are definitely combining their efforts, supposedly to join forces to fight ISIS.  But has anyone given any thought to how this might eventually effect Israel?
     We must not forget the following statements from the leading military and religious leaders of Iran...  the major general of Iran’s army proclaimed this, "We will annihilate Israel for sure. We are glad that we are in the forefront of executing the supreme leader’s order to destroy Israel." And as for the Supreme Ayatollah, himself—a few days after the US/Iran nuclear deal was announced, he released his latest book.  It is a 400-page creed planning to destroy the state of Israel.  Last month, Khomeini once again made the genocidal intentions clear before Iran’s top clerical body, the Assembly of Experts.  He spoke about Israel—home to over 6 million Jews. He pledged, "There will be no Israel in 25 years."
     Therefore, I submit to you the words of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as he spoke before the United Nations General Assembly.  Netanyahu said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I have long said that the greatest danger facing our world is the coupling of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. I am gravely concerned that the nuclear deal with Iran will prove to be the marriage certificate of that holy union. I know that well-intentioned people sincerely believe that this is the best way to block Iran’s path to the bomb, but one of history’s most important, yet least learned lessons is this, the best intentions don’t prevent the worst outcomes. The vast majority of Israelis believe that this nuclear deal with Iran is a very bad deal. What makes matters even worse is that we see a world celebrating this bad deal ... Seventy years after the murder of 6 million Jews, Iran’s rulers promised to destroy my country, murder my people, and the response from this body, the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence.”
     Then Netanyahu made his point in a most dramatic way --- he stood silent for almost a minute.  And then he continued, “Ladies and gentlemen, it is not easy to oppose something that is embraced by the greatest powers in the world.  Believe me, it would be far easier to remain silent. But throughout our history, the Jewish people have learned the heavy price of silence. And as the Prime Minister of the Jewish state—as someone who knows that history, I refuse to be silent. I’ll say it again—the days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over...  For in every generation, there were those who rose up to destroy our people. In antiquity we faced destruction from the ancient empires of Babylon and Rome, and in the Middle Ages we faced inquisition and expulsion, and in modern times we faced the Holocaust, and yet the Jewish people have persevered, and now another regime has surfaced swearing to destroy Israel. That the regime would be wise to consider this, I stand here today representing Israel, a country 67 years young, but the nation state of the people nearly 4,000 years old. Yet, the empires of Babylon and Rome are not represented in this hall of nations, and neither is the thousand year Reich, those seemingly invisible empires are long gone, but Israel lives. The people of Israel live.”
     So, I ask you, what is the significance of Russia and Iran uniting to fight in Syria?  After all, these very nations are the ancient nations of Old Testament prophecies.  Gog, Magog (Russia), Persia (Iran) and the city of Damascus in Syria all play important parts in End Times eschatology.  And we must not ignore that Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and China are players to be considered, too.  So, has God begun to implement His judgment upon the earth?  Are these the first stirrings of the Tribulation?  No one can say.  But this much I do know ... if it is the beginning, it is all for God's glory and to call His nation Israel back to Him.  Just like America, the people of Israel [largely] do not recognize or worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The Talmud and Kabbalah are methods, Rabbinic teachings, and doctrines that originated in Judaism but often distort God's original Word, just as the Emerging Church and New Age religion have twisted the Church.
     We must not be surprised if war is a Divine factor in their awakening and redemption.  Whether it happens tomorrow, next week, next month, or several years from now, He will save His remnant ... He always has.  May that day come soon.

Isaiah 37:29    "Because you rage against Me and because your insolence has reached My ears, I will put my hook in your nose and My bit in your mouth, and I will make you return by the way you came."
   

Think Agenda 21 Abuses Our Freedoms? Take A Look At Agenda 2030!

     Thanks to the website, End of the American Dream, for providing the following exciting news (wink, wink).  Next month, the Pope is traveling to New York City to kick off a conference at the United Nations in which "The 2030 Agenda" will be presented to the world.

     We are all familiar with the "sustainable" aspects of the UN's Agenda 21, whose stated goal was to protect the environment in the form of a  "comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, governments and major groups, in every area in which humans impact the environment.”  This was conveniently encapsulated under a comprehensive objective called "climate change".

     Now, of course, it was also stated that such plans were non-binding, and voluntary, but someone forgot to tell the governments of the world (including ours) who have been trying to implement restrictions on the world's human population through Agenda 21 since its inception in 1992.  

     Under the guise of providing adequate shelter for all; promoting sustainable land-use planning and management; promoting sustainable energy and transport systems in human settlements; and other supposed moral objectives to care for the world's underprivileged, it is really all about terminating our private property rights in favor of confiscation and controlling the world's population and food supply... all voluntary, of course.

     But this new global initiative is being billed as "a new Universal Agenda for humanity".  In addition to addressing climate change, it also sets ambitious goals for areas such as economics, health, energy, education, agriculture, gender equality and a whole host of other issues.... in other words, the globalists want to usher in the One World Government that controls every aspect of our lives.  Think I'm kidding?  Here is a portion of the preamble of Agenda 2030:

     This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.

     All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want, and to heal and secure our planet. We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.

     The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.

     I don't know about you, but this sounds awfully forceful and authoritative to me.  When you read the 17 core goals of the Agenda, they sound utopian and idealistic ... things such as "End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture", and ... "Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all", or ... "Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels", and one more ... "Reduce inequality within and among countries."  Notice that the word "sustainable" is evident in nearly all of  them, while there is no mention of individual rights or how they are going to get individual landowners to cooperate. And this new agenda gives no perception that is voluntary, does it?

     You see individual liberty and freedom aren't really conducive to a "global initiative".  You can't have people doing what they want if you plan on controlling every aspect of their lives.  After all, it's "bad for the planet."  And you might be interested to know that one of the goals of the sustainable development globalists is to push the human population into giant “megacities” and to allow nature to recapture much of what has already been settled by humanity.  See where this is going?  They can't have people living in rural areas growing their own food, and living sustainable lives on their own!  They must be controlled!

     So no matter how the Pope or other world leaders try to soft sell the idea to us, we mustn't be fooled.  This is just the next phase of mankind's steady march towards a new world order and the sudden and powerful deception of the Anti-Christ.  But those of us who put our faith in Jesus Christ and are covered by His blood need not fear.  Our eternal freedom cannot be taken from us and we shall never disown or renounce our Savior.  The only thing that we need to sustain us is our Lord's Grace... and it will be sufficient.

To read more about Agenda 2030, and this new universal initiative for humanity, click here.

Psalm 2:1-3     Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” 

Hands Off The Alamo!

     For several years now, officials in San Antonio, Texas have been working with representatives from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to get the San Antonio Spanish Missions declared as "World Heritage Sites", and they feel victory is near.  This designation would also include the most famous and beloved of all the missions, the Alamo, which sits in the heart of downtown San Antonio.
   

     For those of you who are unfamiliar with the history of the Texas Republic, the Alamo is sacred ground.  The Alamo itself consists of the Alamo Chapel and the surrounding Plaza, where most of the fighting occurred during the 1836 Battle of the Alamo; and where 189 defenders sacrificed their lives for liberty instead of surrendering to the tyrannical Mexican president Antonio López de Santa Anna. The site has since become a shrine, representing those who were willing to fight for individual freedom in the face of collective evil.  Every Texas school child knows the history of the Alamo and millions of Texans pay homage to the site year-round.
     Those who favor making the Alamo a UNESCO World Heritage Site, point to the expected $100 million influx from world tourism, and the chance to become part of UNESCO's mission to "ensure the protection of the natural and cultural heritage of nations"; and to "encourage international cooperation in the conservation of our world's cultural and natural heritage".
     But here is my concern (along with others who are a little concerned about giving the United Nations any form of control over our national heritage sites):  when a country allows a historical site to be declared a World Heritage Site they must agree to sign on to the international treaty, known as the World Heritage Convention, and to agree to "establish management plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites."
     As expected, when a site becomes part of the UN's World Heritage organization, there is a manual to follow.  The manual states that it is “the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate” in managing World Heritage Sites, meaning that bureaucrats from foreign countries could well sit on a Board and determine the Alamo’s operation.  One of the “protection obligations” of a World Heritage Site is the requirement to “use the World Heritage logo,” meaning that the Alamo Plaza would be adorned with UN symbols.  And to me, the most disturbing facet of this whole idea is that the UN flag would fly over the Alamo, among the most hallowed ground in all of Texas, and a symbol of the rugged individualism and love of liberty that personifies the history of our great state.
     I'm sure it won't surprise those of you who are familiar with the UN's Agenda 21 policies to find that the manual also suggests strategies for restricting public access to heritage sites due to “environmental concerns” under the guise of “sustainable” tourism, both familiar buzz words reflecting Agenda 21 goals.
     But once again, I was flabbergasted to find that this attempt is nothing new; and in fact, there are already quite a few of our most treasured historical sites that are now flying the UN flag.  For instance, did you know that the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, and the Grand Canyon are UN World Heritage sites; or that Mount Vernon, George Washington's home in northern Virginia is vying for a nomination, and both the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma and Martin Luther King's Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery Alabama, have both been placed up for nomination jointly as 'Civil Rights Era Landmarks'?  At this rate, our sovereignty and national identity will be subjugated to a collective heritage belonging to the world.  Is anybody else thinking "One World Heritage"?
     I just think it is incredibly tragic that 179 years after our Texas heroes fought to the death to defend liberty, freedom and sovereignty, that their descendants would so willingly allow another flag to fly over the compound.  Perhaps they need to reconsider the last words from the commander of the Alamo, Lt. Colonel William Barrett Travis, and to rethink their own surrender of the Alamo to the United Nations.

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World—

Fellow Citizens & compatriots—

     I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna — I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man — The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken — I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls — I shall never surrender or retreat.  Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch — The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days.  If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country — Victory or Death.

William Barrett Travis.

Lt.  Col. comdt.

P. S.  The Lord is on our side — When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn — We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves.

Proverbs 19:21    "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand."

   




   




     

Senate Vote May Determine Your Parental Rights

     It's always a good idea to check up on what's going on behind the curtain.  Our nation is focused on our border crisis, while the world is focused on Russia and Ukraine, plus Israel and Hamas.  So what better time for our government to try to sneak through an adoption of a United Nations treaty?
     Specifically, it is called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).  I wrote a post on this same treaty back in December of 2012.  We have managed to avoid its adoption until now, but it looks like supporters in the UN and Congress are back, pushing harder than ever.  In fact, World Net Daily reports that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted this week to approve the treaty, 12-6.  Now it will go before the full Senate for a vote.
     The reasons this is a bad treaty are the same ones that made it unacceptable in 2012:  the treaty states that the term "disability" is an evolving concept (meaning they can make it whatever they want to control the populace);  the UN suggests that there are attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder the disabled from full and equal participation in society (which means they will just have to make those "barriers" go away, won't they?); and this is the most alarming position to me ... Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by their parents.
     Now, if the recent case of Justina Pelletier doesn't come to mind, then let me jog your memory.  WND.com sums up her experience best ... She was "taken into state custody after her own physician’s diagnosis of a health problem was overruled, [and] her parents were told they would no longer be able to determine her treatment and future."  Does this sound like she might possibly have been a test case to see how the American public would receive such mandates?  If so, the public outcry had to be discouraging to the UN.  So maybe that's why there is this sudden and furtive attempt to get the treaty passed while our attention is focused elsewhere?
     Remember that it was almost two years before her parents were able to fight through numerous court hearings to get her released back into their custody, and resuming the medical treatment that her own doctors prescribed.  Seems to me, that more and more parents would be facing the same struggle against the System in caring for their disabled children.  Who, in their right mind, would surrender their parental rights to a global entity?
     Apparently 146 countries have already signed this treaty.  There is no need for the U.S. to take part because our Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is perhaps the strongest piece of legislation in the world that guards the civil and legal rights of persons with disabilities.  It is our domestic and sovereign law that works better for our citizens than anything the global community could dictate.
    Here's an additional factor to consider: the UNCRPD requires each nation that adopts the treaty to provide educational benefits to the disabled.  The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) fears that the treaty would override states' rights in establishing their education policies, and possibly endanger homeschoolers.  As a spokesman for HSLDA told WND, "Remember Justina Pelletier? That’s what happens when the ‘best interests’ of the child are used" as an argument for changes to our sovereign laws.
     But just as I pointed out nearly two years ago, it all comes down to this ...  as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties may not be consummated with other than sovereign nations.  The 1945 ratification of the UN Charter as a treaty is effectively un-Constitutional, because the last time I looked, the UN is not a sovereign nation!
     But the recent Pelletier case shows us that they do not intend to give up.  The Pelletier family came very close to losing their individual and parental rights.  If the Senate decides to take up this treaty during a lame duck session and manages to ratify it in the coming weeks or months, everyone with disabled family members may suffer the same battles.  Let your Senators know that we are not easily fooled!

Job 12:23    "He makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away."


   

The U.N. And Our Southern Border

     

     So now the United Nations has weighed in on the crisis at our southern border.  And it certainly seems as if they are trying to manipulate our national policy regarding immigration.  By simply designating a new definition of "refugee", they are trying to coerce the United States into accepting the thousands of people that are flocking to our country from Central America. 

     If you're like me, when I hear the word "refugee", I think of the millions who have been forced to flee their homelands due to political wars, or ethnic and religious persecution, such as that in Syria, Iraq or Sudan.  And if you're the U.N., and trying to interfere with our internal policies, then the word "refugee" is a much easier sell than "illegal immigrant." 

     I guess our sovereign laws aren't good enough for the U.N.  It's not enough that these people are ineligible for asylum according to our existing laws.  The U.N. wants to create a new refugee status that fits the dynamics of the illegal immigrants, thereby giving us no excuse for denying them entry into the country.

     According to a report by CBS News, it is the hope of officials with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees that a meeting tomorrow between representatives from the U.S., Mexico, and Central America will result in an updating of a 30-year-old declaration regarding the obligations nations have to aid refugees.  That update would see "refugee" also defined as anyone fleeing armed conflict, or fleeing violence and extortion at the hands of criminal gangs.  

     Although any resolution coming out of this meeting would lack legal significance in the U.S., that doesn't stop the U.N. Commission from declaring that it believes  “the U.S. and Mexico should recognize that this is a refugee situation, which implies that they shouldn’t be automatically sent to their home countries but rather receive international protection.”

     Excuse me, but where is the "international" part of this solution?  All the burden is going to land right at our feet.  Mexico certainly won't be doing their share ... in fact, they are aiding the transportation of these poor people right to our doorstep.  It's quite obvious that these illegal immigrants will not become citizens of the international community or any other nation, for that matter.  

     I guess I just don't understand why the U.N., and leaders of Central American countries think it is incumbent upon us to become the receptacle for anyone who wants to enter our country.  It seems to me that El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador and Nicaragua have failed to control the violence and gang-related terrorism in their countries, and it is they who are responsible for the hundreds of thousands of people who are fleeing their homes.  Why are we responsible for their failures?  During a recent visit to the U.S., Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez said migrants from his country were “displaced by war” and called on the United States to acknowledge that.  I guess "acknowledging" it really means "take care of them".

     And just what is the ultimate goal for the politicians in Washington D.C.?  Is it Amnesty for all these illegal immigrants?  Is it to flood Texas with potential new voters that will turn the state into a never-ending Democrat-voting machine?  Is there no consideration for the brutality that these people are subjected to on their march north?  And what exactly is the thinking behind dropping busloads of them on unsuspecting towns throughout the U.S.?  And the big, fat, ugly elephant in the room is the fact that we all know that it is not just innocent children and families that are being let in.  Why not just hang a Welcome sign at the border, inviting in the drug cartel members and terrorists?

     Frankly, I'm not seeing anyone doing anything to solve this problem.  Yes, it is a "humanitarian crisis", as the news media and the politicians like to call it --- but it is much more than that.  It could become the catalyst that finally destroys our economy, our national security and our sovereignty.  And who is going to stop it?  We better be praying to God for an answer soon.

Proverbs 19:21    "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand."

      

And The World Watches ....

     It is almost unfathomable to consider that chemical warfare is happening in Syria.  How far has mankind fallen in its evil ways to gas innocent people?  And I guess it shouldn't surprise us that the world leaders are at odds; they can't agree on which side [in the 2 1/2 year civil war] is lying about the chemical attack.  In the meantime, Damascus is crumbling into chaos.

     They can't even settle on a death count, with estimates ranging from 500 to 1,300 in the rebel-held neighborhoods of the Syrian capital.  And wouldn't you know it .... the United Nations fell short of calling for an investigation; instead settling for "clarity" on the issue by the blue helmets who are on the ground in Syria.  I don't know-- maybe it's just me.  But exactly what purpose does the U.N. serve?
     According to Wikipedia, the United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims include "promoting and facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, political freedoms, democracy, and the achievement of lasting world peace."  Not exactly living up to their claim, are they?
     Because the major powers that sit on the U.N. Security Council cannot agree on who is responsible for these "alleged" chemical attacks, they have been unable to release an official statement.  In fact, Reuters reports that an earlier Western-drafted statement submitted to the council, seen by Reuters, was not approved. The final version of the statement was watered down to accommodate objections from Russia and China, diplomats said. Moscow and Beijing have vetoed previous Western efforts to impose U.N. penalties on Assad.

     Well guess what?  The people who are dying in the streets of Damascus don't really give a damn about an "official statement"!  But their voices are not heard on the Security Council!    Here's just how ridiculous the world leaders look:  Russia backed up Syrian government denials by saying it looked like a rebel "provocation" to discredit Assad.  But the British Foreign Secretary voiced the opposite view: "I hope this will wake up some who have supported the Assad regime to realize its murderous and barbaric nature."
     And where does our noble nation stand?  It's a little hard to figure out.  The President has made the use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces a "red line" that in June triggered more U.S. aid to the rebels.   Yet, he has opposition within Congress who feel that this "red line" has been crossed in the past with no consequences, so what effect do we really have?  It is anemic at best.
     In the meantime, images are crossing news desks around the world that show scores of bodies - some of them small children - laid on the floor of a clinic with no visible signs of injury. Some showed people with foam around their mouths.  Independent reports confirm that doctors have treated hundreds of people with typical symptoms displayed by nerve gas victims.
     But here is the rub, so to speak:  Syria is one of just a handful of countries that are not parties to the international treaty that bans chemical weapons, and Western nations believe it has caches of undeclared mustard gas, sarin and VX nerve agents.  So what exactly does the Security Council of the United Nations think they are going to do?  Seems to me, it is the same ol' axiom .... Nero fiddles, while Rome burns.  Except in this case, it is hundreds of innocent women, children and elderly citizens; whole families that are suffering while world leaders jockey for position.

Isaiah 17:1    "The burden against Damascus. “Behold, Damascus will cease from being a city, And it will be a ruinous heap."
      

The U.N. and Our Divided Faith

   

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is back in the news.  Just a couple of days ago, on Tuesday, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the first international treaty attempting to regulate the $60 billion global small arms trade.  While none would argue that arms dealers have contributed to terrorism and despotic actions across the globe, there are those who are concerned that such far-reaching global legislation could infringe upon the sovereign rights of nations, and lead to a backdoor attempt to disarm and suppress free societies.
     I, for one, do not cotton to the idea that the United Nations makes laws for me, an American citizen. This regulatory statute is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the United States of America.  Period.  Supreme means superior to all others.  How hard is that to understand?  There's no room in that statement for another governing body to interject its authority into our business.
     While conservative leaders in Congress vow to keep this external law from being ratified as domestic law, there are religious evangelical leaders who are calling for its approval.  The Christian Post reported that Christian leaders from several organizations gathered in New York on March 27 for a prayer service over the Arms Trade Treaty currently being reviewed by world leaders.
     Paul de Vries, President of the New York Divinity School said, "One of the goals here is to reduce the trafficking of these weapons, which has often resulted in Muslim terrorist groups having tremendous amounts of weapons to bring down or to weaken Christian nations in Africa and other places. This is a small effort, because it is hard to enforce these things – it's really more spiritual warfare than having something on paper."  Please believe me, when I say that I would never question Dr. de Vries' sincerity or belief that he is approaching this matter from a spiritual perspective. 

     Now I will agree that there is a tremendous spiritual war being waged.  No doubt about it.  But a simple treaty is not going to stop Evil in its tracks.  Another important issue that these Evangelical leaders are focusing on is the despicable practice of child soldiers in Africa and they think that somehow that genie can be put back in the bottle with this treaty.  "We pray that God will guide the decision process so that a strong treaty is adopted that will contribute to peace and safety for all people, and especially for those who live in the most violent corners of the globe," read a leaflet from the prayer event.
     And in response to those who (like me) are expressing concerns that it is going to trample on Americans' 2nd Amendment rights, this group of prayerful leaders believe that the Small Arms Treaty will only focus on countries where the illegal trade of weapons and ammunition is very high, and will not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights for Americans.  Galen Carey, Vice-president at the National Association of Evangelicals said, "The treaty says that there is no regulation of domestic weapons or gun ownership or sales and so we believe that those who have those concerns need not worry. Our second amendment rights will in no way be compromised."  He went on to remind critics that "the U.S. already has some of the strictest controls on international arms exports, while maintaining unparalleled protection for the rights of individual citizens to own guns."
     With all due respect, are they living on the same planet that I am?  Have they paid attention to the regulation efforts in Colorado and those currently before our Congress?  And do they really not see the writing on the wall?
     Here is another of Carey's naive statements:  "The treaty can make it much more difficult for gangsters, rebel groups or even governments who oppress their own people to purchase weapons on the international market, if these regulations were to go into effect. It would make it harder and more expensive for them to get these weapons, and less weapons means less people will be harmed".
     Excuse me, but I'm one of the faithful who believe that the Devil is in the details.... literally.  I find it hard to believe that they really think governments who want to oppress their own people will humbly and honestly follow any treaty that doesn't further their agenda.  Have they read their Biblical history lately?  And governments never lie to their people, right?
     It's for the children this group of devout Evangelicals claim.  Make no mistake, I abhor the atrocities inflicted upon innocent children in the name of terrorism.  But, I, too, am thinking of the children; of all the children who may lose the opportunity to be born into a self-governing, free nation that was established by the hand of God if this treaty is adopted by the U.S.  We may share the same faith in a loving God, but our trust in earthly dominions is worlds apart.

Galatians 5:1      "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." 
 

2012 in Review: The UN And The Threat To U.S. Sovereignty

     I think this topic is the one that concerns me the most.  Perhaps because the UN's headquarters sits on US soil, I feel they threaten our sovereignty and I fear their authority in our national affairs.  To begin with, why did we need the UN to monitor our elections?  And as a follow-up to that question, does anyone think they did a good job?

     And in case you thought the UN Small Arms Treaty was defeated last July, never to be seen again, well, I have a little surprise for you.  Right before Christmas, The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to restart negotiations on a draft of the international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global trade in conventional arms.  Apparently, the Obama administration was willing to let it slide last year when he feared that the Romney campaign could effectively use his support for the treaty against him.  Now that he has won re-election, it looks like it is "full steam ahead". 

     As it did in July, the United States voted to accept this treaty.  According to Reuters, Obama administration officials have tried to explain to U.S. opponents of the arms trade pact that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on gun sales and ownership inside the United States because it would apply only to exports.  But I think we all know where the Administration is headed, with their talk of an assault weapons ban.  In case you doubt my reasoning, just last month an unnamed U.S. official told Reuters, "We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms."  What would you call what Senator Feinstein is proposing?

     The Small Arms Treaty is not the only invasion of U.S. sovereignty being promoted by the U.N.  In a thinly disguised appearance of protecting the oceans and marine environment, the U.N. is pushing what has become known as "Agenda 21", or it's other commonly used description, "Sustainable Development".  In a nutshell, Agenda 21 is the springboard for an action plan that would inventory every nation in the world's environmental impact on coastal lands, waterways, land development, energy allocations and mineral processing.  Once inventoried, the U.N. could then decide to control national, regional and local policies, should they decide they are not "equitable" to other nations.  Many interpret this to mean a possible threat to individual property rights. 

      If you are not already aware, many of our national parks now fall under the jurisdiction of the U.N.  Note the sign at the entrance to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park which reads "AN INTERNATIONAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE."  And if you've recently visited one of our national parks, did you notice how many wilderness areas are already being closed to the public?  Roads inside the parks are disappearing, being given over to grazing lands.  Mountain passes and hiking paths are being blocked and access is restricted.  Have you also noticed the increasing number of "No fishing," "No hunting," and "No trespassing" signs on public lands?  We are being kept from our own national treasures by the U.N.!   

     These U.N. agendas are all part of an effort to institute a one-world global government that would rid sovereign nations of their ability to control their own destinies.  Do your own research on these programs, and I believe you will find the devil in the details..... literally.

1 Peter 5:8    "Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour."

U.S. Spared Another UN Treaty --- For Now

     I must admit that I was surprised (and elated) to hear that the U.S. Senate blocked the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.  And you probably guessed it, since Republican Senators were the ones instrumental in stopping the passage of yet another attempt by the U.N. to supersede the U.S. Constitution, they were labeled uncaring, insenstive, and anti-every group except old, rich, white men.
     If the Progressive bleeding-hearts who supported this treaty would just take a step back and look at this thing logically, they might realize that going along with this piece of legislation was quite unnecessary, besides being completely unconstitutional.  After all, the treaty was modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA is a wide-ranging civil rights law which prohibits discrimination based on disability. ADA is considered the "Civil Rights Act of 1964 for people with disabilities," and the blueprint for effective protection of rights around the world.  The U.S. has the most robust laws protecting the disabled in the world, so why do we need to join forces with the UN?

     Just reading some of the items of the Preamble to this treaty, gave me the creeps.  For example, item E reads .... Recognizing that disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others (emphasis is mine) .... tells me that the UN is deliberately refusing to define "disability"; perhaps to incorporate a much broader interpretation in order to control more aspects of social programs and national policies.  The use of "attitude" and "environmental" as possible barriers should give you an idea where they are headed.  My fear is that their goal is to eventually include economic, social and cultural considerations under the banner of "disabled."
     But the most chilling concept of this treaty was buried a little over a third into it, namely Article 18, Item 2:  Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by their parents.  You read that correctly.  If you, an American citizen, give birth to a disabled child (and remember, "disabled" is an evolving condition), then you would be required to register your child with the UN.  What if, in 5 or 10 years, the UN decides that "disabled" includes a child with learning disabilities, or a child that suffers from chronic hay fever due to those darned "environmental barriers that hinder her from full and effective participation" in outdoor play.  After all, if the child can't read "on an equal basis with others", or run and play "on an equal basis with others", then what's to keep that child from being labeled "disabled"?  Read it --- it's there in Item E (above).
     And do you really want your child on some register that the government and the UN can monitor?  And then determine that you are not able to adequately "know or care" for your child? In effect, under this treaty, your rights and authority as a parent can be taken over by a global entity.  But the bleeding hearts don't tell you that aspect of the treaty, do they?
     What's more, according to Article 9, Item 1a, measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to: Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces.  That means every homeowner would have to make their house accessible for citizens with disabilities.
     As frightening and Orwellian as this treaty sounds, I am most dismayed at the thought that our legislators would even consider giving up U.S. sovereignty and self-government for UN compliance.  Since this is an international and global treaty, the U.S. (make that the U.S. taxpayer) would have to fund disability programs around the world.  And after wading through the treaty (see link above), I'm still unclear if it would become the law of our land.  I guess the fact that it is unclear makes it potentially possible.  In fact, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to spin this pact as a "positive rights" treaty, saying, "Ratification would require no changes to U.S. law, as the United States already leads the world in promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities."  First of all, I believe he made my point that we already have adequate laws.  But he's disingenuous in the fact that it might not change U.S. law, but could give the UN authority and power over U.S. law.  That's not a chance I'm willing to take.
     But the fact that this was presented to our governing body, the Senate, as a treaty makes no sense to me.  Protection of the rights of the disabled is important; that's a given.  But it is a matter of domestic U.S. law.  It is not a foreign relations matter and therefore should never have been introduced as a "treaty", which needs ratification by two-thirds of the Senate.  And speaking of "treaties", I'm going to leave you with this final thought ....  as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties may not be consummated with other than sovereign nations.  The 1945 ratification of the UN Charter as a treaty is effectively un-Constitutional, because the last time I looked, the UN is not a sovereign nation.
     We've been lulled into complacency regarding our Constitutional rights.  Heck, we don't even know our Constitutional rights!  We have recklessly trusted those who represent us to safeguard those rights for us, and we've slept while thieves robbed us blind.  We got lucky this time --- we dodged a bullet with this particular "treaty", but don't think the UN (or their New World Order minions) will give up that easily.  Senators Reid, Kerry, Lugar and McCain have voiced their hope that "the Senate will reconsider this treaty soon in the next Congress."  Let's stay on our toes, Americans.  They are coming for our sovereignty and our individual rights!

Proverbs 26:23-25    "Like a coating of silver dross on earthenware are fervent lips with an evil heart. Enemies disguise themselves with their lips, but in their hearts they harbor deceit. Though their speech is charming, do not believe them .... "

U.S. Voter Fraud and the U.N.

     With the stakes so high in this 2012 election, any informed citizen has got to be concerned about voter fraud.  Who can forget the endless vote recounts in the 2000 Bush/Gore election?  Then there was the contested and heated 2008 Senate race in Minnesota between Republican candidate Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken.  I don't want to bore you with statistics, but the numbers tell a compelling story.

     On the morning after that election, with over 2.9 million votes counted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.  Of course, with the results that close, lawyers for Franken descended; multiple recounts were done and eight months later, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes.  It was only natural that questions were raised, and a conservative group called Minnesota Majority started looking into the possibility of voter fraud.  What they turned up was 1,099 felons who voted in the contested election.  That's 1,099 ineligible voters. Minnesota Majority took their findings to different lawyers; all uninterested in pursuing their claims.  However, Minnesota law requires that such voting irregularities be investigated.  To date, 243 people have either been convicted of voter fraud or are awaiting trial --- this is in an election that was won by only 312 purported votes.
     In case you're saying this is just par for the course; there has always been election fraud to some degree or another, I want to remind you that Al Franken cast the 60th vote that overcame a Republican filibuster and resulted in Obamacare becoming law.  So voter fraud does matter!
     Of course, there are those who say that voter fraud doesn't exist.  It is just a pretense to engender Voter ID laws, which they claim disenfranchise the poor, the elderly and minorities (not to mention illegal aliens who aren't even citizens!)  But there are increasing reports of people voting twice, voting in multiple states, and even voting after they are dead!  But, oftentimes, with only a $50 fine and 3 hours of community service as their judgment, there's just not a whole lot of risk for those who are enticed to break the law.
     So I guess it should come as no surprise that monitors from the United Nations will now be looking over our shoulders as we exercise our American and Constitutional right to vote.  The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a U.N.-affiliated group, will be "looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups, a concern raised by civil rights groups."  Just who are these "civil rights groups" that are so concerned about the legitimacy of our election process?

     According to Andrew Bolton, a writer for The Hill, they include the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU, among other groups, who warned this month in a letter to a senior official with OSCE, of “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans — particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”  Bolton goes on to say that 44 monitors from countries like Germany, France, Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan will "monitor an array of activities, including potential disputes at polling places." The OSCE says that it will "observe the overall election process, not just the ballot casting.”
     They are focusing on a number of areas on the state level, "including the legal system, election administration, the campaign, the campaign financing [and] new voting technologies used in the different states,” said OSCE spokeswoman Giovanna Maiola.
     The obvious question for me, as I'm sure it is for many of you, is how the hell did the United Nations gain jurisdiction and authority over our elections?  Why, if voter fraud is suspected (by anyone of either Party), would we not clean our own house?  Eligibility to vote is determined by both the federal and state governments.  I can easily see the Federal government giving access to U.N. monitors, but where are the States?  Is the average legitimate voter aware that the U.N. is involved in our election process?  Many independent and liberty-minded groups are standing up and monitoring the monitors.  American volunteers will be standing alongside European observers from the U.N.  Our Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves!
     But maybe not.  They were a lot wiser and more discerning than we are.  It was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"  The civil rights groups, the U.N. and the European hirelings may think they represent Democracy and are looking for an easy lunch.  But they underestimate just how much we Americans love our Liberty.  We are just as interested in seeing that this election is not pilfered as the wolves who would steal it.  We are still the United States of America, not a servant of the United Nations.

Leviticus 19:11       "Do not steal.  Do not lie.  Do not deceive one another. "
   

IMPORTANT INFO! Smart Meters Are Coming To Your Neighborhood!

     For awhile now, I have been concerned about the installation of "Smart Meters".  What are they?  One of the best explanations I've seen was on the website, earthcalm.com, a site that monitors the dangers from electronic and magnetic fields.  Their definition reads:  "Smart Meters are electric and gas meter reading devices being installed all over the US as a first step in creating a national smart grid. Designed to enhance energy efficiency and make widespread adoption of renewable energy easier, Smart Meters are radio transmitters that communicate data from homes and businesses to the gas and electric company through a matrix of radio signals. They allow people [and eventually, the government] to measure and monitor their own energy consumption in order to reduce it."  In other words, we are supposed to hale the advent of these new devices as a way to monitor and reduce our energy costs, while saving the planet.

     You want the truth?  They are part of the U.N.'s "sustainable development" and Agenda 21 plan of action.  The installation of these meters is being mandated across the nation by the federal government, and stimulus money is providing the funding.  However, one finds out that the law asking for smart meters and a smart grid, (Energy Policy Act of 2005), only mandates the utilities to "offer" the meters and to install them "upon customer request.” The choice is still supposed to be ours.  However, what I am about to tell you will show that we are being offered no choice at all!
     In case you think I am just responding to my normal conspiracy bias, let me tell you what I encountered just yesterday.  I noticed the Grid One company truck entering my property and the meter reader approaching my utility pole.  I met him at the pole and asked why they were no longer reading the meter from the highway.  The utility representative could barely speak English (that's another issue I could speak to!), and was only able to tell me that "Next year, everyone will get Smart Meters."  I tried to question him further, but he had no answers.  Now my radar was up!
     I went to the internet and started doing my research, and I was astonished to find that citizen activists all over the nation are fighting the forced installation of these so-called "smart growth" energy devices.  There are areas of the country that are under assault; their rights are being violated as older analog meters are removed and they are forced to accept the new Smart Meters.  With a smart meter on your home or property, your kilowatt hours will be billed at different rates during different times of the day.  Mary Hendry, of Lakeland, FL wrote in an article, "“Basically, you can't cook, bathe, run the washer or dryer, have heat or air conditioning until after 9 at night, or you are spending too much on electricity. If a mom is trying to keep the electric bill down, I see her bedtime being around 2 a.m. most nights.”  She explains that with her utility company, the three main time categories are on-peak, mid-peak and off-peak....  and peak time is almost twice as expensive as off-peak."
     And what we're not being told is the harm to our health from these "smart" devices.  Hendry's article goes on to tell us, "There are already hundreds of thousands of cases against various utility companies because of the deleterious health effects of smart meters.  The symptoms and illnesses range from nausea, vomiting and tinnitus to heart arrhythmia and cancer due to the radio frequency waves and electromagnetic frequency they emit.  In fact, studies done on the same kind of waves emitted by smart meters show them to be equal to a level two carcinogenic."  And earthcalm.com has a very informative article stating all their research on the health risks of the smart meters.

     Citizens across the country are rightfully concerned and up in arms over this violation to our Constitutional rights.  In one case, in Houston, TX, a citizen literally had to protect herself from a Utility Company enforcer.  Thelma Taormina was home the day the utility company tried to install a smart meter.  An article at newamerican.com describes the encounter experienced by the 912 Project activist.  When the public-utility subcontractor showed up to install the meter, Thelma informed him she didn't want it; that he was trespassing on her property, and she asked him to leave.  He refused.  Words were exchanged.  He called his supervisor; she called her husband.  He was asked to leave several more times; he continued to refuse and to install the meter.  Their encounter escalated and the subcontractor shoved her.  She put her hand on the meter to stop him, and more shoving ensued.  He threatened to call the police, and then suggested she do it, because he would be through installing the device by the time they arrived.  She had enough.  She felt threatened by his physical actions, and he refused to leave her property when asked.  So being a Concealed Carry Permit holder, she gained access to her gun and asked him to leave again.  This time he complied.
     This story has made national headlines, and according to Thelma, been sensationalized by all the Second Amendment haters.  The subcontractor did call the police in the hopes of filing assault charges.  They came, questioned Thelma, and determined that no charges would be filed.  The man was trespassing and did not leave when requested.  So for the time being, Thelma is through with the incident.  (Some personal advice?  Next time, Thelma, you should be the first one to call the police.  You were the victim, and by delaying, you made the utility employee look like the victim.)  So while Thelma still does not have a smart meter, the Public Utility is still considering the pursuit of legal action..... some nonsense about being "troubled that someone would pull a gun on an employee trying to do their job." Although Thelma was successful in resisting the installation of her Smart Meter, over 2,000,000 have been installed in the Houston area.... even though Texas state law does not mandate the meters.  
     So my question to you is this:  Do you know where your public utility stands on this issue?  What are your state laws?  Do you know the steps to resist the installation should you decide to opt out?  Do your research!  This is not just happening in Texas or Florida or California.  It is nationwide!  Don't fall for the propaganda.  This is more than the advancement of technology; it is Big Brother and the U.N. controlling how we live our lives.  Be informed and take your stand!

Colossians 1:28-29      "Him we preach and proclaim, warning and admonishing everyone and instructing everyone in all wisdom, that we may present every person mature in Christ. For this I labor, striving with all the superhuman energy which He so mightily enkindles and works within me."

UN General Assembly In Review

     This past week, the major players involved in the world unrest were in New York to speak before the U.N. General Assembly.  They made both "official" speeches and gave formal interviews throughout the week.  We should not turn a deaf ear to their communications.  Words have meaning and significance.  Even this brief glance at some of their remarks should give us a clue towards their intentions.  Carefully consider what these leaders had to say:

 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:  
He called for a "new world order", free of the domination of the ruling big powers.  “Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus” and other religions and cultures could live in harmony and peace if it weren’t for the “arrogance and hegemony of the ruling minority [and its] oppressive international order.”

Meeting with reporters before his U.N. speech, the Iranian President said Iran has been in existence for a thousand years, while the nation of Israel has only existed for 60 or 70 years.  "They (Israel) have no roots there in history."  Could he be any more wrong?  He further intimated they have no place in the Middle East and "must be eliminated."

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi: 
He called upon the U.N. to once again grant a Palestinian state and condemn Israel.  He also asked the General Assembly to consider international action to limit speech that defames religions.  In this sentiment, he was joined by the President of Yemen, who said, "There should be limits for freedom of expression, especially if such freedoms blaspheme the beliefs of nations and defame their figures."

All this "freedom of speech" rhetoric comes on the heels of the cheesy film that has been used as the scapegoat for inciting the recent violence against our Ambassador and three others in Libya.  There are starting to be rumors around the net, that this film was a set-up; the low quality suggesting that a terrorist affiliate made it for the express purpose of sparking outrage.  It will be interesting to see if this story grows legs.  If true, it provided a convenient excuse to blame the West for pre-planned protests, violence, and terrorist attacks.

President Barack Obama:
In keeping with the "freedom of speech" theme, our President made the statement, "The laws governing the flow of information on the internet are obsolete."  What concerns me about this approach is the fact that he missed an opportunity to denounce radical Islamic terrorism in the killings of our Ambassador and security personnel; instead choosing to use this cheap film as a justification to crack down on internet speech.


The President also proclaimed, "The war in Iraq is over, and our troops have come home.  We have begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014. Al-Qaida has been weakened, and Osama bin Laden is no more. Nations have come together to lock down nuclear materials, and America and Russia are reducing our arsenals."

     I am afraid I don't find great comfort in these words.  Our transition in Afghanistan finds more of our troops dying from Al-Qaida "insiders" within the ranks of the Afghan Security Forces.  In light of these events and the possibility that Al-Qaida was involved in provoking the death of Ambassador Stevens, I respectfully disagree that they are "weakened."  General John Allen (who succeeded David Petraeus as Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan) is publicly stating that Al-Qaida is resurging.  It's not only too early, but disingenuous, to proclaim that this terrorist organization is dwindling.
     Also, the fact that Iran is continuing with their nuclear program contradicts the statement that "nations are locking down nuclear materials".  And I find no peace of mind in the thought that we would willingly reduce our number of nuclear warheads; that we would trust the Russians or anyone else to not take advantage of our vulnerability.
   

     Finally, I cannot conclude this post without considering the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
For those at the U.N. who refute the claim that Israel has no biblical or historical roots in the region, he said, "Three thousand years ago, King David reigned over the Jewish state in our eternal capital, Jerusalem. I say that to all those who proclaim that the Jewish state has no roots in our region and that it will soon disappear... The Jewish people have come home. We will not be uprooted again. "

He also had a message for those members of Islamic terrorism organizations:  "Forces of radical Islam...are bent on world conquest. They want to destroy Israel, Europe, America. They want to end the modern world...Their intolerance is directed first at their fellow Muslims, and then to Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t submit to their unforgiving creed. It’s not whether this fanaticism will be defeated. It’s how many lives will be lost before it’s defeated." 

He then confronted his nation's standoff with Iran:  "For the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it’s an inducement... Ayatollah Rafsanjani said, "The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything there, however it would only do partial harm to the Islamic world."  The religious leaders of Iran are willing to sacrifice their own people to destroy Israel.

Netanyahu ended his speech with an appeal to biblical values:  "We heed the words of the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Amos, and Jeremiah to treat all with dignity and compassion, to pursue justice and cherish life and to pray and strive for peace. These are the timeless values of my people and these are the Jewish people’s greatest gift to mankind."

The people of the world need to carefully scrutinize the words of these world leaders.  They currently hold the peace and the future of the planet in their hands.  Which of these men do you trust?  Whose remarks sound like they truly want world peace?  Do their words give you confidence; provide you with assurance that they will take the world in the right direction?  There is only one word of all these remarks that resonates with me ..... and that word is "pray".   Pray for hearts to be changed; pray for evil to be defeated; pray for a desire for peace to invade the land.  That single word has so much power, and it may be the only message of hope we have.

Jeremiah 42:2-3       "Jeremiah the prophet said to him, “Please hear our petition and pray to the Lord your God for this entire remnant. For as you now see, though we were once many, now only a few are left.  Pray that the Lord your God will tell us where we should go and what we should do."

Are We Doomed To Repeat History?

     We are all familiar with the sayings History repeats itself because the world doesn't learn, and Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.  I'm afraid that we are about to prove that these clichés are more truth than fabrication.  I have long been fascinated with the circumstances that led to the outbreak of WWII, and stumbled upon a very informative two-part article on a German website, (Spiegel Online International) titled The Road To WWII; Why Wasn't Hitler Stopped.  After reading it, I couldn't help but notice an alarming number of similarities with what is taking place today.

     The article is an extensive look at what it was like in the days before WWII.   It explored a lot of questions that I have often wondered about.  Since Hitler was the embodiment of Evil, what were the signs that war was inevitable?  What was he saying, and what were the world's leaders doing or saying in response?  What were the efforts to appease him, and were his threats taken seriously?  It has only been 73 years since Hitler invaded Poland, resulting in a six-year war that claimed 60 million lives.  Could he have been stopped before Poland fell, and what can history teach us about what the world faces today?
     Let me expound on my trail of thoughts.  Europe in the summer of 1939 resembles the Middle East in 2012.  From the ashes of defeat in WWI, Hitler and his Foreign Ministry wanted to take advantage of the postwar instability and called for a fast and comprehensive military buildup.  They wanted to dominate Europe, and Hitler set his sites on the invasion of Poland as his means of demonstrating Germany's emerging strength and dominance.  Naturally, the swift rise of the German dictator's powerful military caused unease and tension in neighboring countries and the world.
     It does not take a mental giant to see the similarities with what we are facing in the Middle East. The nation of Iran is pursuing a nuclear program at breakneck speed, and it is putting the nations of the world on edge.  No one believes that it is for peaceful means alone.  Furthermore, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly threatened the nation of Israel.
    It was well known in the German Foreign Ministry that Hitler was "not a man of logic or reason."  The same could be said of Ahmadinejad.  Although, technically, Germany found itself isolated internationally, it had no problems finding willing partners to help establish a new order over Europe.  Italy's fascist dictator Mussolini, wanted a share of the pie for himself, and unholy alliances were made. Today we see the same scenario in the Middle East.  Countries are aligning themselves in shaky alliances, all with one goal in mind:  to wipe Israel off the map.
     As the Western European countries tip-toed around Hitler and his growing bravado, he continued with his massive military buildup and increased his words and rate of aggression.  He greedily eyed the raw materials, mineral resources and gold and foreign currency reserves in neighboring Czechoslovakia, and proclaimed that there was a "Czechoslovakia problem that had to be rectified." Hitler loved to bluff, but there soon came a day that he removed all restraint.  He openly declared that it was his "staunch desire to wipe Czechoslovakia off the map."  Sound familiar?
    Europe feared that an impending war was eminent, yet no one would stand up to Hitler.  Worse yet, no nation came to the aid of Czechoslovakia, who like Israel, was the only true democracy in the region.  While other nations in Europe hemmed and hawed and deferred to England, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (according to the article) sought to appease Germany by fulfilling its wishes, provided they appeared legitimate and were not enforced with violence.  This sounds eerily like the U.N. continuing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, letting them continue with their threats toward Israel, as long as it's not enforced with violence....YET!  

     Historians have long debated the reasons why European powers looked the other way; why they continued to appease Hitler when he so demonstrably announced his goals.  And by the way, Hitler found their conciliatory tones contemptible, just as Ahmadinejad views the West as weak.  In WWII, Czechoslovakia was virtually sacrificed for the hopes of a few more months of peace.  But in today's world, and to the consternation of both East and West, Israel will not be the sacrificial lamb.  Therefore, I fear that we are headed down the same road that led us to a World War in the last century.  Our willingness to accept false promises of compromise, our refusal to realize that the Eastern mindset is different than the West's, and our denial (whether intentionally, or not) to acknowledge the extreme hatred for Israel by the powers in the Middle East; all are leading us towards a conflagration beyond our control.
     And to continue the comparison, we have Russia, who lurked in the background the last World War, ready to take advantage of the situation.  Both sides courted Russia who, make no mistake, was always looking out for their own interests.  Nothing has changed.  Poland and Czechoslovakia were partitioned and surrendered, just as Western powers ask Israel to hand over portions of their sovereign land today.  What is it going to take for the leaders of the West to wake up and see that we are careening towards a repeat of history?  Why can't they see that concessions and policies of pacification never work when an evil dictator has set his sights on annihilation?
     My post may be an oversimplification of the facts at play, but above all else, I want the leaders of the world, both East and West, to realize what is at stake if we continue down this road.  If strict and swift measures are not taken, AND SOON, then the consequences will be beyond anyone's prognostication.  There will be no winners in this War; it will have eternal significance.  World leaders need to heed the lessons of history and not repeat the horrific miscalculations that resulted in WWII.  Is anyone paying attention?

Ezekiel 33:7       "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me."