What do George H.W. Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev and David Rockefeller have in common?
For the past two decades I have been guarding my mind and spirit against believing in conspiracy theories. They always seemed to be so far-fetched that rational people should avoid them like the plague. Then comes the dawn – or should I say “epiphany?”
New World Order: just a theory, or real?
My children are 16 years apart. Things had drastically changed by the time my youngest entered the school system. Political correctness had replaced liberty of conscience and academic standards had plummeted. Like the proverbial frog that had been tossed in boiling water, I found myself jumping out of the pot and doing my best to encourage others to follow. But my fellow frogs seemed comfortable in the pot of cold water that was slowly being heated. For the most part – some of them thought I was – well, a little nuts.
There were others who bore the same label, like the John Birch Society, that are now being vindicated. They were among the first sounding the alarm about the globalists that were eroding our sovereignty inch-by-inch. Even the politically astute tea parties were well behind the curve when it came to exposing the plans of the globalists. Many times I had to ask myself how could plans like this be implemented right under our noses? Where were our country’s watchdogs? Had they all been suffering from Rip Van Winkle Syndrome and sleeping while our Rome was burning?
I did find one of the answers – the one about the watchdogs, or what Mark Levin calls the “lamestream media.” Call it a conspiracy theory if you wish, I’ll call it an unholy alliance – and one that crosses party lines as well as national borders.
Sergeant Joe Friday on Dragnet once said, “Just the facts, ma’am.” Here they are. Draw your own conclusions.
New World Order: evidence
President George H. W. Bush said in his 1991 State of the Union Address:
What is at stake is more than one small country (that’s us, folks!) – it is a big idea – a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in a common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children’s future.
Mikhail Gorbachev said this in his historic address to the United Nations on December 7, 1988:
Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.
In September 1994, David Rockefeller said,
We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the new world order.
In 1991, David Rockefeller said in Baden-Baden:
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 forty 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 now 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.
If you aren’t outraged, you should go back and read these quotes over and over again – especially Rockefeller’s.
Surrendering our sovereignty to a New World Order means taking our beloved Constitution and throwing it in the trash – along with all of our God-given rights that it protects – and it is nothing less than treasonous no matter how sophisticated it may sound. In the past we rebelled and created a central government that was instituted to protect our god-given rights. Our founders had the wisdom to limit the powers of our central government. It is sad that the limited government they designed is no longer limited or operating as designed and has fallen prey to globalists who lust for power.
New World Order: can we stop it?
Doom and gloom would be inevitable – except for two things: the supernatural Spirit that led us in the fight for liberty and the human spirit of those who are still willing to pledge their lives, their treasures and their sacred honor to preserve liberty. Will God’s Spirit preserve what it once created? Not if we continue to play-along-to-get along. Compromise is only considered a virtue by those without a backbone. Freedom has a price, as it did back in the 1700s. Hopefully this generation is willing to pay it.
Patrick Henry once asked:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
2000 years ago Peter and other Apostles were put in jail by the high priest for preaching in the name of Christ. When they were released, they did it again. Once again they were admonished for disobeying the command to stop preaching in Christ’s name. Peter responded:
We ought to obey God rather than man. (Acts 5:29)
Peter and the Apostles understood when civil disobedience is righteous. Do we?
Whom should we obey today? Should we obey those who have distorted and contorted our government? Our troops in the military take an oath to obey the Constitution and protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic. As it was in the past, it is today – there is a time for civil disobedience that is moral, righteous and noble. And there is a time when we must protect our Constitution from domestic enemies as well as foreign.
I believe that Americans will rise up against those committing crimes against our Constitution.
And I believe that what is good and what is right will prevail over tyranny and corruption.
But believing in this day and age may not be enough. Civil disobedience may prove to be the prerequisite for civil restoration.
My last two questions are:
- Do we have the moral fortitude to preserve liberty? And:
- Do we understand when civil disobedience becomes our civic responsibility?
Patrick Henry gives a warning
Let me close with a few more words from Patrick Henry’s famous speech that are as relevant today as the day he spoke them:
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supine on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun…