[CS-FSLUG] OT: A MUST read! For some, the MOST important read you've ever had!

[Fred A. Miller]

IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE TODAY, SAVE AND READ THIS AND I THINK THAT
YOU WILL WANT TO KEEP IT!!! DO PASS IT ON TO YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS
AND TO ALL DISCUSSION LISTS YOU MAY BELONG TO.

I, and many others, HAVE KNOWN MUCH OF THIS FOR A NUMBER OF
YEARS AND WE ARE ALL EXTREMELY ALARMED!!! ALL of what Chuck
writes IS 100% FACT! Remember, EVERYTHING we've seen in the past
and what is going on today, ALL - 100% - leads us to the conclusion of the
Book of Revelations in the Bible...the final book, including a final war
were
ALL nations will attack Israel. I believe that this will be instigated
and directed
by a world gov't.

Google Chuck Baldwin for his background. He is
well respected and VERY credible. Fred

A Very Real New World Order
By Chuck Baldwin
January 27, 2009

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090127.html

It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including
Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is
a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the
face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally
unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely
entertain the notion.

On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be
ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream
media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even
"conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it.
And when listeners call these respective programs, these
"conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller
as being some kind of "conspiracy kook." One host even railed that if
anyone questions the government line on 9/11, we should "lock them up
and throw away the key." So much for freedom of speech!

This is an area--perhaps the central area--where liberals and
conservatives agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for
anyone who believes that global government (in any form) is evolving.
One has to wonder how otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can
be so brain dead when it comes to this issue. It makes one wonder who
is really pulling their strings, doesn't it?

The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called
for some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely
lengthy. Are all these people "kooks" or "conspiracy nuts"? Why would
world leaders--including presidents, secretaries of state, and high
government officials; including the media, financial, and political
elite--constantly refer to something that doesn't exist? Why would
they write about, talk about, or openly promote a New World Order, if
there is no such thing?

Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much
about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the
students of Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the
future will truly be a family of nations."

Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for
ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we
are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new
world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its
peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s
founders."

Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country,
it is a big idea--a new world order."

Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity
to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."

What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such
thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind?
Was he hallucinating?

England's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, "We are all
internationalists now, whether we like it or not." He continued
saying, "On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We
need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of
organizing our international institutions." He also said, "Today the
impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater. We are
witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international
community."

In 1999, Tony Blair said, "Globalization has transformed our economies
and our working practices. But globalism is not just economic. It is
also a political and security phenomenon."

What is Tony Blair talking about, if there is no emerging New World Order?
What does he mean by "a new doctrine of international community"? What
does he mean by "new world"? How can one have globalism, which
includes "a political and security phenomenon," without creating a New
World Order? Is Tony Blair hallucinating?

Likewise, former President George W. Bush penned his signature to the
Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001, in which he gave a
"commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective
responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of
our people."

By "our people," Bush meant the people of the Western Hemisphere, not
the people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly rightly reminded us
that G.W. Bush "pledged that the United States will 'build a
hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic
international order.'"

Remember, too, that it was G.W. Bush who, back in 2005, committed the
United States to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which
is nothing more than a precursor to the North American Community or
Union, as outlined in CFR member Robert Pastor's manual, "Toward a
North American Community."

If there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order, what was
G.W. Bush talking about when he referred to "a hemispheric family" and
an "international order"?

The public statements of notable world leaders regarding an emerging
New World Order are copious. Consider the statements of former CBS
newsman, Walter Cronkite.

In his book, "A Reporter's Life," Walter Cronkite said, "A system of
world order--preferably a system of world government--is mandatory.
The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good
and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty . . ."
Cronkite told BBC newsman Tim Sebastian, "I think we are realizing
that we are going to have to have an international rule of law." He
added, "We need not only an executive to make international law, but
we need the military forces to enforce that law." Cronkite also said,
"American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are
going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to
enforce world law."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is Walter Cronkite
talking about? Can there be any doubt that Cronkite is talking about
global government? Absolutely not!

Now, when Bush, Sr. talks about fulfilling "the promise and vision of
the U.N.'s founders," he was talking about the same thing former UN
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was talking about when he
said, "The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed."

The United Nations has been on the forefront of promoting the New
World Order agenda since its very inception. In 1995, the UN released
a manual entitled, "Our Global Neighborhood." It states, "Population,
consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked
in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the
global neighborhood.
Their effective and equitable management calls for a systematic,
long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable
development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting
ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a
priority among the tasks of global governance."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is "global governance"
all about?

"Who are the movers and shakers promoting global government?" you ask.
Obviously, it is the international bankers who are the heavyweights
behind the push for global government. Remember, one cannot create a
"global economy" without a global government to manage, oversee, and
control it.

In a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt said, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know,
that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government
of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

"Old Hickory" did his best to rid the United States from the death
grip that the international bankers were beginning to exert on this
country. He may have been the last President to actually oppose the
bankers. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of
bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you
for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of
the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won,
you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it
to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and
annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go
on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!
You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by
the eternal God, I will rout you out."

Unfortunately, the international bankers proved themselves to be too
formidable for President Jackson. And in 1913, with the collaboration
of President Woodrow Wilson, the bankers were given charge over
America's financial system by the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have
filled the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of
course, the Federal Reserve.

In his book, "With No Apologies," former Republican Presidential
nominee Barry Goldwater wrote, "The Trilateral Commission is intended
to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial
and banking interests by seizing control of the political government
of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful,
coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers
of power-- political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What
the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic
power superior to the political governments of the nation-states
involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the
future." Was Goldwater a prophet or what?

And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated.
Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the
major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the
globalist agenda by saying, "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."

How could Rockefeller be any plainer? He acknowledged the willful
assistance of the major media in helping to keep the elitists' agenda
of global government from the American people. To this day, the major
media has not deviated from that collaboration. And this includes the
aforementioned "conservative" talking heads. They know if they want to
keep their jobs, they dare not reveal the New World Order. The NWO,
more than anything else, is the "Third Rail" to the national media.

Is it any wonder that President Barack Obama has stacked his
government with numerous members of the CFR? Among these are Robert
Gates, Janet Napolitano, Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom
Daschle. Other CFR members include CFR President Richard Haass, CFR
Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding member of the Trilateral
Commission and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even asked a CFR member,
Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer.

Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter
what he thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could
accomplish, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "I think
his task will be develop an overall strategy for America in this
period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It's a great
opportunity; it isn't just a crisis."

This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in
1991, "Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los
Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is
especially true if they were told that there were [sic] an outside
threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our
very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead 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 the World Government."

Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the
Financial Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world
government. In his column he said, "I have never believed that there
is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for
the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world
government is plausible.

"A 'world government' would involve much more than co-operation
between nations. It would be an entity with state-like
characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has
already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could
be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages
of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

"So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for
thinking that it might."

Rachman then goes on to explain the reasons why he believes world
government is plausible.

Do you now see why it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether it is
a Republican or Democrat who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? For
the most part, both major parties in Washington, D.C., have been under
the dominating influence of the international bankers who control the
Federal Reserve, the CFR, and the Trilateral Commission. And this is
also why it does not matter whether one calls himself conservative or
liberal. For the most part, both conservatives and liberals in
Washington, D.C., are facilitating the emerging New World Order. It is
time we wake up to this reality.

Presidents Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr. have thoroughly set
the table for the implementation of the NWO, as surely as the sun
rises in the east. All Obama has to do is put the food on the
table--and you can count on this: Barack Obama will serve up a New
World Order feast like you cannot believe!

That a New World Order is emerging is not in question. The only
question is, What will freedom-loving Americans do about it? Of
course, the first thing they have to do is admit that an emerging New
World Order exists! Until conservatives, Christians, pastors,
constitutionalists, and others who care about a sovereign, independent
United States acknowledge the reality of an emerging New World Order,
they will be incapable of opposing it. And right now, that is exactly
what they are not doing.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be
made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

-- 
Someone is a liberal when you can't reason them out of
anything, because they never reason themselves into any
position.