Friday, January 30, 2009


"Terrorist Nuke" -- This card is one of the most shocking of all, especially in light of the fact that this game first hit the specialty stores in 1995! How in the world did Steve Jackson know that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were going to be attacked? In fact, this card accurately depicted the World Trade Center attack in great detail. This card accurately depicts several facts of 9/11 -- on cards created all the way back in 1995! The picture accurately depicts:

* That one tower was going to be struck first; this picture accurately depicts the moments between the first tower strike and the second.

* The card accurately depicts that the place of impact is some distance from the top of the twin towers. The plane hit in this approximate area of the first tower. How in the world could Steve Jackson know this fact?

* The card accurately depicts the Illuminati leadership by showing on the building to the extreme left of the card the Illuminist pyramid with an all-seeing eye in the middle.

* The caption at the top properly identifies the perpetrators of the attack as "terrorists"

However, what does the caption to this card mean? It says, "Terrorist Nuke". Now, what could this possibly mean? The Twin Towers were not destroyed by a terrorist nuclear device, or were they? In our article on the Bali Blast, we noted the scientific data that suggested the hotel was taken down by a micro-nuclear device of about 0.10 kilotons [Read NEWS1715]. One can only ask: was a micro-nuclear device used at the base of the Twin Towers as well? That kind of small, but nuclear, explosion would account for the sudden manner the reinforced concrete and steel shell simply crumbled into dust as it fell. That kind of nuclear explosion would also explain the tremendous heat that stayed at "Ground Zero" for several months after 9/11. As we head into the planned "terrorist attacks" and attendant panics, we have to remain cognizant that a micro-nuke device might be the real culprit in some of these attacks.

for the whole story, click this vital link...


For Correct "Born Again, Biblically" doctrine, come back and find my link under that title in the column to the left.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Global Taxes and Global TV Now on the Agenda

In a major embarrassment, the WEF (World Economic Forum) has released a report, “The Future of the Global Financial System,” which acknowledges “intellectual stewardship and guidance” provided by a steering committee co-chaired by John Thain, the former Merrill Lynch & Co. chief executive officer who was recently ousted from Bank of America in a scandal. Thain oversaw the disastrous sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America and was criticized for lavish spending on office decorations, including a $1,405 waste basket and $87,784 rug.

The other co-chair of the committee was David Rubenstein, co-founder and managing director of The Carlyle Group, who has been quoted as saying that China holds the key to the world economy’s future. One report notes that Rubenstein says Carlyle “was an early investor in the Chinese marketplace,” that its China office “has hired many native-born Chinese, and the company is seeking to build its buyout and growth-capital businesses there.”

“The Global Agenda 2009” report says that “sovereign states do not adequately address problems reaching across borders” and that “international taxation” may be needed to generate the “additional resources” for “global governance.”

Could this become a source of new bailout money here and abroad?

Global Taxes and Global TV Now on the Agenda

For the complete story, please click on this posting's title (link).

If you need to be "born again", please come back and find "Born Again, Biblically" in my links to the left, for the correct, scriptural truth of being born again. The Cutting Edge is an excellent site for info re: fulfillment of prophecy, but they are off slightly about New Testament Born Again doctrine. Read everybody's information, then compare it all with scripture, and do what God leads you to do!

From The Jerusalem Watchman

Obama engages the Middle East Posted on Tuesday 27 January 2009

Barely in office, America’s brand new president and his secretary of state are already moving fast to position themselves on the so-called Israeli-”Palestinian” conflict.

Shining like new pennies, bolstered by the massive national wave of feel-good optimism, they stood in front of the television cameras last Thursday and drew up their battle plans, declaring their intentions and appointing the man who will spearhead their efforts to realize success on the ground.

“I pledge my supreme effort,” Barack Hussein Obama declared, “in the search for peace and a stability in the Middle East.”

We will - said Hillary Rodham Clinton as she introduced new envoy George Mitchell - be adopting a “robust” approach.

Mitchell is due in Jerusalem tomorrow. It looks like Obama is already moving to engage the enemy here.

Who, one might ask, is that enemy?

To best answer, let’s identify America’s “friends.”

Obama’s first telephone call from the Oval Office last Wednesday, the day after his inauguration, was to Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Mahmoud Abbas. The president promised the terrorist-in-a-tie that his new administration would be pushing ahead towards the “two-state-solution.”

Obama also saw to it Tuesday that his first television interview was addressed to the Arab-Islamic world. “Americans are not your enemies,” he told Al-Arabiya TV.

“We sometimes make mistakes — we have not been perfect.”

Muslims attacked America on 9-11. Muslims have been triggering and waging war all around the globe, often aimed at America’s interests, but the US president tells Muslims AMERICA has made mistakes!?

Who, WHO is the enemy in Obama and Clinton’s eyes?

Is it the Arab world, that for decades has ganged up on Israel and asserted effort after effort to destroy the state which has 950-times less land than the Arabs do?

Is it the Arab regimes of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, whose rejection of the Jews’ right to their homeland has been the primary factor responsible for the instability in the Middle East that has so detrimentally affected the interests of the United States and the rest of the western world?

Is it the countries which, endowed with stupendous wealth, threaten - and sometimes make good on their threat - to hold the oil-reliant nations hostage unless they dance to their Arab tune?

Is it the vicious abusers of human and women’s rights, who torture their opponents in medieval dungeons, forbid - on pain of death - the personal choice of their people to convert from Islam to Christianity - or to sell their land to a Jew; and condemn their own citizens to live in poverty while they spend billions of dollars pursuing more advanced weapons with which to attack Israel?

Is it the opportunistic despots who traditionally have chosen to side with America’s foes and only - transparently - agreed to become America’s “allies” when other options have been closed to them and/or in exchange for the goodies such an alliance can bring?

Is it the people who break out in singing and hand out candy to celebrate jihadist attacks on the United States and the murdering of thousands of American citizens; the people who burn the Stars and Stripes and trample the ashes into the dirt while spewing out their hatred for the Great Satan; the people who make an instant hero out of a “journalist” who flings his shoes at the president of the despised and abhorred United States?

Are these countries the enemy?

Or is the Obama administration - not withstanding its repeated pledges of friendship and fealty to Israel’s security - soon to discover that it is Israel who will get in the way of its policies, program and “peace” plan for the Middle East?

Will the bad boy on the block for America quickly become the small state under its proud Star of David, surrounded by belligerent and bullying regimes who have steeped their people in antisemitism and for decades promised them, day-after-day, the spoils that will be theirs when they have finally vanquished the Jew?

Will the enemy be the only Middle Eastern nation that shares America’s values of democracy, freedom of the press and respect for human rights?

Will the - eventual if not immediate - enemy be the nation whose forefathers gave America the Bible on which their legal system and a great deal of their national history and values have been built?

Will the enemy be the remnant of a nation which, against all imaginable odds, managed to survive centuries of assorted and often terribly effective efforts to annihilate them simply because of who they are as a nation and Who they represent?

Will the Obama administration’s enemy be this little land whose people look, almost fawningly, to the US for friendship, swearing allegiance to the American flag in almost the same breath with which they swear allegiance to their own?

America, under its new liberal leaders, will soon begin to turn the screws on Jerusalem.

It’s going to happen.

Mark my words.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Our Wonderful New President


"President Obama Immediately Throws His Weight Behind Masonic President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority In A Renewed Drive To Create A Palestinian State"

Rather than condemn Israel for her attack on Hamas in The Gaza Strip, President Obama calls Palestinian (Masonic) President Abbas to restart the process of creating a Palestinian State! With Hillary Clinton now confirmed as Secretary of State, Obama seems poised to restart efforts to create a Palestinian Nation.

With Hamas badly weakened at this moment, Palestinian President Abbas may be able to speak for the Palestinian people and reach an agreement with Israel to create a nation carved from Biblical lands. Now you know how important Israel's attack against Hamas truly was, and how in line with the Illuminati Plan to create the Palestinian State.

---------- This Weeks Hot News ----------

I. President Obama proves his dedication to the Global Illuminati as he "faces the obelisk" during his inauguration.

This is the "change" we can expect: no real change in direction, only a change in the Illuminati Plan for the final push into the New World Order.

NEWS BRIEF: "Obama sworn in as 44th president of the United States", Newsday, January 21, 2009

"Barack Hussein Obama declared the start of 'a new era of responsibility' as he was sworn in yesterday to become the 44th president of the United States before more than 1 million cheering Americans who traveled from around the country to witness history. The son of a black Kenyan father and white Kansan mother, Obama characterized his swearing-in as 'a moment that will define a generation'. Standing on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, multitudes spread out before him on the National Mall, Obama used his inaugural address to offer both a stinging rebuke of 'the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long' and a soaring but sober vision of the challenges, and victories, that lie ahead."

" 'Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed', Obama said. 'Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America'."

As I listened to Obama's inauguration speech, I was struck about how fundamental it all sounded. Rather than sounding the favorite Liberal themes of Big Government taking care of the people and of the people being subservient to the government, his themes smacked of the Conservative themes of personal responsibility and action. Might we be seeing the beginning of an era similar to that of President Kennedy, who gave us one of the most memorable of all challenges during his Inaugural speech?

"As not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country".
Lest you think I am changing my opinion of President Obama, let me refer you to the picture, above, of Obama faithfully facing the obelisk (Washington Monument) during his Inaugural speech. Dedicated Illuminati pagans -- Sun worshippers all -- "face the obelisk" as many times per day as possible, usually three times. For this reason, the 555-foot obelisk (Washington Monument) is placed in such a manner that people in the White House can easily turn toward the obelisk every single day, as well as people serving in the Congress. No pagan obelisk has ever been so precisely and correctly located!

We posted two Headline News Articles prior to the Inauguration which we encourage you to read, as it explains the pagan obsession with the filthy obelisk over the past 4,000 years. offers proof that Obama is a Prince Hall 32 degree freemason! Click the link for more...

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Cafeteria Christians pick and choose what they believe

This report from reveals the results of a Barna Group research poll, indicating some very disturbing results about the current status of Christianity, and the belief of it's "adherents", who aren't adhering to the tenets of the faith. I want to be very clear...I KNOW that the ONLY source of salvation, the ONLY PATH to salvation is by Jesus Christ, if followed according to scripture!

American individualism has made its imprint on Christianity.

A sizable majority of the country's faithful no longer hew closely to orthodox teachings, and look more to themselves than to churches or denominations to define their religious convictions, according to two recent surveys. More than half of all Christians also believe that some non-Christians can get into heaven.

"Growing numbers of people now serve as their own theologian-in-residence," said George Barna, president of Barna Group, on releasing findings of one of the polls on Jan. 12.

In the Barna survey, 71 percent of American adults say they are more likely to develop their own set of religious beliefs than to accept a defined set of teachings from a particular church. Even among born-again Christians, 61 percent pick and choose from the beliefs of different denominations. For people under the age of 25, the number rises to 82 percent.

Many "cafeteria Christians" go beyond the teachings of Christian denominations to embrace parts of other world religions.

Half of Americans also believe that Christianity is now just one of many faith options people can choose from (44 percent disagree with that perception). Residents of the Northeast and West were more likely than those in the South and Midwest to say Christianity has lost its status as the favored American religion.

Christians expressed a variety of unorthodox beliefs in the poll. Nearly half of those interviewed do not believe in the existence of Satan, one-third believe Jesus sinned while on earth, and two-fifths say they don't have a responsibility to share their faith with others.

The most striking divergence from orthodoxy, however, was first revealed in the 2007 US Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. That comprehensive survey of 35,000 Americans found a majority of Christians saying that people of other religions can find salvation and eternal life.

The results stirred controversy among some Christian leaders for whom Jesus as the only path to salvation is a paramount teaching. Some questioned whether those surveyed about "other religions" might have been thinking of Christian denominations or traditions – such as Protestants referring to Roman Catholicism – rather than non-Christian faiths.

Pew undertook a follow-up survey, which it released in late December. That poll found 65 percent of American Christians (including 47 percent of Evangelicals) do indeed think that many different religions can lead to eternal life. Among these Christians, 80 percent cited one non-Christian faith as a route to salvation; 61 percent named two or more.

The survey also asked about views on how one obtains eternal life. Among all adults with a religious affiliation, 30 percent say correct beliefs are what counts, 29 percent say salvation depends on one's actions during life, while 10 percent say both are essential. Those who emphasize the impact of actions are more inclined to believe that practitioners of non-Christian faiths can achieve eternal life. Most of those who emphasize beliefs say non-Christian paths do not lead to heaven.

The poll confirms a broad rejection of religious exclusivity. Among all religious adults interviewed, 65 percent say many religions lead to eternal life and only 29 percent say theirs is the one true faith. Sixty-nine percent of all non-Jews say Judaism can lead to eternal life and 52 percent of non-Muslims say that of Islam.

Forty-two percent of religious Americans also say atheists are able to find eternal life.

While some people hail these findings as heartening for American pluralism, others see them as a wake-up call. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary writes on his blog about biblical Christianity's role in countering such inclusive views and helping people find the true Christian way. Others point to the power of egalitarian American culture.

"It's just part of a 200-year working out of ideas about personal autonomy and equality that are sort of built into the American experience," says Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. "The notion that someone is going to burn in hell because they have their own beliefs is just not resonant within our larger political ideals."


Monday, January 12, 2009

This website is FILLED with very interesting content and commentary, and should be viewed by everyone who still believes in the United States of America and her constitution!

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Kissinger: Obama primed to create 'New World Order'

"There is a need for a new world order," Kissinger told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose last year, "I think that at the end of this administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order – because people looking in the abyss, even in the Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, ordered expectations must return under a different system."

Click the title to read the entire story.

One World, One Money

By Carl Teichrib, Chief Editor
Forcing Change:

Note: this article is a condensed version of a longer report published in the December 2007 edition of Forcing Change, which contains an expanded historical overview – including the role of Special Drawing Rights – and an examination of Global Central Bank scenarios.

“A global economy requires a global currency.” — Paul Volcker, former Chair of the US Federal Reserve.[1]

“I fully support a single global currency.”

Flabbergasted, I waited for an explanation.

“That way farmers in Africa get the same pay as farmers in North America, and workers in Asia would receive the same as their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere.”

Hmmm…an interesting perspective. I asked the gentleman sitting across the lunch table; “Have you ever seriously studied banking or the historical role of money?”

His response to the negative didn’t surprise me; after all, wage equality and production values are not currency issues per se, albeit currency matters do play a role. Much of our lunch hour, therefore, was spent reviewing the relationship between money, banking, and power.

This provocative discussion, enjoyed over a steaming bowl of soup, took place at the annual meeting of a multi-million dollar Christian-based relief organization. And the person I was dining with wasn’t just an interested attendee; he was a board member representing a significant regional arm of this organization. Granted, he was only one man in a large administrative structure, but his decisions – combined with other board members – impact projects around the globe. Thus, I found his supportive statement for a world currency even more disturbing; here was an individual involved in economic decisions that impacted projects around the globe, yet he didn’t understand what he was asking for.

During the course of our lunch-hour, it was obvious that he had no conception of the incredible power-shift that would occur under such a scheme – a shift that would effectively create a global master of untouchable proportions. All he could see was an international-sized band-aid solution, “a single global currency,” to address the problem of world poverty.

I replayed this conversation after returning home, perplexed by the ease in which a person with the right motives was willing to embrace such a risky global venture. Turning to the banking and economics section of my library, I thumbed through a variety of books and documents in an attempt to wrap my mind around this thorny issue. A number of interesting quotes jumped from the pages.

“The great struggle of history has been for the control over money. It is almost tautological to affirm that to control the production and distribution of money is to control the wealth, resources, and people of the world.” — Jack Weatherford, anthropologist and author.[2]

“The control of money and credit strikes at the very heart of national sovereignty.” — A.W. Clausen, President of Bank of America, in a response to the suggestion of a global central bank. [Clausen later became the President of the World Bank].[3]

“Once a nation parts with control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws.” — W.L. Mackenzie King, [former Prime Minister of Canada].[4]

All of this brings up an interesting question: Does the world need a global central bank? If you want a single world currency, it requires an international banking structure armed with a monetary policy on a planetary scale. Essentially, the requirement for a single global currency is a bank that has power over all countries, kindred, and tongues. Former Canadian Member of Parliament, Paul Hellyer, criticized this development in 1994, saying that under such a global currency/banking system “the interests of citizens, of individual countries must be subordinate…to the interests of international finance.”[5]

“…[countries] would no longer be able to pursue any kind of independent policy. Sovereignty over the most powerful of all economic tools would be turned to an international monster…A world bank run by a world kingship of international appointees collectively not accountable to anyone? Heavenly days!”[6]

Unknown to my lunchtime counterpart, the idea of a single global currency has been quietly batted around in banking and economist circles since the closing days of the Second World War.[7] Over the years this call has increased in intensity. Consider some quotes,

1969: “Let me turn from digging away at the opposition to something more positive, and start with the best and worst of international monetary systems. The first-best, in my judgment, is a world money with a world monetary authority.”[8] — Charles P. Kindleberger, [Professor of Economics, MIT], speaking at a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference.

1984: “I have put forward a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all the industrial democracies with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy…This proposal is far too radical for the near future, but it could provide a ‘vision’ or goal which can guide interim steps...”[9] — Richard N. Cooper [professor, Harvard], speaking at a Federal Reserved Bank of Boston conference.

1998: “…the transition to a single currency for the entire world could come with a speed that might surprise many. The world might easily move from having almost 200 currencies today to having one within a decade, and twenty-five years from now, historians would wonder why it took so long to eliminate the Babel of currencies which existed in the twentieth century.” — Bryan Taylor, Chief Economist at Global Financial Data.[10]

2001: “When VISA was founded twenty-five years ago, the founders saw the world as needing a Single Global Currency for exchange. Everything we’ve done from a global perspective has been about trying to put one piece in place after another to fulfill that global vision.”[11] — Sarah Perry, Director of VISA’s Strategic Investment Program.

2004: “…if the global market economy is to thrive over the decades ahead, a global currency seems the logical concomitant.” — Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, former senior economist at the World Bank.[12]

In 2007, the Council on Foreign Relations propelled the idea of a planet-wide currency restructuring by publishing an article in it journal, Foreign Affairs, titled “The End of National Currency.” [Note: on the cover of this Foreign Affairs issue, the article is titled “One World, Too Many Monies.”]

Benn Steil, the Director of International Economics at the CFR, wrote that national money systems should be abandoned, “Since economic development outside the process of globalization is not longer possible…”[13] Stated even more succinctly, “Monetary nationalism is simply incompatible with globalization.”[14] And, “In order to globalize safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies…”[15]

This is quite the leap. To Steil’s credit, he pinpoints the potential chink in the world economy that could lead us towards a new financial arrangement: the weakening state of the US dollar at the global level.

Over the decades, the US dollar has become the unquestionable global currency, with nations around the world required to hold American greenbacks in order to buy and sell in various international markets, especially in relationship to petroleum. Steil writes,
“…the dollar’s privileged status as today’s global money is not heaven-bestowed. The dollar is ultimately just another money supported only by faith that others will willingly accept it in the future in return for the same sort of valuable things it bought in the past. This puts a great burden on the institutions of the institutions of the U.S. government to validate that faith. And those institutions, unfortunately, are failing to shoulder that burden. Reckless U.S. fiscal policy is undermining the dollar’s position even as the currency’s role as a global money is expanding.”[16]

Recognizing the possible dollar-value scenario, Steil points to the growing concern over China and other “dollar-rich central banks.” Keep in mind, China alone holds over a trillion dollars in reserves, and rumblings from the East over liquidating US dollars have started to cause a stir.

Even though Steil doesn’t ask the question, it becomes painfully obvious: What happens if China and other nations “fear the unbearable lightness of their holdings”? What becomes of the world economy if the US dollar is rapidly dumped by central banks?

All of this underscores a strategic reality that can be summed up in three words: Crisis equals opportunity. As banking mogul A.W. Clausen once said, “new comprehensive politico-economic systems across peoples almost always arise out of conquest or common crisis…”[17]

Robert Mundell, “the father of the euro,” and one of the world’s most respected economists, also views crisis as the starting point for change. In a May, 2007 lecture, Mundell related, “International monetary reform usual becomes possible only in response to a felt need and the threat of a global crisis.”

This Nobel Prize winner also pointed his finger to the possible trigger event, saying that the “global crisis would have to involve the dollar,” and that a world currency should be viewed as “a contingency” to a global dollar disaster.[18]

With a similar crisis in mind, Benn Steil offers what appears to be an altruistic solution. In order to avert the crisis, all that nations need to do is relinquish sovereignty before the problem become insurmountable.

“Governments must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they make a deadly brew of currency crisis and geopolitical tension and create ready pretexts for damaging protectionism.”[19]

So how should monetary sovereignty by expunged? Steil candidly asserts that the world needs to re-group itself into three regional monetary units: the Dollar, the Euro, and a new Asian currency.[20] This proposal mirrors the work of Robert Mundell, who has been traveling the globe lecturing on a new international monetary unit based on the US dollar, Euro, and Yen. Under Mundell’s plan these three currencies would form the basis of a “world currency unit” called the DEY, and the International Monetary Fund would be its manager.[21]

The implementation of Mundell’s plan may not be too distant as major currency blocks, led by Europe’s success with the euro, are forming in different parts of the globe. South America, the South Eastern Asian nations, and Africa are all looking to create regional currency zones. The Middle East too is going down this road. In fact, in 2010, if all goes according to plan, the Gulf Cooperation Council – which is made up of a number of Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia – will have their own regional monetary system. And the world’s fastest growing city, Dubai, is located in a key member-nation of the GCC, the United Arab Emerites.[22]

North America is also embracing currency integration. For years the concept of a North American monetary system has cropped up in central banking circles, with the Amero as the suggested name for the new continental currency.[23] [See the July 2007 issue of Forcing Change for a 19-page report on this development]. And if not the Amero, then some believe the US dollar should become the tri-national staple.

In May 1999, economist Judy Shelton suggested the dollarization of North America to the US House Committee on Banking and Financial Services.[24] Others have likewise been examining currency options for the continent, and the momentum towards a new regional economic system binding Canada, the US, and Mexico has grown in intensity.

But how do regional monetary blocks play into a Single Global Currency? Morrison Bonpasse, President of the Single Global Currency Association (SGCA), a group of economists working towards a world currency, answers that question, “The monetary unions of the twenty-first century, and those which survived the twentieth, are the milestones on the path to the future, and to the Global Monetary Union.”[25]

Bonpasse elaborates on this point further,
“Thanks to the success of the European and other monetary unions, we now know how to create and maintain the 3-Gs: a Global Monetary Union, with a Global Central Bank and a Single Global Currency.”[26]

“The world is ready to begin preparing for a Single Global Currency, just as Europe prepared for the euro and as the Arabian Gulf countries are preparing for their common currency. After the goal of a Single Global Currency is established by countries representing a significant proportion of the world’s GDP, then the project can be pursued like its regional predecessors.”[27]

Simply put, the regional model becomes the steppingstone to a one-world currency. However, the problem of nationalism prevails. Discussing this “problem,” Bonpasse writes,
“The task can be stated quite simply: how to move from the current 147 currencies to 1. Developing the political will to overcome the residual strength of nationalism is the major challenge for the movement to a 3-G world. As with the implementation of the euro, the economics and politics of monetary union are inextricably bound together; and the logic of both point toward the 3-G world.

The question now is not whether the world will adopt a Single Global Currency but When? and How smooth, inexpensive, and planful OR rough, costly and chaotic will the journey be?”[28]

To the internationalist, national sovereignty is the overriding obstacle. In order for a Global Central Bank and world currency to exist, some other political arrangements will have to be formed. Robert Mundell understood this political problem when giving a lecture in 2003 titled, “The International Monetary System and the Case for a World Currency.” His response was frank: “a global single currency could not be achieved without a global government. To enforce a single currency would involve big problems of organization.”[29] But this reality isn’t stopping the SGCA and others of like mind from progressive planning. As Bonpasse asserts, “It is now time to seriously pursue the goal of a Single Global Currency as managed by a Global Central Bank within a Global Monetary Union.”[30]

Already the SGCA has a date in mind: 2024. Regarding a headquarters for the Global Central Bank, Bonpasse suggests Basel, Zurich, or Geneva. “Switzerland has a reputation for sound money, and locating the GCB in Switzerland just might be the necessary incentive for that country to join the Global Monetary Union as a member.”[31]

“The governing structure of the GCB should be relatively easy to design, given the available, successful models of the US Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations, and associated organizations such as the World Health Organization. Not everyone is happy with the structure of all those organizations, but it’s a negotiable political question…”[32]

He’s right: it is a political question. This was evident to Richard Cooper when he brought up the idea of a global central bank and currency while at a 1984 Federal Reserve conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. “The idea is so far from being politically feasible at present – in its call for a real pooling of monetary sovereignty – that it will require many years of consideration before people become accustomed to the idea.”

However, even then Cooper advanced a specific timetable to begin taking this idea seriously: “This one-currency regime is much too radical to envisage in the near future. But it is not too radical to envisage 25 years from now…”[33]

In retrospect, Cooper’s timing appears fairly accurate: Twenty-five years after 1984 brings us to 2009, and today the idea of a single global currency is starting to gain traction through organizations like the SGCA and through major advocates such as Robert Mundell. Moreover, the Bank for International Settlements – which is viewed as the central bank for the world’s central bankers – has publicly considered the potential for a one-world currency built around regional groupings.[34]

But will all of this “help the farmer in Africa,” or bring wage equality to the worker’s of the world?

Probably not: it will, however, give unprecedented powers to an international banking cartel, the likes of which has never been seen or experienced before. As a critic of global banking once wrote, “Money is money, and banking is banking, and neither recognizes any allegiances that don’t bear compound interest.”[35]

Carl Teichrib, a Canadian-based researcher and writer on globalization, is Chief Editor of Forcing Change – a monthly intelligence journal engaged in analyzing and documenting global economic, political, and socio-religious trends.

[1] As quoted by Morrison Bonpasse, The Single Global Currency (Single Global Currency Association, 2006), p.264.
[2] Jack Weatherford, The History of Money (Crown Publishers, 1997), p.246.
[3] A.W. Clausen, in a 1979 interview with the Freeman Digest, “International Banking,” p.21. [4] William Lyon Mackenzie King, in a radio address, August 2, 1935. Quote printed in Walter Stewart’s book, Bank Heist (HarperCollins, 1997), p.71.
[5] Paul Hellyer, Funny Money (Chimo Media, 1994), p.57.
[6] Ibid, pp.57-58.
[7] Paul Volcker raises this point in his co-authored book, Changing Fortunes: The World’s Money and the Threat to American Leadership (Times Books, 1992), p.9. Volcker’s co-author was Toyoo Gyohten.
[8] Charles P. Kindleberger, speaking at a Federal Reserve conference. The International Adjustment Mechanism, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1969, Conference Series 2, p.105. [9] Richard N. Cooper, “Is there a Need for Reform?” Speech given at a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference, May 1984. See, The International Monetary System: Forty Years After Bretton Woods (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1984), pp.37.
[10] Quoted in The Single Global Currency, p.230.
[11] Sarah Perry, Director of VISA’s Strategic Investment Program, as reprinted in The Single Global Currency (Single Global Currency Association, 2006), p.7.
[12] Martin Wolf, writing for the Financial Times, August 3, 2004. Also quoted in The Single Global Currency, p.216. Wolf also stated, “This is a world I am unlikely ever to see. But maybe my children or grandchildren will do so.”
[13] Benn Steil, “The End of National Currency,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007, p.95. [14] Ibid. p.89.
[15] Ibid. p.84.
[16] Ibid. p.93.
[17] A.W. Clausen, in a 1979 interview with the Freeman Digest, “International Banking,” p.23. [18] Robert Mundell, “A Decade Later: Asia New Responsibilities in the International Monetary System,” presentation given in Seoul, South Korea, May, 2-3, 2007.
[19] Benn Steil, “The End of National Currency,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007, p.84. [20] Ibid. p.95.
[21] Robert Mundell, “A Decade Later: Asia New Responsibilities in the International Monetary System,” presentation given in Seoul, South Korea, May, 2-3, 2007.
[22] For more information on the formation of regional blocks, see the Bank for International Settlement report, Regional Currency Areas and the Use of Foreign Currencies, September, 2003.
[23] See my article in the Fall 2007 issue of Hope for the World Update on the formation of a North American monetary union. For more information on this topic, check out the July, 2007 issue of Forcing Change (
[24] See the Testimony of Judy Shelton before The United States House of Representatives Committee On Banking And Financial Services, Hearing on Exchange Rate Stability in International Finance, May 21, 1999.
[25] Morrison Bonpasse, The Single Global Currency (Single Global Currency Association, 2006), p.134.
[26] Ibid. p.229.
[27] Ibid. p.281.
[28] Ibid. p.229.
[29] Robert A. Mundell, “The International Monetary System and the Case for a World Currency,” Leon Kozminski Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management and TIGER, Distinguished Lectures Series Number 12, Warsaw, Poland, 23 October 2003.
[30] The Single Global Currency, p.282.
[31] Ibid. p.294.
[32] Ibid. p.295.
[33] Richard N. Cooper, “Is there a Need for Reform?” Speech given at a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference, May 1984. See, The International Monetary System: Forty Years After Bretton Woods (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1984), p.34.
[34] See the BIS 75th Annual Report, page 151.
[35] Cliff Ford, Blood, Money, and Greed (Western Front, 1998), p.50.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

ImageChef Custom Images

The Millennium Messiah and World Change

By Carl Teichrib
Forcing Change:

Allow me to introduce to you the new Jesus. This isn't the Jesus Christ known to us from the pages of the Holy Bible, rather, this Jesus is a new version cast into the arena of international politics and global social change.

Wondering what I'm talking about?

In the fall of 1999, I received a little book titled The Night Jesus Christ Returned To Earth, authored by Captain Tom A. Hudgens. In the late 1990's, while attending various conferences on international affairs, I had the opportunity of listening to Mr. Hudgens present his views on "world order" and global citizenship. At that time, Mr. Hudgens was President and CEO of the Association to Unite the Democracies - an organization dedicated to the advancement of global government by specifically working towards the unification of leading democratic countries - so his views carried a decidedly internationalist flavor. Not surprisingly, so too does the Jesus character of Hudgens' book.

In his Foreword, Hudgens writes, "In this book I have intentionally put words into Jesus' mouth. Whether the words came directly to me from Him or that the words are my own invention is debatable" [1]. Furthermore, Hudgens draws out a challenge, "If what I have Jesus say in this book does not agree with what you think He would say, I challenge you to write down what you think He would endorse today" [2].

As a work of fiction, the author portrays Jesus Christ as returning to Earth during the Millennium Celebrations at Times Square in New York City. The year, 1999, is only seconds away from closing.

"At the very moment that the white ball should start its descent, a loud explosion scatters the ball into a million pieces of confetti. In its place is Jesus Christ, descending and arriving at the bottom for his triumphal return to Earth, not as described in the Book of Revelation, but as He Himself had decided to make His entrance" [3].

At this point in the book, Jesus explains why he appeared first in the United States, and New York City more specifically:

1. America has the most Christians,

2. The United Nations is headquartered in New York, and…

3. The US is the "freest of all nations and the guarantor of freedom and human rights" [4].

Jesus then asks "all citizens of the world to elect ten disciples for me…" [5]. All of this is rather novel, especially given the fact that the Jesus of the Bible always invited His disciples to follow Him - it was not a matter of democracy, but of invitation and personal calling.

Hudgens then goes on to describe what his version of Jesus "would endorse today."

1. A stabilization of the United Nations and a call to global democracy [6].

2. A uniting of all democratic countries into a limited federal republic; ie, a world government. In fact, this "Millennium Messiah" [my phrase] makes numerous direct references to the Association to Unite the Democracies - Hudgens' world government lobbying organization - it's agendas and ideas, and it's importance in striving for a political, economic, and military unification of like-minded nations [7].

3. That the European Union should become the core group used to unite the democracies, and that other existing international arrangements (such as NATO) be brought into the fold [8].

4. That "total gun control" is necessary. In this regard, the National Rifle Association is mentioned as a negative factor in America's political system [9].

5. A calling to "sap the strength of the multinational corporations which are ruling the world." Hudgens' Jesus explained that these multinational corporations are "ruling the world" to the detriment of the poor [10]. [Author's note: multinational corporations do exercise a considerable degree of power within national economies, but an enhanced United Nations or some other centralist type world government - which Hudgens suggests - would be akin to opening a Pandora's Box of political and economic control over all peoples, be they rich, poor, or middle class via another layer of power and political/economic influence.]

6. A calling for population control and the necessity of abortion in order to ensure the safety of the Earth's environment. Hudgens' Jesus even tells us when life begins; "when the umbilical cord is severed." Moreover, Jesus even goes so far as to tell his New York audience that, "I plan to speak with the Pope about this matter" [11].

7. And, among other things, Jesus brings religion into the picture by declaring, "Over time I believe we can show that Christianity is compatible with all other religions. My coming will help to solidify the religions" [12].

I understand that Mr. Hudgens' name and organization are not recognized house-hold words. Few people outside of World Federalist circles and global citizenship lobby groups will have ever heard of either the individual or his association. And it's not that his book The Night Jesus Christ Returned To Earth has been an influential top-seller. Odds are, those who have the book are few and far-between.

So why bring all of this up? Simply because these concepts represent a line of thinking found within certain elements of the international community. Of this we need to be aware.

Former United Nations high-official, Robert Muller [not the FBI Robert Muller], readily preached and still advocates a new global order which incorporates a politically internationalist New Age Jesus. In his 1982 book, New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality, Muller writes, "If Christ came back to earth, his first visit would be to the United Nations to see if his dream of human oneness and brotherhood had come true" [13].

In a section of New Genesis titled "The Reappearance of Christ" [this chapter is a transcript of a speech he gave at the Arcane School Conference, a New Age body directly connected to Lucis Trust and the occult philosophies of Alice Bailey], Muller spells out a lengthy yet revealing vision of "Christ" within a new world paradigm.

"So everywhere I look - and I am not a theologian or a philosopher, I am just a United Nations official trying to make a little sense out of all this - everywhere I see the Christ's luminous messages. They are all still among us, they are coming again to the fore ever more potently. In the present global world they have to express themselves in the ecumenism of religions. The world's major religions in the end all want the same thing, even though they were born in different places and circumstances on this planet. What the world needs today is a convergence of the different religions in the search for and definition of the cosmic or divine laws which out to regulate our behavior on this planet. World-wide spiritual ecumenism, expressed in new forms of religious cooperation and institutions, would probably be closest to the heart of the resurrected Christ. I would wholeheartedly support the creation of an institutional arrangement in the UN or in UNESCO for a dialogue and cooperation between religions. There is a famous painting and poster which shows Christ knocking at the tall United Nations building, wanting to enter it. I often visualize in my mind another even more accurate painting: that of a United Nations which would be the body of Christ" [14].

Muller's vision didn't emerge from his own sense of spiritual understanding, it is the result of other peoples work - including the mystic Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Muller devotes a chapter to Chardin in New Genesis) [15], and Alice Bailey, whose writings have heavily influenced the Robert Muller School program [16].

Chardin, a highly controversial Catholic theologian, advocated the complete unification of mankind, including,

1. The development of a common humanity-wide consciousness [17].

2. A "new spiritual dimension" based on "universal unification" [18], and the establishment of a universal human creed; "…a new spirit for a new order" [19].

3. A complete economic, political, and social planetary structure based on group thinking,

"...everything suggests that at the present time we are entering a peculiarly critical phase of super-humanisation. This is what I hope to persuade you of by drawing your atention to an altogether extraordinary and highly suggestive condition of the world round us, one which we all see and are subject to, but without paying attention to it, or at lease without understanding it: I mean the increasingly rapid growth in the human world of the forces of collectivisation.

The phenomenon calls for no detailed description. It takes the form of the all- encompassing ascent of the masses; the constant tightening of economic bonds; the spread of financial and intellectual associations; the totalisation of political regimes; the closer physical contact of individuals as well as nations; the increasing impossibility of being or acting or thinking alone - " [20] [italics in original].

4. Global unification through supernatural powers; "Whether we wish it or not, Mankind is becoming collectivised, totalised under the influence of psychic and spiritual forces on a planetary scale" [21].

5. And an endorsement and longing for the United Nations to flourish, even though it is still imperfect and will remain so until complete social totalization is achieved [22].

Placing the capstone on all of this is the ongoing and incomplete work of the New Age Christ,

"And since Christ was born, and ceased to grow, and died, everything has continued in motion because he has not yet attained the fullness of his form. He has not gathered about Him the last folds of the garment of flesh and love woven for him by his faithful. The mystical Christ has not reached the peak of his growth...and it is the continuation of this engendering that there lies the ultimate driving force behind all created activity...Christ is the term of even the natural evolution of living beings." [23]

Similar to Chardin, Alice Bailey - a leader in the early Theosophical movement and founder of Lucifer Publishing Company, which later morphed into Lucis Trust and has since spurred on a whole series of New Age subsidiaries - taught that a transformed world was close at hand. And like Chardin's "new spirit for a new order," Bailey writes in The Rays and The Initiations, "Some day the minds of men - illuminated by the light of the soul - will formulate the one universal religion, recognizable by all" [24].

Expanding this spiritual collective philosophy further, Bailey reveals that the new world Christ will manifest himself physically, directing his will into the arena of world politics, economics, and religion [25]. Even now, Bailey explains, the apparent contradiction of national and international conflict is geared towards this singular purpose - a "climax," a "point of tension" that "will eventually prove to be the agent that will bring about a point of emergence" [26].

Muller, Chardin, Bailey...each of these visionaries, and scores more, call out for a restrucutred international political system, global economic change, and a social transformation of the globe - all brought about by a New Age Messiah. Which brings us full circle, coming face-to-face with Hudgens' Millennium Jesus and Hudgens' challenge: what would Jesus endorse today?

Actually, this isn't too hard to figure out. Hebrews 13:8 tells us that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Knowing this, it's fairly easy to discern what Jesus Christ would endorse today; it's the same thing He endorsed 2000 years ago - an exclusive way to the Father (John 14:6) and that man is in need of a Savior because man is a sinful creature (John 3:16-21).

But none of this bodes well in today's climate of global tolerance and planetary correctness. Instead, a New Age Messiah is desired and anticipated, one that is willing to embrace all religions and unite all nations.

For the endnotes, follow the link at the top of the article.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Training an army of world servers

Please follow the link to read the rest of the story. When you're finished, go to this link
for more information. It is listed in my links to thje left as Kjos ministries- explaining the NWO

Obama: “I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States ... this will be a central cause of my presidency."[1]

Obama: "People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.... I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year...."[2]

Saul Alinsky (Obama's Marxist mentor): "The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."[3] Rules for Radicals (excerpts here-at original site.)

Brave New World: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned... to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers."[4] Aldous Huxley

Training an army of world servers


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...