Category Archives: One World Disorder

UK Women Humanity’s Sole Representatives-JBS

Posted on by

Scientists in the United Kingdom believe that women may be evolving as humanity’s sole representatives.

babylon science

There is a bill in the British parliament that may become law next summer saying fathers of artificially conceived children need not be recognized by the state. It’s called The Human Tissue and Embryos Bill and is barely raising an eyebrow in the UK. But it has caught the attention of some of those who would stand to gain from present scientific advances, social changes, and subsequently the legal changes that would result.

As if to lend credence to the dire predictions made in the bizarre 1969 hit song, In the Year 2525 [2], scientists drawing on the premise that male fertility is on the decline due to damaged genes on the Y chromosome are predicting that heterosexual reproduction may only last another 125,000 years or so. They draw this conclusion after noting that 7 percent of men are now infertile. They ignore, of course, that 93 percent of men are not infertile and probably very capable of reproduction. Despite this, “The core sex is female,” says Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, as he lends his voice to those in favor of proceeding with male-less involvement in conception. But can it really be accomplished?
Continue reading →

Originally posted 2007-12-20 12:21:35. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Footprints

Posted on by

Footprints
A psalm by the Watchman Dana G Smith

Footprints in the earth walking side by side
How have I made it thus far?
One of those are mine, the other is yours,
Oh LORD, how fast it has gone, life I mean!
I remember the times you did nourish me,
I know the times you lifted me up,
Then there was the correction you gave,
To this end, I fared well.

I see the life go on day by day,
Life in its courses, life rehearsing its actions,
Man living, man breathing, man dying,
But in the end, after it all, life has vanished,
Quickly, in a moment, How did I spend it?

1 Corinthians 15:19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable

Was it in your service?
Was my life selfish?
How did I really count the hours Oh Lord?
Did I ever think that it would end so abruptly?
Why have I been so foolish?
Why did I not learn quicker?
Why have I not done all I could have done?

So many regrets,
So many faults,
So much misery,
So much fantasy,
So much pride,
But in the end, all of it,
Vanity, which passes like the tide!

Thank God for the LORD who saved me,
Who taught me daily as I subscribed to his leading.
Thank God for his Love that embraced me,
Whilst I was stubborn and full of Pride.
Thank God for his salvation through Christ to me was given,
Yes, Thank God, for in this life, the footprints are over,
But the Eternal time with thee, Oh Lord have just begun!

1 Corinthians 13:12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Yes, I Thank thee Oh LORD God, My eternal Father who has saved me,
By thy Grace, through this small avenue of Faith,
In Y’Shua [Jesus] Ha Massiach [Christ], my LORD,
To thee Oh Father, blessed be thee who has,
Through all this life redeemed me,
Fully,
Completely,
In Thee,
Oh God,
Forever,
and Ever~
Blessed be thy Name, Eternal One!

1 Thessalonians 4:13  ¶But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

America and The Trojan Horse

Posted on by

America and The Trojan Horse
By Dana G Smith.. The Watchman
Words: 960

Psalms 97:7  Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.
Isaiah 21:9  And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.

She was wealthy and rich. Her people enjoyed the finest of all the earth’s resources. Her people had dwelt in safety. Yet, for her pride and sin, she has been vanquished. She had never known foreign troops on her soil since her freedom. Yet, for her pride, she will know this well. The people had the very finest of the craft makers on earth prepare her enjoyments. Above all nations had she risen, as people from all nations were drawn to her luxuries.

What will become of her? What will she know? Is it God? Is it more idols? Who has declared to her the sins which has brought this judgment? Where are her holy ones? Where is this God who has made her rise above all the earth? To whom does she bow now? Thus it is written, Pride goeth before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction. Yet for all this, her leaders are blinded and her holy ones are defiled.

What is good and righteous before thee O Lord our God? Is it not a contrite spirit and a clean heart? Yet for all that the people do, will they not confess their sins and live? Why do they not listen to thy warnings O God, Most High? Is not the Trojan horse in her midst right now? That thing which the people rejoice and cling too, will it not bring them destruction? Can they not destroy this Trojan and be cleaned? Why do they dance around this idol so?

In the wilderness thy people learned of thy Goodness and leading. You had fed them in the barren corners of the land, while the inhabitants had nothing, you fed your people. Thy hand delivered them from bondage and slavery, yet they clamored for the former. When did they forget thy goodness? Was it when they melted gold and made unto themselves an idol to worship? Today, O Lord, the nations have made themselves idols and declare to the Lord God, “Release us from thy Bonds”.  For we, sayeth they, “this God will not do us good, nor will he do us bad, therefore, let us be as Gods and do as we thinketh to do”.  Will not the Sovereign God release his hand in destruction and his word upon the earth will it not come to pass?

Behold the destruction cometh, as in the day of visitation, as in the day when Troy accepted the horse, it draws near. Yet this day of visitation will make the former as a mere spot compared to that which is coming upon thee O harlot of the Nations. You who ignore the warnings, and do as you please, your lot shall come upon you. Your visitation will come soon, as a thief in the night, shall he come, the Lord God to do battle. Yet for all your harlotries, he will forgive. Return to the Lord oh foolish of heart, return to him whose mercy is upon all who repent.

Woe unto those who desires are in the gold and silver, those who create substance for the future. Woe unto those who see safety by their own hands, woe unto thee, for I will bring thee down. For the fire of my jealousy will ravage thee in a most severe way. Can you escape my wrath? Can you put out the flames of my fire? Can you stop the one who put breath in you? Can you deliver yourself from him who made you? By your own deceits shall you fall for by your own madness and lust will you be judged. That which you see as safety shall be a snare. That which you have created for yourself another shall take. That which you have designed for your future will be cut off. In your own wisdom will you be found wanting. In your own foolishness you will be seen. By the hand of him who judges the nations, you will be revealed as empty.

Just as the day when Troy in pride brought into their midst the pride of their acceptance, so too, have I sent thee the Trojan horse.  That which you cling too and has raised you up, shall be the Trojan in your midst. In the beginning it will be joy to your soul, but in the end it will bring sorrow, wailing, and destruction. For your pride has separated you from your God.

Cast off your harlotries and be clean saith Him who judges all. Put away from yourself that which will defile. For I come and will not spare the wicked. I come and will not give mercy to the proud and ardent sinner among you. My wrath will be full, shall you not be wise and repent therefore? Come away from her my people. I have put you away from my wrath so as to let my wrath be release. Do not look to the comforts of this people and desire them so. For in the peoples own comforts shall destruction arrive at a moments notice. As in the days of Noah when the flood took them away, shall it be upon this generation of people who will not repent. Therefore, be wise and repent, for surely I will forgive and revive all those who truly repent of their wickedness.

Global Elite Picked Obama

Posted on by

Global Elite Picked Obama Long Before Voters

Man recounts startling tale of first time he heard of Barack Obama—18 years ago in Russia

By Tom Fife

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid-1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow in the process of starting a software development, joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community.

One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M. V. was a levelheaded scientist, while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing communist cause.

Early in 1992, the American half of our venture was invited to V. & T.’s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge—one her husband tried to quietly rein in.

The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:

“You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice president and you didn’t do it.”

The general response went along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don’t vote for vice president, but the president and vice president as a ticket.
Continue reading →

Allies at Odds Again Over Afghanistan

Posted on by

By Richard Walker

While the U.S. prepares to send at least 25,000 more troops to Afghanistan, many European allies are refusing to follow suit. Some are even considering reducing the numbers of soldiers they have on the battlefield.

That is just one example of the ways in which Europeans differ from the Obama administration in planning a strategy for Afghanistan. Another is that Germany and France would like to see what has loosely been termed “a contact group” of countries leading the way to a solution of the conflict. The “contact group” would include Russia and China, thereby involving the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Membership would also be extended to Pakistan and Iran, which border Afghanistan, and to India which, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last November, has taken a keen interest in events in Afghanistan.

The concept of expanding the range of countries involved in the Afghan war was first proposed at a NATO summit in 2006 by former French President Jacques Chirac. It found favor with Germany, which argued it was better to have more hands at the wheel. The U.S. delegation at the summit, led by then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, angrily opposed
the idea and warned that it would create a command structure that lacked focus. From Washington’s perspective, the proposal risked ceding U.S. policy in the region to China and Russia. In the end, Miss Rice convinced the summit to abandon the proposal.

Lately, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has resurrected it amid reports that she and French President Nicholas Sarkozy see it as a way of lessening the burden of the Afghan war on NATO. Following Barack Obama’s inauguration, Ms. Merkel indicated she was not in favor of sending more German troops to Afghanistan, signaling that a new strategy was required. France has said it is reluctant to increase its 2,600 contingent and other E.U. nations like Holland want to reduce their troop commitment. In Britain too, there is growing disquiet about the war but the Labor government is unlikely to support the “contact group” strategy if the Obama administration, like its predecessor, opposes it. However, senior political figures have publicly expressed concerns about the war.

Recently Lord Ashdown, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who served with the British army in Northern Ireland, criticized the “international community” for having no clear plan for Afghanistan. He said it was “a scandal, wasting the lives” of young men and women on the front lines. He issued a dire warning that if NATO did not come up with a victory plan soon the war against the Taliban could be lost. He added that commanders on the ground had agreed with him that NATO had failed to take advantage of its victories against the Taliban.

So, even if Germany and France cannot push through the 2006 Chirac initiative to widen responsibility for the war, there will still be major disagreements between the U.S. and some of its allies over battlefield strategy and the political future of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai.

With Afghan elections scheduled for this year, there have been leaked reports that the Obama administration is not a fan of Karzai because it believes he has failed to eradicate corruption in his government, thereby weakening the political process. It is said the U.S. would prefer a coalition of his peers to run the country and set a new example for governance. Some of his political opponents have already told Washington that they intend to oppose him and would like the U.S. to publicly state that it would prefer him to step down.

Karzai has detected the growing opposition from Washington and from Pakistan, a nation he has consistently blamed for many of his country’s ills. But, he feels confident that, while he is supported by France and Germany, his tenure as president is secure and he will be re-elected president. Much to the annoyance of Pakistan, he has established close ties to India, a big player in the region that has Washington’s ear. Lately, he has shrewdly played to the growing clamor among his own people for tighter controls on NATO operations and especially on raids by U.S. Special Forces.

In several public statements he pointed to the fact the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan found that 400 civilians were killed in air raids last year. In many instances, the air power was called in by Special Forces teams that had found themselves outgunned. Karzai has constantly demanded more accountability from NATO for civilian casualties and in doing so has enhanced his image with Afghans. He also knows that as a Pashtun his departure from power would be viewed by his tribe as a slight by Washington.

One other area in which the U.S. and its allies may differ in the months ahead is in the prosecution of the war. The fact more U.S. troops will be on the battlefield will see Washington calling the shots when it comes to deciding military strategy. As a consequence, it will not favor, as some Europeans do, the Karzai principle that the Afghan military should be consulted about all NATO operations and given advance warning about proposed Special Forces raids. Put simply, the U.S. military feels it cannot trust its Afghan counterparts with sensitive intelligence.

There is also a disagreement among NATO members about using a tactic from the Iraq war, namely creating militias and paying tribal elders to fight the Taliban. The aim is to create a type of “Afghan Awakening” to mirror the way Sunni militias were paid to fight al-Qaeda in Anbar province in Iraq.

Afghan president, Hamid Karzai is opposed to the use of militias, arguing that there are enough weapons in the country without adding more to the mix. In contrast, Lord Ashdown supports the U.S. strategy of militias and the surge of more U.S. combat troops but he remains convinced that many countries are not pulling their weight. He claims the “international community,” by which he means the U.S. and its NATO allies, is merely trying to stabilize Afghanistan rather than planning to win the war. He points to the fact that only 1/25th of the military and 1/50th of the aid that was used in the Bosnian conflict is now being committed to the Afghan war.

If he is right, and there is no reason to doubt him because he was the international high representative in Bosnia for four years, the Obama administration will have to think carefully if it wants to win the Afghan war.

By Ashdown’s calculations, winning would require a troop surge of immense proportions, which is a strategy America’s NATO allies will not support.

Therefore, can the goal for President Obama be to win the war or should he simply seek to stabilize Afghanistan and plan for an exit within a decade? While the president ponders those options he might also want to keep a close eye on Pakistan, which is steadily becoming mired in terror generated by an unchecked Taliban, which is asserting itself throughout the country. In 2008, the Taliban killed more people in Pakistan than they killed in Afghanistan. More worrying, for the U.S. and its allies is the realization that Pakistan is a nuclear nation.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former news producer.

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute – as long as full credit is given to American Free Press – 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 200

The UN Security Council and the USA

Posted on by

Editors note: This came to us from our friends at ICZC, and contains an article on the recent UN security council resolution.

SHAME ON BUSH AND CONDI

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in Forbes.

Betrayal. No other word describes the reversal of American foreign policy that took place on the night of Jan. 8 when the U.S. refused to veto the Security Council resolution on Gaza.

A president whose friendship and alliance with Israel once appeared honest, perceptive and unshakable, decided two weeks before leaving office to throw Israel to the wolves. The resolution calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and does not even mention the word “Hamas.”

There will no longer be a need for an Obama transition team on foreign policy. The outgoing president and secretary of State have done it all. Yesterday’s resolution, along with another Condoleezza Rice-inspired resolution from mid-December, draws Israel into a Security Council spider web that U.N. enthusiasts have been weaving for decades.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can simply step into George W. Bush and Condi Rice’s shoes, label themselves new-age multilateralists and let the chips–in this case, remnants of Israel–fall where they may.

The Security Council resolution makes a mockery of Israel’s right of self-defense. In fact, it makes no mention of a right of self-defense at all. Eight thousand mortars have rained down on Israel from the Gaza Strip over a period of eight years.
Israel withdrew every Israeli man, woman and child from Gaza three and a half years ago. Yet the United Nations draws an equivalence between a terrorist organization whose very modus operandi is to target civilians and a state whose aim is to protect civilians, Israeli and Palestinian.

Arab states could scarcely contain their glee. The U.K. went out in front and accepted the idea of a much stronger resolution instead of a Security Council presidential statement, and Secretary of State Rice rolled over and played dead within minutes.

Veto-wielding powers had reportedly given undertakings to Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that they would not permit a resolution. These promises were ignored in the face of allegedly enormous pressure from undemocratic thugs, state sponsors of terrorism and weak democracies cowering at the prospect of unhappy Muslim constituencies or a dent in their bank accounts from belligerent Arab sheiks. What, moaned U.S. officials, was poor Condi to do?

Here is what she did:

1. The resolution she supported makes no mention whatsoever of Israel’s right of self-defense.

2. The resolution calls for a ceasefire while Israel is still under fire, thus gutting the right of self-defense.

3. The resolution puts a right of “all” states “to live in peace”–though Israel is the only state under fire–in its preamble instead of in the operative section of the resolution, where it would have carried substantive weight.

4. The resolution expresses grave concern only about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. No concern is expressed over the humanitarian crisis in Israel that has forced half a million people into underground holes for eight years and left Jewish children growing up with the trauma of fleeing and hiding throughout their young lives.

5. The resolution makes no mention of any need to return Hamas kidnap-victim and Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. It does not even demand that Hamas or the Palestinian Authority abide by the humanitarian requirement under international law to permit a single visit to Shalit from the International Red Cross or any other international agency.

6. The resolution calls for “unimpeded” provision and distribution throughout Gaza of myriad forms of humanitarian assistance–which obviously makes the conduct of war against Hamas terrorists impossible.

7. The resolution condemns “all acts of terrorism”–without mentioning the identity of the terrorist–leaving Islamic countries to claim that Israel is the state terrorist and that the condemnation has nothing to do with Hamas.

8. The resolution places no mandatory responsibility on Egypt to stop the trafficking of weapons into the terrorist-controlled Gaza strip. It merely “calls for member states to intensify efforts” to stop the trafficking.

9. The resolution promotes further international intervention in the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather than a negotiated settlement between the two parties, by “welcoming…an international meeting in Moscow in 2009.” Code language for shoving U.N. terms and conditions down Israel’s throat.

10. The kicker is that the Security Council “decides to remain seized of the matter.” This means Israel’s failure to abide by any of the points in the resolution is grounds for more and more Security Council meetings designed to thwart Israel’s right to defend itself against the terrorism that threatens all civilized societies.

When it was over, Secretary of State Rice “abstained” with the following words: “this resolution, the text of which we support, the goals of which we support, and the objectives that we fully support, should indeed be allowed to go forward.” These words led other ambassadors to point out that the resolution had, in effect, been adopted by consensus.

For over half a century, the state of Israel and its tiny population has been on the front lines of a war against an evil that plagues every decent human being on earth. Israel has time and again sacrificed its children in freedom’s cause.

In leaving Israel to fend for itself in an international arena controlled by the enemies of decency and good, President Bush walks shamefully off the international stage, leaving in shambles everything he has stood for since Sept. 11, 2001.

Israel’s prime minister reacted to the resolution today by pointing to the obvious: It “will not be honored in actual fact by the Palestinian murder organizations.” And though UN actors wish it were otherwise, “The State of Israel has never agreed that any outside body would determine its right to defend the security of its citizens.”

This is a universal principle with which every American–and the U.N. Charter–would agree.

[source-email from ICZC, Anne Bayefsky wrote the following excellent, heartrending article in "Eye on the U.N." ]
WIBR/WARN Disclaimer and Fair USE:
This material is here for your education and edification. The WIBR/WARN online websites do not agree with all material,news articles, and other stories we put up. We urge you to research, study, and show yourself approved unto God, a Workman that needeth not be ashamed. We also urge you to Fast, Pray, and seek the LORD on all matters.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Travisty Against David Parker

Posted on by

US Supreme Court turns down David Parker’s appeal. Validates state’s right to teach homosexuality to young children over parents’ objections!

Allows outrageous lower court rulings to stand. Anger across Massachusetts. No justice on this issue.
October 7, 2008

After spending nearly a quarter million dollars of his savings, supported by thousands of parents across America and several foreign countries, covered by national and international media from The O’Reilley Factor to National Public Radio, David Parker could only watch as the US Supreme Court announced Monday that it is refusing to hear his case.

The Court did not even bother to notify the Parkers or their attorneys. On Monday, October 6, the US Supreme Court simply posted a list on the Internet. (See David Parker’s statement below.)
At issue was the Lexington Schools’ aggressive policy of normalizing homosexual behavior to elementary school children and not allowing parents to be notified before or after, or being able to opt-out their kids from it. On April 27, 2005 David Parker was arrested and thrown in jail by school officials over his insistence of being notified regarding his son in kindergarten being taught about homosexual relationships by adults. It immediately made national news. But the school officials would not stop. Months later, Rob and Robin Wirthlin discovered that teachers were reading a book about homosexual romance to their second-grader. In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit against the school.

During that time the school became more hostile to the Parkers, and local liberals and homosexual activists did their best to harass the family.

Shortly after the announcement, David Parker released the statement below. Clearly, he does not believe anyone should back down or give up.

“The Federal Supreme court of the United States has tragically decided to deny our case from moving forward. We have exhausted all our legal options in the Federal system for the protection of young children in the public schools.The Supreme court has cowardly turned their backs on a parental rights issue that clearly has national significance with profound consequences.

“We believe that parents have the right and sacred responsibility to defend the psyches of their young impressionable children against such child predation. This includes more forceful measures to defend against, the inculcation and penetration, of perversion into their minds, behind the parent’s back and against their will.

“All public school administrators are hereby on notice that efforts to seduce children into the acceptance and affirmation of homosexual conduct and “gay marriage” will be met with the full force of the citizenry.

“This despicable ruling is not of the people, nor for the people, and nor by the people–but against them. We, the people, must take back our government for the sake of our children and the sake of this nation.”

David Parker

Many parents now feel that there is no justice left in America on this issue. We can’t help but agree.

[source-http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/sc_petition/rejected.html]