Confusing illegals as?immigrants, progressives as liberals,?and?globalists as Republicans
Do you remember the fantastical story of ?Alice?s Adventures in Wonderland  – written by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson [pseudonym, Lewis Carroll]?? The heroin, a young girl, falls down a rabbit hole and enters a land of topsy-turvy ? where up is down and down is up. Further, the characters demonstrated the ability to converse, by use of new meanings for old words, and reliance upon onomatopoeic sounds to instruct wisdom.
Carroll was an Oxford trained mathematician by learning, yet wrote his ?Wonderland? adventure as ?belles-lettres? ? a device that at once amuses, but teaches a serious lesson. Other books to his credit include: ?Through the Looking-Glass? and ?Jabberwocky,? for all you Monty Python fans. All his works were elaborate synergisms and nonsense that pointed to the danger found in the mid to late 1800?s English word-smiths ? who practiced a serpentine ability of mesmerizing their listeners with bull-manure.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines semantics as: (1) the study of meanings (3b) the language used (as in advertizing and political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meaning.
The word semantic is originally from the Greek, seme, semeino, semaino, and indicates a sign ? something the British Royals, the Templers and Freemasons love to indulge, when speaking or erecting monuments, and as well, when granting token awards.
Its etymology into the English can be traced to 17th century Europe through the French word, ?semantique,? but its use as a function in society burgeoned in the late 19th Century, as geo-politics and world banking emerged. It indicates a signal carrier [a messenger, a change agent] for coining new terms. [Arcade Dictionary of Word Origins ? John Ayato]
The blue ribbon example of modern political and legal semantics goes to America?s President and Britain?s Rhodes Scholar, William Jefferson Clinton?s coin; ?I did not have sex with that woman,? and ?It depends what is, is!? ?That woman,? was thought to be Monika Lewinsky ? however, Bubba Bill was thinking of Hillary. Some have suggested his Attorney General, Janet Reno, as ?that woman? ? the female with the pug-face and a disposition that would rival Heinrich Himmler. Additionally, while under oath, Clinton defended his statement of ?no sex? by offering; the meaning depends upon, ?what is, is? ? to wit, what is sex? Of course, we though we knew what sex involved, but Bill was arguing for a legalistic term of physical coitus.
This modern adaptation of English bull-manure has reached fevers pitch within American politics – in a catch me if you can, circuitous evolution of evermore re-definitions and absurd rationale. Every time a politician or pundit opens his mouth, we get to hear the Wonderland Caterpillar sultry homily of, eeeee, e i o ouuuu, ou i o eeeee, as it wafts through the psychic smoke and mirrors that ascend before our eyes. This device is semantics; for the purpose of subterfuge.
The following MAD-HATTER world of Alice, and the rabbit-hole semantics, can be understood graphically in the following brilliant 10 minute political video. In this video metaphor, Adolph Hitler is hunkered down in his War Room, when he receives the message that his health care insurance has been cancelled, by Obama Care, and he is told that he cannot use his own doctor. Hitler is angry about words Obama used to suck him in, but meant something different.
What is so ironic, is that the legal scholars of the English Inns of the Court, and their franchised brothers, the ABA, pride themselves on accurate definitions – and so sport about copies of ?Black?s Law? wherever they trod. I have a copy, and there is a difference agreed upon by the best legal minds between the terms, ?illegal? and ?lawful!? The Semantics of ?Illegal? presupposes that a crime may [or may not] have been committed without any substantive proof ? it is a conjecture. ?Lawful,? however, is what we deem objectively to be the actual law.
Examples: The police stop you and wish to inspect your vehicle, because they say you look suspicious ? therefore, you are ?illegal,? and an officer?s inspection becomes legal, not lawful. In another example from the Philadelphia news pages: members of the Black Muslims place batons into the face of local citizens and state that they should not enter a voting place, because they are white devils. The citizens understand what the intimidators did was a federal and a state criminal felony, but the mayor and the police chief say that it was ?illegal,? not ?unlawful.?
The objective of Attorneys [not Lawyers] is to act as the high priests of civilization. They pride themselves to be the ones who understand, interpret, and adjudicate the situation. The citizens, however, are the rabble ? a mindless commodity to be ruled, lead, and supervised into submission, for their own good. Additionally, the public must pay them, for their self-imposed leadership – through taxes, fees, tribute, and bribes. In reality, our leaders have become common royals or sovereigns ? something that our constitution forbids.
Jesus Christ warned us about lawyers:
??and you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them?woe to you experts in the law because you have taken away the key to knowledge?? [Lk.11: 46, 52]
Nothing has changed in 2,000 years concerning lawyers, and those of their company, who covet the positions of power in government. They still load citizens down with regulations that they themselves refuse to comply with. Obama-Care is a great example, where the Congressional aids, who help write and modify the law, won their exception from compliance to the law, after complaining it would cost them too much. However, today?s despots something not done by the old guard; they force us to purchase what we do not need nor want. We have become a slave commodity.
The Semantics of Immigration; Immigrant vs. Illegal:
Every day we hear about the human rights of illegal immigrants. The problem is the semantic obfuscation of terms. Every lawyer, and that is what most politicians are, know that there is a process for immigration that determines the suitability of an ?migr?, by processing their request. There are no illegal immigrants – simply law breakers. Black?s Law states categorically that: ??specifically the Service inspects aliens [pre-?migr?s] to determine their admissibility into the United States; adjudicates REQUESTS of aliens for benefits under the LAW; guards against ILLEGAL ENTRY into the United States; investigates, APPREHENDS, and REMOVES aliens in this country in VIOLATION of the LAW; and examines aliens APPLICATIONS wishing to become citizens.? [Black?s Law, sixth edition, pg.750] [capitalization added for emphasis]
As you can well understand, there are many aliens who come to the U.S. without permission, and are NOT investigated before being allowed to stay permanently within the borders of the US – as required by US LAW. And the INS makes FEW inquires for permission, via applications. If lawbreakers are found to be here in violation of the law, they are NOT removed. But note, the term ?Illegal? is used, as an inference that someone is not a legal ?migr?.
Why do the lawyers and politicians want to break the laws of our country and aid criminals? Answer; because people are a commodity to be exploited. Aliens are exploited for their vote, and the citizens are exploited for their pocketbook. Citizens are taxed, feed and levied by the lawyers and politicians, for paying leadership to break the law, which benefits the incumbent political party. The Democrats want the votes of grateful law breakers to gain more power in government, and the Republicans want to water the citizenry down, so as to bring about parity with Commonwealth Socialist Nations. In effect, the legal citizenry is being colonized out of power.
The political-lawyers cover their subterfuge, theft and mismanagement by use of semantics. Law breaking criminals are redefined as illegal immigrants or ?migr?s, even though an ?migr? comes here by lawful application. The ?lie-ful? semantics is followed by ?hearts and flowers? campaigns – that make citizens feel guilty about saying no, to a family of aliens ? people who came here to pick up quick cash, get free education, free medical, free anything, as long as they do not have fight for their freedom and citizen?s rights in their country of origin.
Similar arguments were used, by the same reprobate leaders, concerning abortion. Their ?hearts and flowers? propaganda appeals were disseminated publically; claiming the poor black city mothers would get backstreet ?coat hanger? abortions, because there were no medical facilities to provide ?safe? and ?effective? pregnancy terminations. Notice that abortion and infanticide become pregnancy terminations ? babies become fetuses and blastulas.
In reality the predominant numbers of abortions are desired by middle and upper-class whites. This same reasoning and semantics follows for immigration. The legalized mitigation is not for the poor, but for the rich and their corporate profits, and for the politician-lawyers pocketbooks.
A good example was found in 2001 when Tyson Chicken was caught, flying in aliens [unlawful] from Mexico, via corporate jets -to work at low wage positions in chicken meat factories [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Foods ]. Not one Tyson executive one went to jail, but the company was fined several hundred thousand dollars ? a pittance when compared to the wages they saved.
Yet, regardless of this unlawful activity, the proponents of abuse know how to quote the Bible when it suits them. Didn?t God tell Israel that it had a moral obligation to treat aliens kindly, because Israel was an alien and sojourner in another?s land? Yes he did in [Ex.22:21], because Abraham and his seed were sojourners and aliens in the land, and Christians are to reason in the same mind [Eph2:11-12; 1Pe.2:11]. However, even though God demanded that aliens, who wished to become part of the spiritual family of Israel, should be welcomed, all the laws that applied to the citizens of Israel are expected to apply to the aliens [Ex.12:48-49; Num.15:15]. The aliens had to submit to the moral requirements of Israel [Lev.18:26]. Those that desire unlawful aliens summarily excuse those aliens from compliance with U.S. laws.
By implication, the same concept of justice applies to a Christianized Western Culture, such as the United States. In Leviticus chapter 20, God establishes a compendium of debased behavior that he will not tolerate within the nation – whether the prohibited activity is done by a citizen or by an alien. The unlawful activity involves: worship of weird demi-gods [especially by strange occult rites], cursing one?s father and mother, adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, lewd sex, and secret rites of incantations [Freemasonry, Sanitaria, Voodoo etc.]. It is prefaced that the Lord God drove out the nations before Israel because of these things. Considering that it has become fashionable through the use of semantics, to allow these same practices in America, what will be the outcome for our nation?
A Biblical application to what I have been explaining can be developed from Matthew chapter 15 – Jesus? response to an alien Canaanite woman. She desired a ?national spiritual blessing? that she was not entitled to ? namely the healing power of God. She wanted Jesus to remove daemon possession from her daughter. When she asked, Jesus refused to answer her. His disciples thought this to mean she should be tossed out and away from Christ?s entourage. She pleads again. Jesus then says to her: ?I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel.? She responds, ?Lord, help me!? Jesus retorts: ?It is not right to take the children?s bread and toss it to dogs.?
Jesus just told her she was not entitled to the grace of God, since his ministry and power were for the Children of Abraham. And he insults her by calling her a dog! Her response is humble. She wisely changes her nomen from a dog to a puppy, thus demonstrating that she was not a beast of prey that demanded her due, but an unknowledgeable and weak recipient in need of whatever Jesus could afford to throw away. He commends her faith and humility ? her unwavering importunity – and grants her request.
What is the understanding to be gained?
Jesus was applying the national Moral Law of Leviticus, to this woman?s request. If she wanted the blessing of God, she needed to understand that God freely blesses those that follow him. Christ was subtly extracting from this Canaanite an attitude of humility, repentance, to go before her faith. Her request was given because she repented and believed, not simply because she believed Jesus had the power.
As Christians and US citizens, we are to help aliens that understand their need from a position of their humility and gratefulness, not from a fist waving demand, en masse within our nation?s capital. The goods and services of the United States belong to the people of the United States, not to the world, but we will share it with those who respect our laws and desire to commit to our way of life.
Yet, our lawyer-politicians open the flood gates for drug criminals, murderers, rapists, and thieves – hoping that these lawbreakers might change their behavior – simply because we gave them our best without vetting their earnestness. We have for the most part, let in many dogs along with the few showcase puppies. We have allowed haters of the God of Abraham, and haters of the Lord Jesus Christ entrance into our nation – haters of Judeo-Christian morality ? despoilers of moderation ? backward and unfulfilled degenerates, who know nothing of good, and desire death in the name of their god of the curse, Allah and Humanism.
The Mexican drug and gun gangs are entrenched in Phoenix, Arizona, Santiago and Los Angeles, California. The Muslim radicals are ensconced in Chicago, Illinois and Dearborn, Michigan, with known Black Muslim and Wahhabi sects burgeoning in the rural areas of New York State.
The semantics of the our President, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and their minions, have sent our country down the rabbit hole of Alice – into vagaries and a future of sorrow – so that they can line their pockets with more cash and build their Beast of Pan-Commonwealth unity – at the expense of all things decent.
Without a traditional Biblical moral code, our political values corrupt ? we lose common sense and a common cause and course. What follows is acceptance of sub-cultural alien values followed totalitarianism.
Liberalism vs. Progressives: What leads to Socialism [government ownership of goods and services]?
Every day the media pumps out the mantra: democracy, equity, peace and brotherhood, under the semantics of political correctness, while pointing to the ?Democratic Party? as the party of the people. Yet the public forgets that the United States has a Constitution that regulates a Democratic-Republic government, of the people. Democracy alone does not rule our society. As a matter of fact, the main land Chinese are called the Democratic Peoples Republic, and yet there is only one party, the Communist Party, and the people do not rule the government, but the government rules the people.
So, what is democratic, what is a republic and what is socialism?
Democracy in its simplest form is one man one vote ? majority rules. In its refined form it represents the government by the people. The fact that 300 million U.S. citizens cannot vote on every need, and so it necessitates a limiting factor called republicanism. This factor moves the power of the collective people to a few who govern for the common good, as opposed to the good of the ruling group.
As one can easily recognize, the Democratic and Republican parties DO NOT rule for the common good, but for their own good.
Socialism is a benign form of Fascism, in which the government owns and operates the goods and services of a country for the common good ? hence Commonwealths.
The factor that keeps the rulers or leaders from degrading the U.S. citizens? common good is the principle: government did not give the people the power to form the government. In our case, citizens of the U.S. claim their right to rule the leaders, by virtue of the Bill of Rights. Additionally, the historical implication of the U.S. Revolution, worked to secure private ownership of goods and services, which are protected by the peoples? rights, in the fourth and fifth amendments of the Bill of Rights.
So herein lays the reason that the Congress and the President, and of late, the Judiciary, ignore the rights of the citizens; the leaders have over time abridged the Bill of Rights by slowly and carefully re-defining by semantics, the people?s rights and the leader?s rights.
In the Bill of Rights we have the 10th Amendment. ?The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or to the people.? What that says is: If the power is not obviously present in the Constitution, then it resides as the right of the each state, or in the people collectively. If the power is prohibited to the state or the federal government, then it lies always with the people. Yet, this article is by history defunct and unused. How else could the federal government form a Health-Education-Welfare Department, Housing and Urban Development, and an Environmental Protection Administration, except by the semantics of justified power, safety and security concerns?
Using the same semantics, the Bush II Administration pushed through the un-Patriotic Act, which presumes to control our right to assemble, travel, own weapons, and other forms of commodities – to include common chemicals, such as boric acid used as an insecticide, a triage blood clotting agent, and a fast neutron absorber in fission reactions ? as if every citizen would have the desire to do nuclear fission experiments in the cellar.
Our right to bear arms is lessened in the name of the semantics of safety, security and peace. Yet the more the governing authorities legislate for the semantics of safety, the more crime and violence follows. The more the governing authorities legislate for the semantics of security, the more our privacy is nullified. The more the U.S. leadership regulates for the semantics of peace, the more we are involved in wars, and the more our children are killed or mutilated. The more the government leaders confiscate or demand rights to property and goods, the more the economy dwindles.
The spiritual factor that eludes the governing authorities is that if they perform their duty for the good of the people [Rm.13:1-7], God rewards the nation with blessings: peace, prosperity and safety. They are charged to act as God?s agents for the peoples good. If they act for their own selfish welfare, then God removes or ignores to bestow a blessing. The protective wall is removed.
Factually, the same admonition found in Romans 13 – that directs the citizens to give honor where honor is due, and pay taxes were taxes are due – is doubly demanded of those in leadership ? whether civil or ecclesiastic. It is a spiritual principle of stewardship.
In specific the Democratic Party uses semantics to cover its desire to steal power, goods and money from the people. It claims to be Liberal, when in fact it is Modernist-Progressive. It is a reverse Robin Hood. Through its smoke-screen of a ?chicken in every pot,? it robs the poor in order to make its own caste of rich overlords.
The Semantics of Liberalism and Progressivism?
No other political word is as ambiguous as the word Liberal. There are Liberals, and there are Libertarians, Libertines and Liberal Progressives. However, whether it is defined by British concepts or American, its lowest common idea is Liberty ? the concept that laws and constitutions should create freedom for individuals. However, it is implied that the regulatory distinction promotes the moral use of freedom, not its reprobate use – hence the difference between a libertine and a liberal. The periphery ideas of liberality include: fee-will, rational-will, natural law, with the ability to CHANGE! Liberals talk in terms of ?Change,? over and against inherent values of ?Stability? and ?Tradition?. Oddly the word liberal may be considered an oxymoron, for although it is by definition of the English, generous, full, and broad-minded, it is also defined as licentious. [Merriam-Webster]
Again this whole concept of Liberalism is British. The real test of this philosophy can be found in the first liberal party called the Whigs. They supported limiting royal power and transmuted its ideas to the Colonies – finding a home in the hearts of Americans who desired independence.
However, the ?Devil is in the details, as the expression goes, and early on, the people referred to the Devil as being the ?first Whig? ? because the of the Devil?s enticement of Eve in the form of a serpent. The apple doesn?t fall far from the tree when we review the early Revolutionary flag displayed as a Serpent, with the words, ?Don?t Tread on Me.? [Compiled from: 1982 Encyclopedia Americana, Vol.17, pg.294-296]
By the beginning of the 20th century, Liberal concepts were found in every social conscience endeavor and in many main line Protestant denominations. After all, who would not want to liberally pour out help upon the homeless, the needy, the unemployed, the sick and destitute, etc.?
These are grand and Christ like endeavors except, Jesus told sinners, ?you repent? – and to his disciples, ?you feed the masses.? The Liberal Progressives enter with their own interpretation of Jesus Christ?s moral command ? they will feed the needy ? however they will do it at the expense of some another?s pocket.
What needs to be understood is that the moral prerogative of Liberalism was usurped by the political expediency of the Progressives. Like Jesus in Matthew 23, and the Apostle Paul [Romans Chapter 2] concerning the Pharisees ability to judge others, but not themselves, I will apply a ?liberal? interpretation for defining the hearts of Progressives. ?You who say that the poor should not be ? do you personally go into their ghettoes and raise them up? You who say that everyone should have freedom of choice – do you remove the regulations from their shoulders? You Progressives, who say that America is rich, and should share its wealth with the poor – do you use your own wealth to help others? Woe to you Progressives – hypocrites ? blind guides ? you tie up heavy loads and put them on men?s shoulders, but are not willing to lift a figure to move that load!?
Give a Progressive control and he will have a lot of Liberal ideas that sound Utopian. However, he never sees himself as the servant and the financer of the dream. He is in reality a sponge – a leach ? a change agent. He wishes to be in charge of telling everyone else what they must do and at their expense, while he supervises and directs everyone else to pay him a royalty or fee for his magnificent ideas. This definition correctly identifies the nature and attitudes of such notaries: Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Alec Baldwin, and Michael Moore.
The main attribute and ideas of Progressives is: ?Yes we can!? – however, when everyone does what we tell them to do.? They exude extreme altruism, replace the spiritual with intellect, and believe men to be basically good, and capable of saving himself from any and all harm. They are nature based and see no need to appeal to God. [[Compiled from: 1982 Encyclopedia Americana, Vol.22, pg.643–646]
Progressives are not content to make our lives miserable, but they devolve into slave traders that call themselves the Social Elite.
?Claiming to be wise [educated] they become fools, who exchange the glory of the immortal God for the images of mortal men, and heap esteem upon birds, animals, and reptiles? [Rom.1:22].
Do you want to know why the Christmas cr?che, crucifixes, unborn babies, and the Ten Commandments are considered socially unacceptable, while monuments to athletes, and socialist reformers, are erected, and sacredness is attached to trees, whales, and kangaroo rats? Read carefully the above scripture and you cannot miss the implications of modern Western social-humanism – Progressives.
A well known Progressive John Dewey affected all aspects of the American Education System ? the system that pumps out ignorant students who know little of our country?s founding. Yet US public education knows how to produce effeminate metro-sexual men, and bossy tarts.
Dewey was the inventor of the Dewy Decimal System for library cataloging. Machine counters are no more than bean counters that become counter culture, in order to justify themselves wise by their own standards. And what do you find concerning many [not all] US librarians – they are Progressives politically, filled with feminist ideals of neutering every alpha male, lovers of Wicca, and a mill to seduce the decent young women into the main stream of Lesbianism. They generally hate Christian and conservative literature, but love any extreme philosophy that they can conjure to the reading list of young children.
And finally, Progressives when stymied, by their lack of success, will find some group to blame for their ineptitude and lack of commonsense. In years past, the scapegoats were the ignorant and unschooled masses, then they focused on the Republicans, followed by any conservative, next the Tea Party, and finally it will be the ?unsustainable? traditional evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews. When this occurs, the Progressives will only believe in liberty for their own kind.
The Semantics of the New World of dis-Order; Republicans vs. Globalists:
You listen to talk radio, because many of the espoused ideals appeal to your sense of fair play – aspects of crime and punishment, work and reward, freedom of conscience and religion, and it just makes plain sense. The master of the microphone peppers you with God Bless America and in God We Trust, and you begin to believe that Republicanism is the same as Christianity. You cannot be farther from the truth! In many cases the Master of Ceremony, will be a Theosophical-Globalist whom you think to be a Christian-Constitutionalist.
This is the spin of semantics that the Globalists love to place before your mind via continuous talking points. They are pied?pipers of the non-thinkers, and socially neglectful. When Progressives line their pockets with the un-churched poor, the Globalists go after the religiously minded middle class, who doesn?t have critical thinking skills.
How do you tell the difference, and what is the difference between a Republican and a Globalist?
Consider this thought. The Iranians have the Republican Guard, and the Chinese Communists call their country The Democratic Republic of China. Ronald Reagan never taught you this!
Republicanism is as old as ancient Rome, where power was channeled through its Senate. While the city state of Athens [Greece] founded governing by democracy [one man one vote], the Romans decided it was more practical to give the town meeting to representatives for efficiency sake – hence; The Senate.
If you want to know where the power of the U.S. government resides, then look to the U.S. Senate. While the President is a figure head of the federal bureaucracy, the Senate which is composed of 100 little presidents, acts together with the blessing of each state?s leadership and are the council for the President. They have the power of treaties, and therefore, the power over, affairs of state, foreign policy, trade, and undeclared wars. Who said that there are no more states? rights? See, semantics working its insidious perplexities and machinations upon your world view. Do you see yourself taken in yet, by skillful illusionist of semantics?
You may say that the House has the ?Power of the Purse.? O contraire; the House used to have the ?Power of the Purse.? The House only has some mitigating control, since the Senate has insured over the last 100 years, to give our country over to a central private bank that prints its own money – and over the last 70 years, to reroute the taxes, fees, fines and levies, from the Treasury, directly into the control of the President?s Cabinet officers. How can the House extend the ?Power of the Purse? when each cabinet officer gets his working capital directly from the payers?
The F.C.C., which is a small office, collects from Verizon alone, $100,000,000 every month, from a communications tax. The cash comes to the FCC without going through the Treasury. How can the House control that form of intake?
The Semantics of Republicanism:
The main concept a Republic is that the power of a nation is inherent with the people, not with a monarch, dictator or oligarchy. However, power is delegated to a few so that they may exercise the authority of the people for a time. Ancient Israel was an example of a God ordained Republic before it asked for a king. Even Afghanistan, with its ?Duma of sheiks and tribal elders? represents a form of Republicanism. By the way, the word ?duma? is from the old Russian, which means, ?the judgment,? or freely, the council. [Merriam-Webster]
Republics, from the time of Plato until today, have changed in understanding by defining individual rights. But what makes our Republic or what is left of it, different than all others, is our ?Bill of Rights.? These rights were written down, as God given, NOT government given, because after the American Revolution, some began to believe that the states had all the rights. Therefore, the Bill of Rights were added, to set in stone, what, ?We the people?? actually means. [Encyclopedia Americana,1982, Vol.23, pgs. 430-437]
Before we go on, I want to remind the reader of recent events in Washington, DC. Apparently, the Speaker of THE PEOPLES? HOUSE, John Boehner, expressed his anger and resentment at those of the Tea Party types, who do not want to compromise natural born citizens rights for the sake of appeasing Liberals and Progressives – concerning the immigration controversy. Let me say that again in a different way. Speaker Boehner, who claims to be a conservative Republican doesn?t like citizens who exercise their traditional beliefs of freedom of speech, and God given rights, and the Republican Party ideal that the power resides in the people.
Question: Is John Boehner a conservative Republican or a Globalist – or is he a self-absorbed ideologue ? a fretful representative under the control of bullies? What Speaker Boehner doesn?t like is the power and influence exerted over House members by grassroots conservative constitutionalists. Speaker Boehner doesn?t like the power of the people! But isn?t that what modern Republicanism is all about?
Traditionally modern Republicans found their influence with ?Eastern Businessmen and Midwestern farmers. [sic – Ency. Amer.] Today, Republicans can be found acting as ?Facilitators? for the Globalists [The Commonwealth of Nations; aka., British Empire; aka., New World Order]. Two obvious Republican facilitators for the Globalists are: John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. These two began to fall over each other, publically in 2013, in their mad rush to salvage the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and then force more world support for Christian hating Syrian rebels. Graham has since played his ?Christianized? card of anti-abortion appeal to strengthen his grass roots voters. The two of them are shameless.
Now why would they do that? It so happens that the Commonwealth of Nations is preparing to reacquire their old colonies in an effort to regionalize the Middle East and North Africa into a new global dominion. From a Christian prospective, expect this entity to become the specific kingdom that the Antichrist rules. The perpetrators, of this wanton deal, envision loads of Middle East revenues and sovereign funds, falling into the hands of the Rockefeller and Rothschild banking consortiums.
In addition, David Cameron recently announced to the world that he wants to make London the world center for Islamic finance. The only catch is that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain want Islamic Sharia Law to become main-stream in Britain. Mr. Cameron and the royals find no problem in this, since semantics guides their activities.
As the Apostle Paul instructed – these type of people have:
??an unhealthy interest in controversies [wars, and trade] and quarrels [semantics] that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction [propaganda] between men of corrupt minds who have been robbed of the truth and think that godliness is a MEANS FINANCIAL GAIN [world trade and Islamic financing]? [1Tim.6:4-5].
Call to mind the propaganda from the U.S. state Department and Britain concerning the Islamic insurrectionists and the Syrian government. What happened to all the ?freedom fighters? and the unlawful exchange of ?war weapons,? and ?weapons of mass destruction,? ie., Saran gas? What was noticeably absent from that controversy, from beginning to end, was the persecution and genocide of Maronite, Coptic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians.
But why would a countries of the U.S.A and Britain, with a Christianized population, and government subsidized Church [Anglican], opt to engage and support an antichrist religion like Islam? They will do this for money?s sake – without regard to spirituality or fealty to God because, the bulk of the royals and the ruling commoners are theosophist and humanists, NOT Christians.
The Semantics of Globalism?
It is notable that the term cannot be found in major encyclopedias before the 1990?s, even though the concept finds impetus in the Pan-Analogism of 19th century Britain. However, Wikipedia.org, lists a series of globalism definitions based upon a specific family of disciplines. There are: medical, financial, economic, environmental, security and governing syllogisms, found defined on the WEB. But a thorough definition is as follows:
“The integration of global markets by the reduction trade barriers, improved communication, foreign direct investment, and other means. Globalization allows a multinational corporation to make a product in one country and sell it in another. This provides jobs in one country and less expensive goods in the other. Globalization also allows for the free flow of capital between countries, which many believe spurs economic growth. Proponents of globalization argue that it allows developing countries to continue and hasten their levels of development, and that it protects consumers in developed countries. Opponents believe that globalization serves the interests of multinational corporations at the expense of small businesses, which sends jobs to other countries needlessly.”?– Farlex Financial Dictionary. ? 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Other definitions point to medical care, welfare, climate control, ecological benefits and so on, until the whole bundle sounds so good, we begin to believe we have entered the Age of Aquarius. Can you hear the song in your head ? the one sung by the 5th Dimension group? The song was, ?Aquarius? ? ?harmony and understanding, sympathy and love abounding?.?
During the mid-1990?s, Hilary Clinton talked in terms of the sociological ?Global Village.?
Under the heading of: ?Opposition to international financial institutions and transnational corporations,? Wikipedia presents the following:
?People opposing globalization believe that international agreements and global financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization, undermine local decision-making. Corporations that use these institutions to support their own corporate and financial interests, can exercise privileges that individuals and small businesses cannot, including the ability to
1. move freely across borders,
2. extract desired natural resources, and
3. use a wide variety of human resources.
The movement aims for an end to the legal status of “corporate personhood” and the dissolution of free market fundamentalism and the radical economic privatization measures of the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization.?
Globalism uses the term free-trade that actually means trade between cartels and multination corporations. Its protagonists talk in terms of a global job market, which really reduces to lowered economic wages in middle class societies.
Climate control and sustained ecological growth are front words for Global taxes and U.N. Agenda 21, where people are herded into cities and dense urban areas – away from the rural regions. The idea is to promote ecology and wildlife, but the aim is unabated corporate rape of the natural resources. The town of Red Hook, New York, is actually implementing Agenda 21, with the help of Bard College.
What needs to be understood is that many, not all, State and Federal Democratic and Republican leaders subscribe to Globalism. Governor Chris Christy is an unabashed Globalist, yet there are Republican money people [the old Hoover Consortium] pushing him to the forefront as a proper God fearing, mom?s apple-pie, constitutionalist, when in reality he is all about: One World ? One Government ? One Law ? One Social Order ? under Humanism and Multinational corporate greed.
Recently, [Jan/2014] on the Glen Beck radio program, there was an objective comparison between President Obama and Governor Christy. Beck used a montage of video and radio quotes from both men on the subjects of immigration, health care, guns, and security. In every sound-bite it was strange to hear Christy use the identical terms and phrases used by the President. It was as if both men were working from the same talking points sheet. In fact they were articulating the Globalist agenda, along with John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
The difference is that the President and Christy are ?Change Agents,? while McCain and Graham are Facilitators. Change agents are the front line toddies that are regulated by the Facilitators. The Facilitators are directed by the ?Committee of Helpers? and the Committee of Helpers are given the goals by ?The Three Hundred? ? a term given to the first three-hundred members who coughed up the cash, propaganda, and media outlets for developing the British Empire, now known as the Commonwealth of Nations [aka, New World Order]. The official governing board is called The Royal Institute of International Affairs. [see below]
?As organized, the Institute consisted of a council with a chairman and two honorary secretaries, and a small group of paid employees. Among these later, A.J. Toynbee, nephew of Milner?s old friend at Balliol, was the most important. There were about 300 members, in 1920, 714 in 1922, 1707 in 1929 and 2414 in 1936. There have been three chairmen of the council, Lord Meston, from 1920-1926, Major General Sir Neill Malcolm in 1926-1935, and Lord Astor from 1935- to the present .?
From: The Anglo-American Establishment, pg. 184
By: Professor Carroll Quigley
The Semantic Conclusion:
It is not my intension to deride the people who are involved in these escapades of subterfuge and intrigue. As a group, they are wholly committed to their reprobate principals. They are smart and powerful people who know how and when to bribe, demean, frame, and murder the opposition. They appear as angels of light when necessary, but have resident in them the same factors found in any elite station ? autocratic control that lacks a conscience. They are rich sociopaths, and in some cases psychopaths.
Whether Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian, Globalists will talk jobs, health, welfare, medicine in the pursuit to woo citizens into a comfort state. But in the end, what they deliver will cost you more than you can afford, and be of lessened value.
This group of people can deceive you with their sincerity, since there are a few values that they do believe in. Among the list are: hard work, success, private ownership, inclusion and health. However, their beliefs about these themes are valued only for the money THEY will save, or the profit THEY will receive, or the power THEY will gain. You are a commodity to be exploited!
All of us are exploited by empty promises ? so many, it becomes almost desirable to hear the carnival hawk tempt us with the plea; ?You sir, you look like a guaranteed winner!? We become winners at life, winners at health, and winners at love. All we need do is sign up for whatever the politicians have concocted for our benefit – or so it will seam, because it?s so easy.
Understanding the nature of semantics and learning to listen closely is esteemed in value, since it was Jesus Christ who said, ??in hearing they do not hear?? [Mt.13:9-17], and ??let those that have ears hear what the Spirit says?? [Rev.2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22]. ??The Apostle Paul also wrote that ??faith comes by hearing?? [Rm.10:17].?? The point is well made that being able hear is more important than being able to see.? It was with the eyes that Satan seduced Eve in the garden. ?Yet the blind beggars fetched their miracle of sight, because the scripture says, ?they heard that Jesus was going by…? [Mt.20:29-34] ??The spiritual implication follows that those who learn to listen well, have a better chance of avoiding the pitfalls of semantic subterfuge and seduction.? The discipline of hearing, or listening well, will increase and sensitize anyone?s aspect for discernment.
Listen carefully and learn to say NO!