Yellow Journalism is better known as sensationalism today.
In the article "Syria mobilizing troops for conflict with U.S., NATO"
Read more: Syria mobilizing troops for conflict with U.S., NATO http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=336477#ixzz1ViV4AFOU
WND quotes George Soros from a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article preparing the world for the now accepted Responsibility to Protect Doctrine. Let me just copy and paste the relevant paragraphs directly from the WND article:
"Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations." In the article Soros said, "True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."
"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
"In particular," he continued, "the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
Believe it or not (and I hope you do believe it) this is actually good for the world. Rational individuals and people see the effects of bad government and a bad people and avoid those circumstances that led to the oppression. Learning by observation is one of the most powerful tools we have in our arsenal information gathering and processing.
"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
"In particular," he continued, "the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
This is a classic example of the adage that a little bit of truth makes the big lie sound really believable. If you have been reading this blog you will know that I fully and wholeheartedly endorse and the real flow of power in government from the individual to the highest level of national society. In other words, power flows from God to the Individual to the local city-state to the nation-state to the republic/empire-state. This is the natural flow of power that God has established and ordained for all humanity. I hope you see the difference already between the truth and Soros lie. If not keep reading...PLEASE.
Notice the natural and true flow of power is linear: from one to another in a straight line and no other interjections of power are involved in the flow. Additionally, the ultimate source of all power is God in this natural flow. Since God established and ordained this power flow, only God has the authority to interject if the flow is disrupted by tyranny. God is the avenger of the oppressed not any other source. God may use other societies to interject, but God alone makes that decision. Should an outside society interject it must be a prayerful and 100% certain grant of authority by God. Most times God directs an event that forces another society to interject, we could possibly use the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in NYC as an example.
Soros would have you believe that we can make that decision for other people's societies if we don't like their society, and do so on a whim without provocation.
Also notice that the natural flow of power begins with God. God is the source for all power of human sovereignty. Without God, no power exists, we would not exist.
Again, Soros leaves out a crucial truth, he states that power begins with the people (read "population of people". He totally forgets that all power and authority originates with God, then to the Individual, then to the societies to which they belong. Soros says power originates with the local societies at the lowest level. WRONG!!!
Let's review shall we...Soros says that God does not matter (or does not exist), and neither does the individual. He is socialist after all. Soros says that foreign societies can play God and pick and choose which societies are good and bad and destroy the societies they deem "bad." In other words, Soros is telling the world the same damnable lie that Satan told himself as he stared in the mirror and the same lie Satan told Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden..."You can de-throne God and take His place."
We shall see what God says about that in the near future.
This example alone should tell the entire world just who George Soros serves...Clue #1: I'll narrow it down to two possible answers, God or Satan. Clue #2: It isn't God....I'll give you 3 guesses now.
But let's look at the Responsibility to Protect from another angle. Who are we to screw around with how other societies work? You might say "well the government is oppressive." Okay, who are we to say it is oppressive? Who are we as outsiders, having imperfect knowledge of that society, to make that God-like judgement? Are we God? Our standards are not their standards, and vice versa. And even if we determine it is an oppressive society, who are we to determine if the people are unhappy or unsatisfied with the present system? Are we able to make that judgement call for them?
If you answered in the negative for any one of these questions then we do not have the authority to rampage their society, even under the auspices of good intentions. If you answered in the affirmative to all of these questions, I want to see the nail marks on your wrists and the Shekinah Glory emanating from every pore of your body so bright it blinds me. So if you are not God, then you better have answered No to at least some of those questions.
Furthermore, unilateral action (even if that action is a consortium of other societies of the world with the world's permission) is not valid unless a legal claim has been made in a legal body and such claim is a Declaration of Independence from the old society and the Establishment of a new society that is outside and separate from the old society, not one that wishes to overthrow the existing society. Individuals or societies (if the members agree) have to right to separate from their old society, but in no way have to right to overthrow the old society. In cases of coup attempts the Old Society has the Legal Right to defend itself from overthrow. No outside power has the right to nullify that right to self-defense.
I will agree that the pictures of oppressed peoples are disturbing and at times horrifying. They may even prompt emotions that lead one to action to help them. These are good for people to have and I applaud those who have them as having the love of God and humanity. And nothing stops those who have these emotions and a pressing desire to help from helping in humanitarian efforts. Remember that you do put your life at risk for these efforts and that is truly the definition of a hero. But we must remember that if we act in a fashion to destroy a society, we are violating their rights and would be acting just as tyrannous as their present government.
It seems cruel to say, but it is absolutely true that people get the government they deserve. Governments are only a reflection of the people. If the people have murder in their hearts, it should be no surprise that the government practices murder. If the people have evil in their hearts, it should be no surprise that the government practices evil. Conversely, if a people are virtuous, their government also will be virtuous. If the people respect life, their government also will respect life. With this law of society in mind, is it any wonder that nation-building efforts in areas where people are murderous and evil-intentioned always fail and the society always retreats back into oppression and despair.
We see this law in action in the Old Testament of the Bible. Every time God judges the tyrannous leader of a society, He punishes the people of the society as well. But to God's love for us, He always sends a warning to that society before the punishment so that the society can repent and change and avoid the punishment. See Jonah.
Examples you experienced:
Algebra class in High School when the teacher worked out examples on the board
English class when the teacher gave examples of correct and incorrect sentences
Gym class to learn new sports
Playing air guitar in the style of your favorite musician
Local language and accents and figures of speech
Watching older siblings either get in trouble so you avoid the behavior or get away with bad behavior and you repeated the bad behavior
The list goes on and on
So watching oppressive societies in action serves as a warning to other societies to avoid the morals and values that led to the oppression.
So watching oppressive societies in action serves as a warning to other societies to avoid the morals and values that led to the oppression.
But let's look at the reasoning of George Soros as to why he wants a Responsibility to Protect Doctrine.
"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
"In particular," he continued, "the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
Say what Georgie Porgie??? Effective delivery of aid? and interfering with the affairs of sovereign states? Georgie you are talking in circles son. Your premises are your conclusion DOH!
His logic is thus:
Premises-
1- to deliver aid effectively
2- to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states with internal conflict
Conclusion-
We should have a policy that says we can violate the sovereignty of foreign states to deliver aid effectively. Totally circular maaaan! Tubular Dude! Your premises cannot be your conclusion. You cannot justify your conclusion with your conclusion.
Let's look at the same argument only a little more personal.
Premises-
I need money
I want to invade your home
Conclusion-
There should be a policy allowing me to invade your home to take your money.
In neither case was there a reason to give aid nor a reason to interfere in internal conflicts. Just that the need to deliver aid exists and a desire to screw with societies for no reason exists.
I have an idea Georgie...if they want aid then they should agree to an effective delivery system for it. If the society is experiencing internal conflicts (to any extent) we should leave them the heck alone!
The Old West in America has a saying; if you poke your nose in other people's business...be prepared to eat hot lead.
So what Georgie is saying that if an outside state has a bit of difficulty in delivering aid then the world can just take over the receiving society. That would be about 75% or more of the world that could be just taken over by other nations.
And Georgie wants the ability of foreign powers to take over sovereign states if they are "experiencing internal conflicts." Tell me Georgie, is a two-party system of government with opposing political platforms "internal conflict?" Just what is the threshold of "internal conflict?" And just what is the extent to the "experience" of internal conflict? Is it short-term, long-term, political or systemic? Is it ideological differences between two people? Would internal conflict be gang violence that is not political at all? Would internal conflict involve two churches who worship the same God in different ways but tolerate and love each other despite the difference? I mean that is a conflict of theology and it is internal.
Both of these intentions are so broad in nature and the power granted in the RTP Doctrine so vast that any consortium of nations would have the legal authority to conquer every other nation. An empire by Coalition would be legal (kinda sounds like the feet of iron and clay in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar had of the stature interpreted by the Prophet Daniel, the 10 headed Dragon in Revelations, and most all of the word pictures that depict the Anti-Christ's global government). A ten nation coalition of allies could conceivably take over the entire world.
I can conclude this with absolute certainty, no hesitation and as boldly as a lion walks his territory; This is proof positive that George Soros is a liar, a defrauder, and is actively working towards a world government system that would seek to usurp God's power and authority and seek to become a god. I can also boldly say that this global government will be the seat of power for the predicted Anti-Christ of Bible Prophecy. [a side note to all those who thought I was crazy about 15 years ago...TOLD YOU SO!!!!]
What I cannot say with any certainty or boldness is that Soros is the Anti-Christ. The dude is in his late 80's now and he couldn't handle his girlfriend let alone a world government. He is, however, setting it up for the real Anti-Christ, and the rate that this global government is being set up tells me that the End-Time is just days, weeks or months away...note not years, and I think I spread it too thin by saying months.
I will leave you with this thought; tyranny is a government that usurps the power of God and His natural flow of power. If a coalition of nations even under the best of intentions decides to interfere without provocation in the affairs of a sovereign state it is acting in tyranny and are tyrants themselves.
"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
"In particular," he continued, "the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
Say what Georgie Porgie??? Effective delivery of aid? and interfering with the affairs of sovereign states? Georgie you are talking in circles son. Your premises are your conclusion DOH!
His logic is thus:
Premises-
1- to deliver aid effectively
2- to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states with internal conflict
Conclusion-
We should have a policy that says we can violate the sovereignty of foreign states to deliver aid effectively. Totally circular maaaan! Tubular Dude! Your premises cannot be your conclusion. You cannot justify your conclusion with your conclusion.
Let's look at the same argument only a little more personal.
Premises-
I need money
I want to invade your home
Conclusion-
There should be a policy allowing me to invade your home to take your money.
In neither case was there a reason to give aid nor a reason to interfere in internal conflicts. Just that the need to deliver aid exists and a desire to screw with societies for no reason exists.
I have an idea Georgie...if they want aid then they should agree to an effective delivery system for it. If the society is experiencing internal conflicts (to any extent) we should leave them the heck alone!
The Old West in America has a saying; if you poke your nose in other people's business...be prepared to eat hot lead.
So what Georgie is saying that if an outside state has a bit of difficulty in delivering aid then the world can just take over the receiving society. That would be about 75% or more of the world that could be just taken over by other nations.
And Georgie wants the ability of foreign powers to take over sovereign states if they are "experiencing internal conflicts." Tell me Georgie, is a two-party system of government with opposing political platforms "internal conflict?" Just what is the threshold of "internal conflict?" And just what is the extent to the "experience" of internal conflict? Is it short-term, long-term, political or systemic? Is it ideological differences between two people? Would internal conflict be gang violence that is not political at all? Would internal conflict involve two churches who worship the same God in different ways but tolerate and love each other despite the difference? I mean that is a conflict of theology and it is internal.
Both of these intentions are so broad in nature and the power granted in the RTP Doctrine so vast that any consortium of nations would have the legal authority to conquer every other nation. An empire by Coalition would be legal (kinda sounds like the feet of iron and clay in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar had of the stature interpreted by the Prophet Daniel, the 10 headed Dragon in Revelations, and most all of the word pictures that depict the Anti-Christ's global government). A ten nation coalition of allies could conceivably take over the entire world.
I can conclude this with absolute certainty, no hesitation and as boldly as a lion walks his territory; This is proof positive that George Soros is a liar, a defrauder, and is actively working towards a world government system that would seek to usurp God's power and authority and seek to become a god. I can also boldly say that this global government will be the seat of power for the predicted Anti-Christ of Bible Prophecy. [a side note to all those who thought I was crazy about 15 years ago...TOLD YOU SO!!!!]
What I cannot say with any certainty or boldness is that Soros is the Anti-Christ. The dude is in his late 80's now and he couldn't handle his girlfriend let alone a world government. He is, however, setting it up for the real Anti-Christ, and the rate that this global government is being set up tells me that the End-Time is just days, weeks or months away...note not years, and I think I spread it too thin by saying months.
I will leave you with this thought; tyranny is a government that usurps the power of God and His natural flow of power. If a coalition of nations even under the best of intentions decides to interfere without provocation in the affairs of a sovereign state it is acting in tyranny and are tyrants themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment