Saturday, October 23, 2010

Mankind's Utopian Dreams Doomed to Failure

If you sincerely desire to know what is happening in America today and why it is happening, you must read Dr. David Jeremiah's new book, The Coming Economic Armageddon. In chapter 2, Dr. Jeremiah writes about how mankind's Utopian dreams are all doomed to failure. He mentions George Soros and what that multi-billionaire's goal in life really is.

Dr. Jeremiah writes:


Today the move toward a new world order has intensified as powerful movers and shakers such as George Soros are putting their money where their mouth is.

[Note from Christine - now we know where Glenn Beck got that phrase from! He used it in his recent invitation to Soros to appear on his T.V. show.]


Soros is like a character in a mystery thriller.


Dr. Jeremiah goes on to tell us about Soros' history and "the fact that he is a shadowy figure who exerts enormous influence behind the scenes, moving people about like a puppeteer and manipulating the global economy from highly fortified hideaways."

The root of all evil is the love of money. After a person has accumulated so much wealth that he is labeled a multi-billionaire, what does he do with all of it? Answer: he uses it for manipulation purposes. He manipulates people, economies, the media, public opinion, etc. and promotes his own type of "Utopia" through the manipulation of currencies in order to achieve a "new world order."

Dr. Jeremiah:


More recently George Soros has been in the news predicting that the global recovery is running out of steam, that the world economy will experience a devastating double-dip recession or a "Super-Bubble," and that following the collapse of the global economy a new world order will emerge. This prediction has launched Soros into the final cause of his life; he is devoting millions of dollars to fund a post crisis think tank that will reinvent a new global order following the coming economic collapse.

A recent report by the Reuters news organization was headlined, "George Soros Unveils New Blueprint for World Financial System." Speaking via video link with students at leading universities across three continents, Soros said, "International cooperation on regulatory reform is almost impossible to achieve on a piecemeal basis, but it may be attainable in a grand bargain where the entire financial order is rearranged." Soros has also stated in interviews and lectures that China should step up to the plate as the leader of a new global order, and the United States should not resist the establishment of a global currency.


Apparently, America has been a "thorn in his side" because of our annoying desire to remain sovereign and hold to the ideals of life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness through our Constitutional Republic. How ironic that Soros hates our economic system based upon Capitalism. He has made billions from such a system!

I wish I had the time to write in more detail about Jeremiah's discussion of "the ancient appearance of a New World Order." See Genesis 11:2-4 and read about the Tower of Babel. What they were attempting to do was an act of rebellion against God.

Dr. Jeremiah writes:


As Paul explained (see Romans 8:29, Matthew 28:16-20), God scattered men and set "the exact places where they should live" so they would seek after God. Mankind, settling in smaller communities throughout the world, would not be tempted toward the self-importance and sense of power that massive centralization would foster. Centralization would tempt them to rely on their own collective wisdom and strength instead of trusting in the Lord.


Dr. Jeremiah goes on to describe a modern attempt (the United Nations) at a New World Order. I don't even need to list all of the terrible mistakes that the U.N. has made throughout it's existence. Perhaps this paragraph helps to condense it:


I am not a fan of the United Nations. It is ineffective because of the widely varying aims and interests of its members; its consensus is often blocked by special interests of its members; its directives to rogue states are consistently ignored; its peacekeeping efforts are resounding failures; and its human rights commission border on irrelevancy.


Mankind's attempts to achieve world peace have always failed. Many times, they have failed - abysmally! This is because when fallen man rules the earth, you "will hear of wars and rumors of wars...For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom." (Matthew 24:6-7)

The only time that genuine peace will exist on earth is during the millennial reign of Jesus Christ which will end all war.

Meanwhile, what is the fallout from the inadequate attempts at world peace via human efforts?

Dr. Jeremiah writes:


1. A New World Order promises peace it cannot produce.
2. A New World Order presumes a unity that is impossible.
3. A New World Order paves the way for a one-world ruler.
4. A New World Order provides the rationale for a global economy.


Dr. Jeremiah shares some wonderful detail under each of these headings. Here, I will share just a few paragraphs that will tell us why man's attempts at a peaceful "New World Order" is bound to fail - every time!

Dr. Jeremiah writes:


But the unity they aspire to cannot produce world peace because the heart of man remains unregenerate. Unifying under a power strong enough to enforce peace will result in a corrupted authority that will instead produce unprecedented tyranny.

[T]he differences in cultures, religions, goals, and economics among the nations are far too vast to be melded into a true unity. It would be a unity of mere appearance -- a false unity. The difference between false unity and true unity is the difference between surface appearance and inner reality. Permanent and genuine unity must come from within. There must be a oneness of spirit and heart among peoples that serves as the basis for true unity. False unity can be imposed by external force, suppressing people's true beliefs, convictions, and aspirations, but it lacks the power to bind together their hearts. Therefore it always comes unraveled.


That is truly an awesome observation and basic truth!

America is currently deeply divided between the small percentage of secular liberal progressives who want a Marxo-Communist-Islamo-Fascist "utopia" created by man [Manifest Destiny??] rather than what the majority of Americans represent - (mostly) Christian, conservative, Constitutional-Republic way of life - that promotes Godliness and what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our sovereign nation.

Dr. Jeremiah shares how the popular song "Imagine" by John Lennon expresses what all Utopian dreams do, but has no basis in reality!


Contrary to what the lyrics wish for, there is such a thing as religion; there is a heaven and a hell. There are ideals worth dying for. Wishful thinking, no matter how lofty, will not produce a wizard's wand to sweep these realities out of existence and give us a world where differences in religion, ethics, ideals, economics, and culture don't matter.


Any progressives who happen to come along and read this blog post are not going to like to hear this! How shattering it would be for them to read that their beloved Utopian theme song has been relegated to the trash heap of historical error by Dr. Jeremiah's words of wisdom!

Dr. Jeremiah:


Furthermore, people will never find true unity because the sinful nature of man will prevent our coming to a consensus on truth. The prophet Jeremiah puts it this way, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). Humanity may unite with good intentions, but as long as hearts remain wicked, nothing good will be produced."


This is precisely why the Great Commission was given to us by Christ Himself! It is only through the saving grace of God, the mercy afforded to us through the forgiveness of sin via the sacrificial death of Christ at the cross of Calvary - whereby we can be saved. Saved from the punishment we all deserve from sin, and at the same time, saved from ourselves!!

Hat Tip:

Dr. David Jeremiah.org

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Re the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?' asked at the side.

Because dual nationality and the citizenship of one or even two parents has no effect on the Natural Born Citizen status of a child born in the USA.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

That is why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY, and that is why the Chief Justice of the United States swore him in as president.

Christinewjc said...

Anonymous -

Then explain why Obama has spent close to 2 million to hide his bona fides?

If you took the time to go to the sites listed in the sidebar "Why Natural Born Citizen for POTUS Matters," you may discover that your comment here is incorrect.

Also see The Obama File for pages and pages of research and articles about Obama's ineligibility.

The only way Obama could legally be POTUS is if his biological father was an American Citizen and WAS NOT Barack Hussein Obama Sr.

GMpilot said...

You've shown yourself to be deficient in your knowledge of history before, so I strongly suggest you look up the term "manifest destiny" and find out what it meant--and means.

According to Genesis, God couldn't even maintain peace and order in his own heavenly realm. What makes you think he can do any better on Earth?

Anonymous said...

Re: "Then explain why Obama has spent close to 2 million to hide his bona fides?"

Because he didn't. that is the money spent in winding down the campaign. It costs a lot of money just to rent offices, and the lawyers have to check on all legal issues. then, there were lawsuits to stop the election and stop the electoral college from voting.

BUT there was never a lawsuit against Obama just for his birth certificate or just for documents.

Obama would not have defended against a lawsuit just for his birth certificate. He would have had no need to. Since the document that he has shown is the OFFICAL birth certificate of Hawaii and the facts on it have been confirmed by the officials, he would simply show the court the physical copy of the document, and the court would accept it.

As for your allegation that Natural Born Citizen status requires a US father or, for that matter, two US parents, neither are true.

That is why the US Congress confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY, and that is why the Chief Justice of the United States swore him in. Not one of those people, and we are talking more than 530 here, believed the notion that you have to have US citizens as parents to be Natural Born.

The meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply "born in the country." The expression was used constantly by the American writers at the time, and it always referred to the place of birth, never to the parents of the person.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

Anonymous said...

Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed it.

There was never a lawsuit against Obama just for his birth certificate or just for documents. If there had been one against him just for the birth certificate, Obama would simply have shown it to the court because the Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate.

Re your claim about Obama's father affecting Obama's Natural Born Citizen status. The reason that the US Congress voted UNANIMOUSLY to confirm Obama's election and the reason that the Chief Justice of the United States swore him in is that not one of the members or the chief justice considered that the citizenship of Obama's father affects Obama's Natural Born Citizen status.

The reason that the US Congress confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY and that the Chief Justice of the United States swore him in as president is that not one of them believes your theory about Natural Born Citizen status requiring two US parents.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
October 24, 2010 1:19 AM

Christinewjc said...

GM -

I am listening to a video over at Beck University which is explaining the difference between Divine Destiny (Providence) which implies that God is active in this world vs. man-made "Manifest Destiny."

Our goal is to fulfill His Will through our actions. God is the primary cause and humans are the second agents of that plan. The foundation of Providence was from our Founding Fathers because they had a common source for this idea - it's called the Bible. The Bible was the most important "text book." 1/3rd of their quotations came from the Bible. Our Founders were biblically literate. God is involved in history. (see Romans 8:28) Providence shows up in our Founding Document - the Declaration of Independence. It describes that the rights we possess cannot be given to us by any human being or taken away by any government. Those rights are inalienable. We are endowed by our Creator. Laws that come from nature and nature's God. Just like there are laws in nature. In the same way - there are laws of government.

For the rectitude of our intentions. They recognized that some would call them "spurious." The Founders recognized that one day we would stand before God Himself and be judged.

Finally, the Declaration states: "And for the support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Our Founders believed in the biblical concept that God is active in our lives and working together for good for those who are called to His name.

more later

Christinewjc said...

There are a lot of different definitions for "Manifest Destiny." Some include the term "divine" (with a small "d") others don't.

Christinewjc said...

Anonymous -

I've "been there, done that" many times on this blog. Please read everything (especially the sidebar) at the site of the lawyer involved in the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case of Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al over at A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers.

Christinewjc said...

Spelling correction! *unalienable rights!

Anonymous said...

Re: "in the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case of Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al over..."

Answer: There is NO upcoming Supreme Court case. The Kerchner case has simply been appealed to the Supreme Court. When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court must first of all decide whether or not to take the case. That is what is upcoming. But the court has NOT taken the case, so there is no case upcoming.

Moreover, the issue in the Kerchner case is simply whether the lower courts had dismissed the case for lack of standing. the Supreme Court would not decide the issue of Obama's Natural Born Citizen status even in the highly unlikely event that it takes the case. If it takes the case, which is highly unlikely, it will simply decide whether or not the lower courts erred in throwing out the case for lack of standing. In the even more unlikely event that the SC decides that the lower courts erred in throwing out the case, they would simply order the case to go back to the first court.

But the odds of the Supreme Court taking the case are absurdly low. After all, when about 66 cases have been thrown out for lack of standing, it is highly likely the the cases really did not have standing.

GMpilot said...

I know there are several definitions of "Manifest Destiny". What I want to know is which one you mean, in the context of what you wrote.

Christinewjc said...

I think that the progressives would most likely choose the following definition:

"A policy of imperialistic expansion defended as necessary or benevolent.
often Manifest Destiny The 19th-century doctrine that the United States had the right and duty to expand throughout the North American continent."


It is a more atheistic version of the term and also contains what the "hate America first" crowd often believes - that the U.S. is an imperialistic, predatory kind of nation (which they highly disapprove of). Therefore, the hopey changey ObamaBorgBot mantra appealed to them.

And don't say that they aren't the "hate America first" leftists. Observe any "The World Can't Wait" crowd of crazies who are often found at San Francisco protests! Check out Zombietime

Gary Baker said...

"According to Genesis, God couldn't even maintain peace and order in his own heavenly realm."

The fact that there was a war in Heaven does not indicate that God couldn't maintain peace. In fact, by casting out the dissidents, he did just that. Likewise, that will be the method of attaining peace on Earth. God will defeat the dissidents. That's the Christian version, anyway. The Muslims are convinced that it's their responsibility to "kill, convert, or enslave" the infidels, which is what makes them infinitely more dangerous than Christians, but's a different topic.

Despite the discredited history, Liberal academics maintain the best way to deal with evil is to discuss, negotiate, and compromise. There is no record of God compromising in Heaven, which is a good indicator of why it doesn't work on Earth.

GMpilot said...

I wasn't talking to you, Mr. Baker. Not this time, anyway.

Christine, go back again and read what I wrote:

I know there are several definitions of "Manifest Destiny". What I want to know is which one you mean, in the context of what you wrote.

You haven't done that. Don't give me what you think the 'progressive version' is: give me yours.
You invoked the term; if you can't explain it, you shouldn't use it.

GMpilot said...

”...God will defeat the dissidents. That's the Christian version, anyway. The Muslims are convinced that it's their responsibility to "kill, convert, or enslave" the infidels, which is what makes them infinitely more dangerous than Christians, but's a different topic.”

Well, if the Muslims feel that way, it's partly because the Christers showed them how. But I don't care about their version of attaining peace on earth any more than I do the other version. I find both to be less than optimal. On the other hand, “We had to destroy X in order to save it” is not a liberal academic point of view, and it too has a discredited history.

Christinewjc said...

GM,

I am only now understanding what that term actually meant to the progressives. It does help to explain their ideology and why they loath America for most of what she stands for.

I cannot recall which definition was used when I was in school. However, due to the comparison of man's desire for his own Utopia, vs. following God's Word, the Bible and His will for our lives, it should be obvious that in this particular context I meant the definition that Soros would support - the progressive, atheistic, and bash-America-as-negatively-imperialistic, etc. definition. Their "manifest destiny" would be to turn America into a socialist/communist/Islamo-fascist nation completely controlled by government through the power of the few...namely, the powerful and rich progressive elites.

The way that I view America's birth and the direction she should be headed is the way the Founders intended and described in our founding documents. Most importantly, it was all due to Divine Providence.

But, as our nation spirals down in sin, evil, and death because many people have forgotten God, our once great nation is suffering many different kinds of ills.

Of course there are some who could combine both ideas, but only if our "manifest destiny" was under the banner of Divine Providence. Otherwise, men would take all the credit for establishing one of the greatest nations on earth.

GMpilot said...

You have no definition of 'manifest destiny' that you can explain. You are only parroting what you believe to be the 'progressive' version of it. Who taught it to you, Professor Beck?

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you wouldn't claim that progressives would support turning the USA into 'a socialist/communist/Islamo-fascist nation' consisting of three mutually incompatible political systems! I don't find a Christo-fascist nation any better alternative. Powerful, rich elites have long controlled government policies, and they haven't usually been progressive. Look back about...oh, 120 years or so. Or even 60 years ago.

”The way that I view America's birth and the direction she should be headed is the way the Founders intended and described in our founding documents.”

If the Founders had intended your God as the bedrock of our government, it would have been easy for them to say so. They were crafting the laws for a brand-new nation. They did not. You will search in vain for any mention of God in the Constitution, and references to a “Creator” are found only in the DoI—which is a political document, not a legal one.

My admonition still stands. You invoked terms you don't understand; if you can't explain them, you shouldn't use them.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

"Well, if the Muslims feel that way, it's partly because the Christers showed them how."

Wow, what a high-powered argument! What's next? So's your mother?

At any rate, it's a lie. Muslims spread their gospel by the sword from the beginning. They needed no example of how to kill and enslave.

"“We had to destroy X in order to save it” is not a liberal academic point of view."

Quite the contrary. These days it's just about the only liberal academic point of view. They have to destroy free speech by hate speech laws and repressive speech codes on campuses to save it. They have to destroy free choice to keep people from eating anything to harm them. Basically, their method is to destroy freedom to save it. Like nations under Muslim control, they are quite adept at destroying freedom. No salvation yet. And like atheists, they are great at suing and harrassing organizations like the Boy Scouts, but are completely lost when it comes to building up something that does good works.

I understand your need to make every other philosophy as hateful and barren as your own, GM. But it simply doesn't match reality. The reality is that atheists seize power, supposedly to help people, and then murder them by the million. That's your political and philosophical legacy. Either embrace honestly, or change philosophies.