jump to navigation

Health care petition signed by 1.3M delivered to Congress September 15, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Congress, health care, legislation, socialism.
1 comment so far

Southern Baptist ethics leader Richard Land joined other radio talk show hosts Sept. 9 in presenting to members of Congress a petition signed by more than 1.3 million Americans opposed to current health care legislation.

Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and host of “Richard Land Live!” and the others delivered the copies of the petition to Rep. John Boehner, R.-Ohio, the minority leader in the House of Representatives, and other members of Congress at a Capitol Hill news conference. All the talk show hosts are with Salem Radio Network.

The petition, which is believed by organizers to be the “largest public policy petition ever delivered to the Congress,” expresses concern about legislation that would move the United States toward government-run health insurance. It calls for freedom to choose health care providers, “patient-centered” care, government aid for the truly needy and insurance that will transfer with a person when he changes jobs.

The number of petition signers “shows that there is tremendous grassroots opposition and concern to a government takeover of a major portion of American health care,” Land told Baptist Press after the news conference.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., said at the news conference his office considers one phone call representative of at least 100 people, meaning the signed petitions represent at least 130 million Americans, he said. The boxes of signed petitions were delivered to the outdoor news conference on gurneys taken from an ambulance.

The delivery of the petitions came about six hours before President Obama was scheduled to deliver a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress urging support for health care reform. The congressional health reform effort, backed by the White House, faced increasing opposition across the country over the summer.

After the news conference, Land said of his desire for Obama’s speech: “I would hope the president would say, ‘You know, I campaigned as a post-partisan president, and so, in that spirit, I am going to scrap what is obviously a plan which does not have the broad support of the American people, and I am going to back to the drawing board with the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Congress, and we’re going to come up with a plan that will get the consensus support of the American people.”

In a nine-page analysis released in early August, the ERLC said it is certain a House bill approved in three committees “will lead to diminished health care for most Americans, less choice, higher taxes and unprecedented government intrusion into every level and aspect of society, from business, to education, to marriage, to individual liberty.”

The House version is the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, H.R. 3200.

The ERLC believes health care reform is needed, Land has said, but it is opposed to the measures approved by House and Senate committees. Those proposals would drive other insurers out of business, cause many people to lose their current insurance and control what private plans do, according to the ERLC.

A key concern also is that the House bill explicitly permits funding for elective abortions, which has sparked strong opposition from Land, the ERLC and other pro-life groups. Obama has denied the House bill would underwrite abortions, but pro-lifers have said the president has misrepresented the congressional proposals. Committees in both the House and Senate rejected efforts to exclude abortion funding from health care legislation.

Land has said Obama could easily resolve the matter.

“If, as the president alleges, abortion is not to be considered a covered procedure in any government option, what’s the problem with specifically saying so by excluding it in the legislative language? I would encourage President Obama to pick up the phone and call his party’s leaders in the House and tell them to drop their opposition to specifically excluding abortion as a covered procedure in any proposed legislation,” Land said.

The petition presented by the talk show hosts states: “I, the undersigned citizen of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to stop any increased role of the government in my health care decisions. I also petition the U.S. Congress to protect my right to choose my own doctors and hospitals without delay or denial, to obtain care that is patient-centered, and to have health insurance that is personal, portable and best suits my needs.”

In addition to Boehner and DeMint, other congressional members, all Republicans, speaking at the news conference were Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia, Mike Pence of Indiana, Tom Price of Georgia, Pete Sessions of Texas and John Shadegg of Arizona.

Source: Baptist Press, September 9, 2009

Advertisements

Senior Citizens Left Off Government’s Swine-Flu Vaccination Priority List August 6, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Democrats, economy, ethics, euthanasia, health care, legislation, medicine, news, politics, senior citizens, socialism, taxes.
Tags:
add a comment

Vaccination is one of the most effective ways to minimize suffering and death from influenza, the Health and Human Services Department says on its Web site.

But some senior citizens complain they’ve been left off the list of people who will be first in line to get the swine flu vaccination, when it is ready. One CNSNews.com reader suggested the omission is in line with the Obama’s administration’s plan to “minimize” health care for the elderly, as the reader put it.

On its Flu.gov Web page, HHS says the government is working to produce enough vaccine for the entire population, but there will be shortages when a vaccine first becomes available – probably in mid-October.

That means the “limited supply” will have to be “prioritized for distribution and administration.”

On July 29, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices – a group that advises the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — recommended that novel H1N1 flu vaccine be made available first to the following five groups:

— Pregnant women
— Health care workers and emergency medical responders
— People caring for infants under 6 months of age
— Children and young adults from 6 months to 24 years
— People aged 25 to 64 years with underlying medical conditions (e.g. asthma, diabetes)

Nothing is said about people over the age of 64, with or without underlying medical conditions.

HHS admits that its vaccination plans have changed as swine flu has spread:

“Now that an actual flu pandemic has arrived, we must be flexible and adjust our response based on the nature of the actual virus that has emerged, is circulating and causing disease around the world,” Flu.gov says.

“Based on what we know now about the novel H1N1 virus and the most vulnerable groups that are being affected most by this virus and those most likely to encounter it —younger people, pregnant women, healthcare personnel, and people who have underlying health conditions—it is necessary to revise and refine our vaccine prioritization guidance based on real world events.”

HHS says it already has invested more than $1 billion to produce a bulk supply of vaccine and to prepare pilot lots of potential vaccine for use in clinical studies.

In addition Congress passed and President Obama recently signed a supplemental appropriation for $7.5 billion to cover the costs of preparing for H1N1, including a vaccination campaign.

Commentary: In addition to the absence of any consideration for the very large and vulnerable senior population, the paternal health care of the federal bureaucrats costs taxpayers another $7.5 billion.

My question then is why do we need the bureaucrats in Washington funding our health care? Are not the big drug companies and their university labs not capable of funding their own profit-making drugs?

Maybe it is merely how health care works in a socialists system. We pay government, insurance companies, co-pays to doctors and drug companies, and then more through inflation to all of them. When the socialist bureaucrats Americans keep electing to rip them off of their income get their health care reform, Americans will spend even more of the money on health care and more time in line waiting to get health care. If you happen to be elderly, you might as well lessen the financial burden of all others by dying.

That appears to be the Democrats formula for compassionate euthanasia. Such has been the life long goal of Senator Sir Edward Kennedy.

News Source: CNSNews.com, July 31, 2009

Health care bill “would include Planned Parenthood clinics” July 27, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, Congress, health care, legislation, Planned Parenthood, socialism, taxes.
add a comment

Health care bill “would include Planned Parenthood clinics”
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently questioned Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) about the Kennedy health reform bill—and whether a new provision would include abortion providers—in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Sen. Mikulski confirmed that the bill “would include Planned Parenthood clinics” and “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.”

We all know what Sen. Mikulski is talking about: Taxpayer-funded abortions. This provision to include abortion providers in the health care bill passed 12-11 in committee, meaning we are now one step closer to our tax dollars being used to fund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. And now the pro-abortion movement is gaining ground on the House end, too.

H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, is currently on its third day getting a markup (i.e. getting debated, amended, and rewritten) in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Late last week, in the House Ways and Means Committee, Reps. Sam Johnson (R-TX) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) offered life-related amendments to the Democrats’ health care bill. Rep. Johnson’s would have explicitly excluded abortion from the minimum benefits and mandates provided for in the bill. It failed by a vote of 18-23. Rep. Cantor’s would have prevented taxpayers from being forced to subsidize abortions. It failed by a vote of 19-22.

All Americans should oppose H.R. 3200 for the following reasons:

1) It would include abortion providers like Planned Parenthood in the government health plan, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions.

2) It would impose $1.5 trillion dollars in new taxes on the American people.

3) It would put the government in control of health care—marginalizing consumer choice and eventually putting private insurers out of business as employers opt for the cheaper (but inferior) government plan.

Let’s make sure our Congressional representatives know we do not support a government takeover of health care.

By Josh Mesker, Policy Analyst at Arkansas Family Council

An American Political Scientist in Israel July 24, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in American history, Barak Obama, Declaration of Independence, moral relativism, politics, socialism, statism, Torah.
add a comment

My first trip to Israel was in June 1973. I was visiting a friend, a philosopher, to whom I had sent the first draft of my book A Discourse on Statesmanship. Both of us were dismayed by Israel’s institutional and ideological flaws. We decided to establish an Institute for Statesmanship and Torah Philosophy.

I was then finishing A Discourse on Statesmanship, the first philosophical analysis of The Federalist Papers, the greatest work on statesmanship since Aristotle’s Politics. Meanwhile, my friend was learning with the Rabbi Dr. Chaim Zimmerman, a world renowned Talmudist and Torah philosopher, who I visited weekly after making aliya in 1976, and whose teachings enabled me to interface political science and Torah.

To appreciate the statesmanship of the Founding Fathers, my Discourse contrasted the very different statesmanship of Woodrow Wilson, an accomplished political scientist. In Wilson’s writings I discovered a political science that rejected the immutable truths or Natural Rights doctrine of the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitutional system of checks and balances. Influenced by historical relativism as well as by Darwinism, Wilson propagated today’s doctrine of an evolutionary Constitution, where the President would personify the will and changing wants of the people. Wilson’s politics united Progressivism and Statism.

Whereas The Federalist embodied a “Politics of Magnanimity,” which transcends class, Wilson initiated a “Politics of Compassion” which fosters resentment of the poor against the rich. Hence Wilson may be deemed the most subversive president in American history—until the ascendancy of Barack Obama, a disciple of anti-American malcontents animated by Marxist socialism and Statism.

Socialism-cum-Statism, with the veneer of secular Zionism, was the ideology of Israel’s founding fathers. This ersatz ideology was as foreign to a commonwealth based on Torah Judaism as it would be to an American commonwealth based on the American Declaration of Independence—a document rooted in Jewish ideas.

Unlike America, however, Israel lacked a constitution. Israel’s immigrant population had little understanding of constitutional democracy. They believed that periodic, multi-party elections are sufficient to make Israel a democracy. They did not know that a few simple electoral rules can yield democratic Statism. Rule One: avoid constituency elections by making the entire country a single electoral district. Rule Two: require parties to wins Knesset seats on the basis of Proportional Representation. Rule Three: require citizens to vote for fixed party slates, rather than for individual candidates (who would be personally accountable to the voters). Rule Four: allow parties to use a staged method of electing a party’s Central Committee. Bolsheviks called this “democratic centralism.” Lo and behold, David Ben-Gurion was a self-professed Bolshevik, hence a Statist.

In Israel, Statism is obscured by Proportional Representation with a low electoral threshold, which spawns a profusion of parties. This necessitates multiparty cabinet government, but few discern that this yields prime ministerial government—Statism in disguise.

Proportional Representation fosters party men, not statesmen. And since the founders were practical atheists, they lacked the statesmanship required to unite immigrants from 100 different countries and endow them with Jewish vision.

In contrast, America’s Founding Fathers consisted of desists and theists learned in classical and modern political philosophy. Madison and Hamilton knew how to design political institutions. This can’t be said Israel’s founders. The average duration of an Israeli government is less than two years. The consequences are painfully obvious.

This may explain why, in 1975, when I first met Israel’s former Chief of General Staff Chaim Laskov in Los Angeles, he had a copy of my Discourse on Statesmanship. Israel lacked two of the basic ingredients of sound government: (1) a set of immutable ethical principles, and (2) a framework of institutions that facilitates rational implementation these principles under changing circumstances.

The Torah reveals these basic ingredients at a supernal level: first, the Ten Commandments, second, a body of laws and institutions to elaborate and safeguard those Commandments and adjudicate violations thereof.

Israel’s ruling elites do not take the Torah seriously, and of those that do, few try to derive from the Torah principles of government that can render Israel’s political institutions more Jewish as well as more efficient. Hence, I undertook the task of showing how Israel can be made more Jewish by means of democratic principles as well as more democratic by means of Jewish principles. This is the purpose of my book Jewish Statesmanship.

Consider the American Declaration of Independence. We see in the Preamble a statement about the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” from which we derive our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. These rights are immutable; they transcend history; they are higher than the laws of the State. We also see in the Declaration violations of those rights by the British government.

To secure man’s God-given rights and prevent their violation by the power of the State, the Founding Fathers established a Federal system government with limited powers and institutional checks and balances. Those elected to make the laws of the country would be accountable not to party machines, but to the voters in constituency elections. The Founders had studied the greatest political philosophers. They designed a government that made the United States the most powerful yet most benevolent nation on earth. University presidents in the eighteenth century regarded the American Constitution as based on the Ten Commandments. Notwithstanding separation of religion and state, the Constitution was the manifestation of a monotheistic culture rooted in the Bible of Israel.

Now, by interfacing the Torah and America’s basic principles of government, one can elevate those principles and adapt them to Israel. Accordingly, in Jewish Statesmanship, I drafted a Constitution for Israel based on Jewish and democratic principles. The Constitution derives the two basic principles of democracy, freedom and equality, from the Torah’s conception of man’s creation in the image of God. This provides these principles with ethical constraints and yields what I call “Normative Democracy.” The Constitution also makes legislators individually accountable to the voters. The laws will then be more Jewish because a substantial majority of Israel’s Jewish population identifies with the Jewish heritage. But now a warning about a malignant form of democracy.

A basic purpose of the Torah is to eliminate idolatry. The idolatry of our time is “Normless Democracy,” where freedom means living as you like, and where equality leads to moral equivalence.

Moral equivalence underlies the willingness of Israeli politicians to negotiate with Arab despots—with evil men committed to Israel’s annihilation. By failing to act as a Normative Democracy, Israel’s government induces the Normless Democracies of the world to expect Israel to make territorial concessions to her anti-democratic enemies.

That Israel’s ruling elites have succumbed to moral equivalence by negotiating with genocidal despots suggests they suffer from a mental disorder. I discuss this disorder in my book Demophrenia: Israel and the Malaise of Democracy. Thus, whereas Jewish Statesmanship provides a constructive critique of Israel’s flawed institutions, Demophrenia offers a constructive critique of Israel’s flawed mentality.

Also necessary is restoration of Jewish national pride. Hence I wrote Jerusalem versus Athens, Judaic Man, and A Jewish Philosophy of History. More learned men should have written such books, as I proposed to others in 1980; however, when no response was forthcoming, I was urged to undertake the task by Rav Chaim Zimmerman of blessed memory. Rav Chaim deplored the low level of Israeli politics and discerned the end of Zionism. What is to take the place of Zionism is a challenge to which I am not equal but which I could not ignore.

I have often said that friendly critics of Israeli government focus too much on policy flaws rather than on regime flaws. Generally speaking, policy flaws spring from regime flaws. Thus we see that regardless of which party heads the government, it pursues the same failed policy of “territory for peace.”

Israel’s best political analysts rarely say anything about Israel’s inherently flawed system of government. None call for “regime change.” This requires, among other things, constitutional reforms that shift power from parties to the people and that transforms Israel into a Normative Jewish Democracy.

Of course, regime change does not come easy. Hence I am reminded of the Alter of Kelm, who said: “Ask not if a thing is possible; ask only if it is necessary.” And John Stuart Mill who said: “A people may be unprepared for good institutions, but to kindle a desire for them is a necessary part of the preparation.” This has guided my work in Israel….

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The Extraordinary Evil of Bernie Madoff July 6, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Bailout, capitalism, crime, economic stimulus, economy, federal government, Federal Reserve, morality, news, politics, secularism, socialism.
3 comments

As I was opening some previously unopened e-mail newsletters, I came across another Bill Bonner financial commentary that I just could not resist posting. An American, held up in London’s financial district, Bonner’s insight are as enlightening and they are through-provokingly ironic. The Bonner bite tickles something between the large funny bone atop the shoulders. And, though the Madoff scandal is not really funny, his accusers are likely chuckling at the rest of us for believing them. That is, if Bonner’s insight are more true than not.

Hmmm … let’s see.

Poor Bernie. The man has been ordered to spend 150 years in the hoosegow. What for? Who did he kill? A century and a half seems a little excessive for a financial crime. You could hold up three liquor stores and rape a whole convent and still not get 150 years. With a little bit of good lawyer-ing, a history of child abuse in the family, and good behavior in the big house, you’d be back on the street in 18 months.

But all the papers seem delighted. “Locked up for Life!” says one of today’s headlines. The judge “threw the book at him,” says another. His victims wanted him to get no mercy. The judge gave him none, imposing the maximum sentence. He is “extraordinarily evil,” said the man on the bench.

Justice has been done. Right?

Here in the building with the gold balls on the roof, we’re not so sure. We stand up for lost causes…die hards…and scalawags. Besides, we’re not convinced that Bernie is extraordinarily evil at all. He seems much more like an ordinary evil to us.

They say he defrauded investors out of $65 billion. The amount is unusual, but the crime is as common as income tax evasion. Who gets 150 years for evading income taxes? Heck, in civilized countries it’s not a crime at all – but a civil misdemeanor, subject to fine and retribution, not punishment.

But didn’t he lie to investors? Well, yes…he exaggerated the returns investors were likely to get from his fund. But if you put every fellow on Wall Street who does that in jail, you wouldn’t have any room for stick-up men and wife beaters.

Isn’t he the biggest financial scammer of all time? Well…he’s the title-holder now. But he has a lot of competition close on his heels. Bernie’s crime was taking money from people under false pretenses…and then being unable to give it back to them. How is that different from the financing activities of the US government?

This year alone, the feds will borrow 50 times as much money as Bernie managed to take in during his whole 20-year career. They can only pay it back by borrowing even more money from more lenders. This is not very different from the typical “Ponzi” scheme, except that it’s the government doing it. Eventually, the suckers are going to lose a lot of money.

And when you balance Bernie’s sins against his virtues, we’re not sure the man doesn’t come out at least as well as many of his accusers. While Bernie was pretending to make his investors rich, the SEC was pretending to protect them from Bernie. In fact, neither were really doing what they claimed. Which is to say, both are guilty of ordinary evil.

As we pointed out yesterday, nothing is as dangerous as good luck. Madoff was not extraordinarily evil; he was just extraordinarily lucky. He was plying his trade when the feds were pumping up the biggest financial bubble in history. No wonder so much hot gas came his way. His luck ran out when the bubble popped. And now a court has found him guilty of fraud and a judge has ordered him locked up for a period equal to roughly the time between the end of the US War Between the States and the resignation of Richard Nixon.

While Bernie is behind bars, the SEC and FED officials are still at large. Both are clearly guilty of dereliction and negligence.

But, what is the point of keeping Madoff in prison? He represents no threat. Rather than pay $30,000 per year to keep him locked up, we suggest that he be forced to do community service work. He should be pressed into service as the next head of the Federal Reserve after Ben Bernanke’s term expires in December. With Madoff in the big office, there would be no longer any illusions about what sort of bank the Fed is running.

What a minute! In other commentary Bonner, John Mauldin, and other financial experts claim that the federal government stimuluses and bailouts are only making the situation worse. They claim when economic misbehavior occurs long enough a correction always takes place. It the world of parents and children a correction is called a spanking or a loss of desert, playtime, texting, or some other consumptive privilege. However, the parental federal government in all of their secular wisdom is desperately trying to convince us that bad behaviors don’t have bad consequences. It’s the mentality that you can steal and kill without the blow-back called justice if, and only if, you play by their unnatural rules. In this case, they are desperate to overcome the moral discipline of capitalism. (No wonder they are pushing socialism so fiercely.)

All of the above reveals Madoff is merely a smoke screen diverting the public attention away from their own misbehaviors. While making the Madoff look like the bad guy, the federal government is getting away with …..

To read the rest of Bill Bonner’s commentary, go to The Daily Reckoning.

On President Obama’s March 24 Press Conference March 24, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Amero dollar, Barak Obama, economy, NAFTA, news, North American Union, politics, socialism, U..S. dollar.
4 comments

I’m watching tonight’s presidential press conference in amazement. President Obama speaks of honesty about the issue and problems at hand while being dishonest about economy.

Numerous reporters have been asking him about the CBO budget analysis as well as criticism from both parties. A summary about Obama’s new budget will double our nation’s debt. President Obama’s response is it will reduce the deficit.

Mr. Obama quit trying to deceive the nation! Try forthright honesty. Your budget will further bury our nation in trillions of dollars of debt. The question was not about the deficit. The question was about the amount of debt to China, Japan, and socialist cost of universal health care, federal control of education, and ownership of bad debt banks.

What was not asked is how much inflation we can expect. That is how much the dollar will be worth after the Fed prints those trillions of dollars to cover the doubling of the cost of Democrat socialism. As the Feds print more and more dollars to fund the Democrats spending spree, the dollar devalues which causes prices to rise.

The President may be uninformed about the confidence in the US dollar. China and Russia want to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency with one created by the IMF, according to Agence France Presse. Before the economic crisis, Iran, Venezuela, and other emerging nations expressed similar desire to replace the dollar with another reserve currency.

The end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency may not wreck Pax Americana seeing the IMF was the creation of and is managed by American elites, but it will likely create a contrived need for both an Amero dollar and a reorganization of the Americas comparable to the European Union. Those on Capitol Hill have already planned a North American Union. NAFTA was meant to pave the way. I suspect that the current economic crisis has been planned for the same eventual goal. Of course, politicians, educational administrators, global business leaders including those in the media will claim ignorance just like Obama said our dollar is stronger than ever. That is an illusion because the Feds printing press assures us that it is not.

Could this be the New World Order in which Obama is leading us by anything but honesty?

What Obama’s Top Security Appointments Reveal About the Future March 12, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Democrats, Israel, liberals, Middle East, national security, news, politics, socialism.
add a comment

The good new for both pro-Israel Americans and Jewish Israelis is the withdrawal of Chas Freeman from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Many Republicans and Democrats expressed approval. Some opposed his appointment because of anti-Israel views. Others pointed to his long ties to Saudi royal funding and China oil money, according to Politico.

It is not difficult to see a strong influence favoring Saudi politics in the Middle East as well as those of communist China.

An even more troubling opponent of Israel is Obama’s senior policy adviser Samantha Power. According to Paul Eidelberg, she “advocates a U.S. invasion of Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.” This is backed up with a detailed investigative report in a February 19, 2008 American Thinker article. In it, Richard Baehr and Ed Lasky wrote,

“Power also advocates that America send armed military forces, “a mammoth protection force” and an “external intervention”, to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. This directly contradicts her criticism of the invasion and “occupation” of Iraq and her call for the removal of American forces from that nation. On the one hand, Power abhors American efforts to remake an Arab nation, but takes the contrary view when it comes to inserting American forces in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to impose a settlement.”

Little by little, we are getting a glimpse of Pres. Obama’s policy intentions through those like-minded people he is choosing to fulfill his party’s goals for Israel and the Middle East.

There is some irony lurking below the surface of Obama politics. Modern Israel was largely founded by Jews from socialist nations of Europe. Many of Jewish nation’s political issue stem from its roots in socialist ideals. Obama and party are also socialists seeking to remake America in their ideological mold. The common denominator among liberal politicians and many activists at home and around the globe appears to be world socialism. That may also be the reason China is so favored a nation on Capitol Hill.

The road to prophecy’s Armageddon is the socialist’s New World Order (NWO). Those who pursue it are the same who also fund the existence of dictatorial regimes guaranteeing resources and profits reach desired destinations. The leaders in American government and business are said to be among the most influential members.
If I remember correctly, it was Ludwig von Mises who wrote that capitalism was a necessary condition for the rise of socialism.

In a recent Raw Story feature, news about Kissinger, Obama, and the NWO is given some historical context. The author writes,

“The phrase ‘new world order’ traces back at least as far as 1940, when author H.G. Wells used it as the title of a book about a socialist, unified, one-world government,” writes Drew Zahn. “The phrase has also been linked to American presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, whose work on establishing the League of Nations pioneered the concept of international government bodies, and to the first President Bush, who used the phrase in a 1989 speech.”

In order to further understand the contemporary situation, one must understand that the meaning of the term secularism includes a combination of Marxist economic socialism, the values of humanism, and principles of totalitarian governance. The democrat facade of U.S. and world politics only hides the reality inside. The ravenous wolves always comes in sheep’s clothing.

Remember, it was Obama who announced his plans for the New World Order in Germany, which members of the global elite like Henry Kissinger are encouraging him to fulfill. Likewise, remember the Nazis were a popular political party and their charismatic candidate also promised a new world order.