World Government on the Horizon
World Government on the Horizon
Dr. Andy Woods
What in the World is the World Coming to?
The subject of this paper is the coming one-world government that is biblically predicted to come into our world just prior to the return of Christ. Globalism or world government is on the horizon for the human race. Before you can have an event of any kind, the stage must be properly set ahead of time. For example, before a basketball game can begin, certain items must first come into existence. The gym floor must be swept. The bleachers must begin to fill up with fans and spectators. Popcorn must be sold to these onlookers. The referees must come onto the court and be ready to perform their duties. The opposing teams must take the floor and begin to perform layup drills in order to properly warm up. The Scripture predicts an end time series of events. Just as the stage must be properly set for an athletic event, the world must also be properly organized for the end times drama predicted in the Bible. Globalism, or the trend in our world towards one world government, is one of those key stage setting events that is currently preparing the way for the particular end times scenario spoken of in the pages of God's Word.
In this paper, we want to explore the subject of world with you from four angles. First, we want to look at the divine perspective on world government. What does God think about it? Has God expressed an opinion on this matter? Second, we are going to look at Satan’s goal of instituting world government. Third, we are going to take you through a series of stage setting events that are presently setting the stage for the coming world government. Fourth, we want to end on a note of optimism by revealing the good news in a series of current events that on the surface might seem negative and pessimistic. As we shall see, there is actually a silver lining behind all of these things.
Does God Have an Opinion?
Let’s take a look at the divine perspective on world government. We find God's opinion on this matter clearly expressed in Genesis 11:1-9. These verses say:
Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.  It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.  They said to one another, ‘Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly.’ And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar.  They said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.’  The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.  The LORD said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.  Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.’  So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.  Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth.
Man's First Attempt at World Government
Genesis 11:1-9 is the famous Tower of Babel story that we learn in Sunday School as little children. This event represents man’s first attempt at world government. We might even call it humanity's first United Nations conference. If you go back in your Bible to Genesis 10:8-10 you learn that there was a man leading this revolt, his name was Nimrod. Genesis 10:8-10 says, “Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth.  He was a mighty hunger before the LORD; therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.’  The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar." This government was to be centralized in this man, Nimrod. It’s interesting that in Hebrew the word “Nimrod” actually means revolt or rebel, and epitomizing the fact that what was happening here was indeed a revolt or a rebellion against God.
Why did the building of the tower represent a rebellion? This activity was a spiritual rebellion because God gave man specific instructions after the Flood to spread out, to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. Genesis 9:1 says, “And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” Genesis 9:7 also says, " “As for you, be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.” What you discover in Genesis 11:4 is they were doing the exact opposite. They were coming together to build “a tower whose top will reach into heaven.”
The Tower of Babel was man’s first attempt at what some call a new world order. The new world order can be defined as a system of economics, politics and religion which excludes God and His divine point of view. The new world order is really not something new at all. It’s as old as the Tower of Babel of old on the plains of Shinar. In verses 4 and 5, there was a political dimension to what was happening through the use word “city.” They were actually building a physical city. We also see an economic dimension because they were involved in labor. We also see a religious dimension because in verse 4 they want to build a tower that will reach into heaven. They were seeking to get to heaven through their own efforts, which is typical of works-based religiosity. So this building project was economics, religion, and politics all coming together simultaneously, excluding the true God, and building a tower for themselves.
We also see God’s opinion clearly expressed on the whole subject in Genesis 11:7-9 where God scattered the builders. God performed a miracle that confounded the languages of the builders. Thus, the builders could no longer cooperate with each other. Consequently, this whole building project was stopped dead in its tracks. From this event originate the various nations, cultures, and ethnicities of the earth. All of the various ethnic entities of the earth all owe their origin to this divine scattering that took place here at the tower of Babel.
Why was God upset with this one-world project? Why did God thwart this first attempt to set up a new world order? The answer is pretty clear when you look at Genesis 11 verse 6: “The LORD said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.” When verse 6 says, “nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them,” it is not talking about the potential for good. Rather, it is talking about the potential for evil.
Think about this for just a minute. If there is only one government on planet earth and that government happens to fall into the wrong hands, then the power or the ability to bring in unprecedented evil will be left unchecked. Let’s say that the only government that exists in the world falls into the hands of a Saddam Hussein or an Adolf Hitler. Think of the unprecedented evil that could then occur. On the other hand, if you have multiple nations in existence and an Adolf Hitler or a Saddam Hussein gets control over just one of those nations, then the other nations can arise and counter balance the evil that is taking place in that one country or one nation that has gone astray. This has happened many times in our history. For example, the allies arose during World War II and opposed Hitler. During the Gulf War America and a coalition of nations arose and opposed Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Thus, the whole concept of multiple nations, which God created at Babel, serves as a check and balance system. Evil can’t get control of all political power because there is a division of power amongst multiple nations. This is a system that we call checks and balances, and I believe that this is the wisdom of our own system here in the United States of America. With checks and balances and three separate branches of government in existence, if the wrong crowd or group or party gets control of one of those institutions, at least there are two other institutions that are left free of those individuals' control. Consequently the other branches can check and balance the evil that’s taking place in the one group or institution or branch that has gone astray. Thus, there is great wisdom in how God set things up subsequent to the Tower of Babel event.
Innate Human Depravity
Why did God do things this way? He did so because of what is recorded in Genesis 8:21, which was articulated right after the Flood. Genesis 8:21 says, “The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, 'I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.'” Notice this expression, “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” God knows human nature. He knows that humanity has inherited a sin nature from Adam and that this is true of every human being. A key verse on this is Jeremiah 17:9, which says, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?”
Given this anthropological reality, if he man has unlimited power, he will ultimately become corrupted by this power. It was Lord Acton that put it this way: “All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This biblical presupposition of man’s fallen nature explains why God, at the Tower of Babel, set up a system whereby power would be dispersed amongst multiple nations. Power could not be coalesced in a single Nimrod-type character or figure after the confusion of the languages that God caused at the Tower of Babel.
Multiple Nations Are a Blessing
Thus, ever since the Tower of Babel God’s normal ordering of things is based on individual nations. In other words, the concept of the many individual nation-states rather than global governance is what God desires for the human race ever since the Tower of Babel event. For example, in the book of Deuteronomy 32:8 we read, “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.” Notice here this idea of boundaries and nations. Paul, the apostle, in the New Testament, makes a reference to this doctrine of nations during his sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17:26. There the Apostle Paul said, “and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having predetermined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation.” Ever since the Fall of man and more specifically ever since the confusion of the languages that took place at the Tower of Babel, the natural order of things is for man's power to be divided up or dispersed according to individual nations rather centralized in one universal government.
This doctrine of nations will even be true in the Millennial Kingdom. Interestingly, the doctrine of nations even continues into the future, earthly reign of Christ. Notice the repetition of the word "nations" in the following millennial texts. For example, in Isaiah 2:4 we read, “And He will judge between the nations.” We find the same concept in Isaiah 66:18: “For I now their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory.” Zechariah 14:16-18 also says, “Judah also will fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be gathered, gold and silver and garments in great abundance.  So also like this plague will be the plague on the horse, the mule, the camel, the donkey and all the cattle that will be in those camps.  Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went up against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.”
In fact, Jesus Himself will rule the nations in the Millennial Kingdom. Revelation 12:5 says, "And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne." Revelation 20:3 similarly notes, "and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time." Even after the world that we are in is destroyed and replaced by a new world, it is interesting to note that the doctrine of nations continues right on into the eternal state. The Eternal State is described in Revelation 21:24, which says, “The nations will walk in its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.” It seems that the divine precedent established at Babel was designed to have an eternally binding result.
God's Perspective on Global Governance
When we assemble all these verses, we begin to discover the divine perspective on the subject of globalism as well as the divine perspective on the subject of world government. Globalism and world government have become some of the most dominant issues of our day. When we study our Bibles carefully we learn that God has expressed an opinion on the subject. God is against world government. The reason why God is against world government is because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, given humanity's sin nature, God wants power decentralized, and that explains why He confounded the languages at Babel. Thus, the concept of multiple nations exists today, will even exist into Christ's millennial reign, and will even exist into the eternal state. The existence of multiple nations provides a natural check and balance system which is necessary given man’s sin nature. Such national decentralization helps preserve the social order in our fallen world. Evil cannot get control of all political power and its progress is hindered with the existence of a plethora of national boundaries.
Now that we have examined God’s perspective on the subject of world government, we will now move into our second major section, in which we will explain Satan’s goal of establishing world government. What is Satan’s goal in human history? What has been the goal of Satan ever since the Tower of Babel? What is Satan trying to do throughout history and in today's world?
Satan’s goal is to subvert the divine ordering as established at Babel, or the doctrine of nations, and instead bring control of the world back under one man. Satan, by and large, is trying to reverse what took place at the Tower of Babel. He seeks to erase the doctrine of nations and reestablish a Nimrod-type character that Satan himself will rule the world through. The Nimrod of the future is known as Antichrist. This future Antichrist will then govern the entire world on Satan's behalf. Satan desires the same type of arrangement which existed in Genesis 11:1-9, before God supernaturally intervened and dispersed global power.
This movement towards a centralized one-world government is, in essence, where history is headed. The events that are happening in our world are neither accidental nor random when we understand what the Scripture predicts. Everything is moving in a predicted, preordained direction. The Bible predicts that Satan will succeed for a season. In the future events involving the coming Great Tribulation, Satan's dream of global governance and the reversal of the creator's decree at Babel will ultimately be realized.
Scriptural Predictions of a Coming World Government
Many scriptures predict the fulfillment of this satanic ambition. For example, Daniel 7:23 speaks of the form of government that will exist on planet earth just prior to the return of Christ. It says, “The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.” Thus, before Jesus returns there will come into existence a human government which will devour "the whole earth." We find the same idea in the New Testament in the Book of Revelation. Revelation 13:7 describes the future government of the Antichrist when it says this: “It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.” Thus, the Antichrist will have authority over every tribe, people, tongue, and nation. This is a very interesting collection of terms because those identical terms are also used in Revelation 5:9 depicting those for whom Christ died. Revelation 5:9 says, “Worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals; for you were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” Therefore, just as Christ’s death is for the whole world, Satan’s reign will similarly be over the whole world. Revelation 13:8 similarly says of the coming Antichrist, “All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.”
Future global governance is also seen in Revelation 17:15, which speaks of a harlot sitting on many waters. The harlot is the system and city (Rev. 17:18) that the Antichrist will reign from, and the many waters represent the harlot’s influence. Revelation 17:15 says, “And he said to me, 'The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.'” Apparently, the harlot’s influence goes throughout the entire world. This universality explains why there are so many similarities between Genesis 11:1-9 and Revelation 17 and 18.
Reincarnation of the Tower of Babel
When we read Revelation 17 and 18 we should be saying to ourselves, "wait a minute, I already read that before in Genesis 11." Both sections of Scripture talk about a city. Genesis 11:4 speaks of a city and so does Revelation 17:18. Genesis 11:4 says, “They said, ‘come, let us build for ourselves a city….” Revelation 17:18, "The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.” Revelation 18:17 also says, "And were crying out as they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, ‘What city is like the great city?’"
Both sections of Scripture also speak of Babel or Babylon. Genesis 11:9, for example, indicates that the name of the system that Nimrod tried to institute and implement was Babel. Genesis 11:9 says, “Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth.” Similarly, in Revelation 18:10 you will basically find the designation Babylon as the locale from where the Antichrist will rule from. Revelation 18:10, says, “standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying, ‘Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’”
Furthermore, Genesis 11:8 alludes to Babel as the mother of harlots when it says, “So the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.” The sin that was taking place at Babel was spread into every single culture. This reality explains why "mother of harlotry" is an accurate description of the Tower Babel incident and its aftermath. Thus, of the Tower of Babel, Clarence Larkin notes:
The river Euphrates...To this centre the "forces of evil" gravitated after the flood, and "Babel" was the result. This was the origin of the nations, but the nations were not scattered abroad over the earth until Satan had implanted in them the "Virus'' of a doctrine that has been the source of every false religion the world has ever known.
Similarly, the Antichrist’s city and system of the last days is also specifically designated "the mother of harlots." The Babylonian harlot's specific title is "the mother of harlots." Revelation 17:5 says, “and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, ‘BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”
In sum, Genesis 11:1-8 and Revelation 17–18 share the designations city and the mother of harlots as well as the title Babylon. Revelation 17 and 18 reads a lot like Genesis 11. The reason for these similarities is that the Holy Spirit is informing us that in the Tribulation period Satan will accomplish his longstanding goal. He will bring humanity back to the new world order that existed during the days of Nimrod. Satan, in essence, will erase the divine effects of Babel. He will erase the doctrine of nations, and he will once again set up his counterfeit kingdom that will have universal jurisdiction over the entire world.
Why cannot Satan accomplish this goal today? He cannot pull it off today because God is thwarting him through a ministry that the Apostle Paul categorizes as the restrainer. Second Thessalonians 2:6-7 says, “And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he will be who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.” In other words, something is largely interrupting what Satan wants to do, which is to recreate the tower of Babel. This disruptive entity is called the “restrainer.”
For many reasons that are beyond the scope of this work, the restrainer is none other than the Holy Spirit’s restraining ministry in and through the church. The Holy Spirit currently hinders Satan's progress through the church. However, one of these days this ministry of restraint will cease. The church will then be raptured to heaven. With the restrainer gone Satan will have his heyday. He will then do what he has always wanted to do. Satan will revert humanity back to the Tower of Babel, which is the city and the system that he had originally set up on the plains of Shinar. The new world order will come back into existence thereby allowing Satan to govern the entire world through a single individual just as he once governed the entire world through a single individual named Nimrod, at the Tower of Babel.
Satan the Counterfeiter
Satan has always wanted to be like God. Isaiah 14:14, which is a description of Satan’s fall from heaven, says, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” Satan wants a one-world system. Why does he want a one-world system? He wants a one-world system because he wants to be like God. What is God going to have one day? God, in the millennial reign of Christ is going to have a one-world system that He will reign over throughout the earth. Revelation 5:10 is very clear about this when it says, “You have made them to be a kingdom of priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” One day God, the Father, will govern the last Adam, God the Son, who will rule over the entire earth on God the Father’s behalf. This will be the period of time that we call the Millennial Kingdom or the future 1000 year reign of Christ.
Because Satan wants to be like God, he also desires to control a one-world system allowing him to rule the world through a man. He tried to establish this scenario in Genesis 11:1-9 where he was putting together a global system of politics, religion, and economics that he would administer through Nimrod. Fortunately, Satan did not get too far in this endeavor since God disrupted what was happening through linguistic confusion. However, once the restrainer is removed, Satan will finally get what he has always longed for, which is a one-world system. He wants it badly because he wants to be like God. He wants to be the God, the Creator of the universe. In fact, Satan attempted to replace God at one time in the distant past (Isa. 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:12-17; 1 Tim. 3:6). Anything God will have, Satan tries to imitate or replicate as well.
The Stage is Being Set
We have examined the divine perspective on globalism. We learned that God has expressed a clear opinion on this matter in Genesis 11:1-9. God stands against the whole idea of world government. Satan’s ambition is always the opposite of God's agenda. Thus, Satan seeks to institute one-world government. This Satanic agenda helps us to understand where history is moving. We have not only examined Satan’s end game, but also why he has not quite yet been able to bring in a world dictatorship. However, we also noted the coming Tribulation period represents the time in history when he will finally succeed in what he has always wanted to do in terms of erasing the doctrine of nations and reverting humanity back to the Tower of Babel when he will govern the world through a single individual.
We will now examine a series of stage-setting events currently taking place in our world that are paving the way into globalism. Even though the restrainer has not yet been removed, there are still trends in our modern world leading us into the direction of one-world government. To me, these trends are very obvious and very clear. These trends that I’m going to share with you are simply my observations of the direction the world is moving in. I don’t claim any exegetical authority when I share some of these trends with you. They are simply my own personal observations on world events as a Bible reader who is looking at the pages of Scripture and then looking at the direction that our world is heading in.
These trends are not exhaustive. You might say that I forgot this or that and you might be right. However, just for the sake of spatial limitations, I have settled on seven trends that I see happening today which are moving us aggressively in the direction of a one-world government. These trends are cumulatively setting the stage for that time in history when, following the rapture of the church, Satan will rule over a man, the Antichrist, who in turn will rule the entire world on Satan’s behalf.
The first of these seven trends is that a globalist paradigm pervades the thinking of the elites. The elites of our country and our world do not think in terms of nations that God established in Genesis 11. Rather, they think in terms of world government. What do I mean by “elites?” What I mean by elites people that have influence. They are the “movers and the shakers.” They are people who are influential in education, entertainment, Hollywood, religion, baking, politics, healthcare, and business. They are the opinion makers and shapers. Whatever the field is there are certain people that are largely shaping the direction of those disciplines. I am not talking about the thinking of the common man or woman. Rather, I am talking exclusively about elite thinking. When you look at the way these people think, they think in terms of globalism or world government rather than individual nations. To substantiate this point, I will draw the reader's attention to several quotations made by elite opinion makers.
John Lennon and Imagine
Globalist opinion even comes out in some of our entertainment. For example, John Lennon sang a song called Imagine:
Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, above us only sky, Imagine all the people living for today. Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people living life in peace. You, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us and the world will be as one. Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people sharing all the world. You, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one.
Now we’ve heard that song many times. I used to sing this song in the back of my head sometimes. You’ll notice that this song is loaded with Babylonianism. Lennon says here, imagine a time when there will be "no countries." That’s out and out rebellion against what God has established at Babel. It is a rejection of the doctrine of nations and the natural checks and balances that it provides. He imagines a time when there’ll be "no religion," "no heaven," and "no hell." In other words, Lennon envisions a time when the knowledge of God, the Bible, and Christianity will be done away with. He is making religious statements. He wants a religious system that excludes God. He also says imagine a time when there’ll be "no possessions." This statement represents a rebellion against the whole concept of private property and free market capitalism, which is a biblical idea. He says imagine a time when everyone is "living for today." So nobody is thinking about the true God and our future with Him, but rather they are living for themselves for today only.
And then he says imagine a time when "the world will live as one" as a "brotherhood of man." The idea here is we are all together, and the aftermath of the Tower of Babel has been done away with and all of its nationalistic effects. Lennon envisions a time when humanity is living under the authority of one man. This man, of course, will be the Antichrist. Now he doesn’t know it’s a future Antichrist. He just thinks it’s some sort of savior that will come. But even John Lennon talked about this concept of the new world order. The song Imagine became standard in our entertainment and consequently drilled the concept and vision of the coming new world order into the minds of countless people.
Nations as Irrelevant as States' Rights
Here’s another elite quote from Henry Steele Commager.
The inescapable fact traumatized by the energy crisis, the population crisis, the armaments race and so forth is that nationalism, as we have known it in the 19th and much of the 20th century, is as much of an anachronism today as with state’s rights, when Calhoun preached it and Jefferson Davis fought for it. Just as we know or should know that none of our domestic problems can be resolved within the artificial boundaries of the states, so none of our global problems can be resolved within the largely artificial boundaries of the nations.
He is arguing that the doctrine of the nations that God established at the Tower of Babel is basically something that needs to be done away with. What he’s saying is our global problems are so severe that they cannot be resolved within the context of individual nations. Global government is the only way to resolve these global problems. Interestingly, he says in this quote that just as we got rid of the states' rights in favor of an overarching national government in the United States of America, we similarly need to shed the concept of nationalism in favor of transnational government. The United States of America, by and large, has acquiesced power from the individual states to a massive federal government.
This arrangement is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers wanted. Real power was to reside with the individual state governments rather than a centralized government. The Constitution’s Tenth Amendment specifically states, “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.” In other words, according to the framers' design, the federal government could do twenty things. These enumerated powers are listed in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Everything beyond these twenty items everything was reserved for either the states to perform or for the people to do for themselves. Madison in Federalist Number 45 could not have been clearer on this point. He said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Essentially what has happened in America is the exact inverse of this design. The whole concept of states' rights has been replaced by a massive federal government. Commager in the above quote is arguing that the same concept or transition needs to continue on as we transition into global government. Just as we have jettisoned states' rights in favor of a massive national government, in the same way we need to get rid of individual national governments and see their authority basically swallowed up or gobbled up by an international government. This acquiescence of national power is the only way to solve our massive global problems that we have such as the armaments race, the population crisis, the energy crisis, and so forth. This is how the elites think.
Admissions of Rockefeller
Here is a similar quote from David Rockefeller from his book entitled Memoirs:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well publicized incidents, such as my encounter with Castro, to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim that we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global, political, and economic structure, one-world, if you will. If that’s the charge I stand guilty and I am proud of it.
Here, Rockefeller admits that his interests are not in line with the United States of America, but rather they are in line with a broad world government that will one day come into existence to resolve all of our problems.
Here’s yet another quote from the Humanist Manifesto. There are actually a several of Humanist manifestos. The first one was signed in 1933. A second one, called Humanist Manifesto II, was published in 1973. There is even a newer document entitled Humanism 2000. Humanism is the dominant religion in America today. It is what is taught unashamedly in our public school classrooms. Humanists in these documents basically set out their creeds and confessions, beliefs, and doctrines. Just as a church or a Christian school typically has a doctrinal statement, the humanists also have a doctrinal statement. Humanist doctrine is articulated in Humanist Manifesto I & 11 and Humanist Manifesto 2000. These documents were signed by many movers and shakers of our country. For example, Isaac Asimov, the science fiction writer, was a signatory to the Humanist Manifesto II. Walter Mondale’s brother, Lester Mondale, was also a signatory to the Humanist Manifesto II. Here is a quote from Humanist Manifesto II:
We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move towards building the building of a world community. A system of world law and world order based upon transnational federal government.
According to the Humanists, not only are we moving in the direction of world government, but we must deplore any type of division of mankind on nationalistic grounds. In other words, Humanists deplore what God's intervention in Genesis 11:1-9 that halted global government.
Multicultural Educational System
Let me take you to another issue that is also setting the stage for the coming world government. This second stage setting event, currently preparing us for world government is that our multicultural educational system is currently preparing global citizens of tomorrow. To change the direction of a society, the seeds of change must first be panted into the minds of future generations. Schools, particularly mandatory public schools aimed at the very young, are an important tool or vehicle toward the accomplishment of this goal. A quote, sometimes attributed to Abraham Lincoln, well illustrates this point: “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” This point is especially true given the fact that "During twelve years of schooling a child spends more than 11,000 hours in the classroom."
The Religion that is Being Taught in America's Public Schools
What we must understand about our school system is it is teaching values although they are not your values or biblical values. Instead, they are openly promoting Humanism. As indicated earlier, Humanism is not objective or value neutral, but rather represents religious thought. Interestingly, humanism’s status as a religion is also evidenced by the American Humanist Society’s possession of 501(c)3 tax-exempt status and its classification by the IRS as a church. Even the Supreme Court has referred to humanism as a religion. In Torcaso v. Watkins the court noted, “Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others” (italics added). Humanists have told us over and over again that they are going to take over the public schools philosophically and use these institutions to indoctrinate the minds of impressionable children in order to create a new generation of Humanists and globalists. This ambition was telegraphed to us as early as 1930 from Charles Frances Potter, in a book called Humanism, A New Religion. Here, Potter says, "Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?" Note this similar quote from Chester M. Pierce, a Harvard psychiatrist, speaking as an expert in public education at the 1972 International Educational Seminar:
Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.
These are amazing quotes. Basically what Potter and Pierce are contending is that the schools are necessary to erase Christian thinking from the minds of the youth. What Pierce here is openly admitting is that kids come into these schools mentally ill. Why, because they believe in nationalism, and not globalism. They also believe in the principles of America's founding fathers. They are loyal to their parents, to God, and to their own country. Because such thinking is out of harmony with the coming new world order, it is deemed a mental illness. Thus, the goal of public education becomes to reverse this mentality or illness and sickness in people so as to make them compatible with tomorrow's globalism.
The New Pledge of Allegiance
The traditional Pledge of Allegiance that children typically recite at the beginning of the school day reads as follows: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” However, this very citation is out of harmony with the coming New World Order since it promotes national rather than global loyalty and acknowledges that our rights emanate from God rather than as a gift from the nanny state. Thus, in many schools today, the Pledge of Allegiance has been altered to make compatible with the coming globalism. Kirby Anderson, back in 2007, reported what was taking place at Boulder High School. The Pledge of Allegiance was altered to instead say, “I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes, and to the diversity in which our nations stand, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty and freedom and justice for all.” Notice the omission of God and the acquiescence to the notion that we all belong first and foremost to the global community. Thus, we see how globalism is even changing, in some cases, the very Pledge of Allegiance in public schools so as to harmonize the thinking of the next generation with the coming world government.
Another example of the altered Pledge of Allegiance was recently discovered in an openly displayed poster in a second grade class room. This is what this eerie poster said: “I pledge allegiance to the earth and all life which it supports, one planet in our care, irreplaceable, with sustenance and respect for all.” Different versions of this "Earth Pledge" have also been introduced in various city council meetings and school districts throughout the country. What is happening in all of these schools is that the child of the future is being prepared. These children are not to be American citizens first and foremost but rather global citizens. The child is not to think nationally but rather is to think globally. All of this is all setting the stage for the coming new world order.
Are All Cultures Equal?
While still dealing with this whole subject of education, a related subject is the concept of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is this idea that all cultures are morally equal. With the advent of multiculturalism, today's typical public school curriculum is designed to impart to American students more knowledge about other cultures than their own. Consequently, it is completely possible, if not probable, to graduate from our school system today with far more knowledge about other cultures around the world than our own unique and special American culture.
One of the ideas that is pushed out, and even despised, in a multiculturalist paradigm is the whole issue of American exceptionalism. What do I mean by American exceptionalism? American exceptionalism is the idea that America is unique and prosperous. America's longstanding and successful experiment with self government is unique among the nations of the earth. America's founding documents have given more people more freedom, politically and economically, than any other documents in the history of mankind. Most people around the world, if you gave them the choice as to where they would live, would unashamedly and unabashedly choose America. People all around the world recognize that America represents something different, unique, or exceptional.
However, we are now living amongst a generation of thinkers, largely because of the humanist indoctrination over multiple generations, where American exceptionalism is a dying concept. Even America's 44th President, does not believe in American exceptionalism. When Barack Hussein Obama was asked about whether of not he believes in American exceptionalism, he said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In the minds of the multiculturalists, America is no different than any other nation on the face of the earth. In fact, today if you stand up and contend for American exceptionalism you are immediately categorized and vilified by the multiculturalist as arrogant, racist, ethnocentric, hateful, and so forth.
In multiculturalism, Western civilization is blamed for most of the world’s problems. The negative aspects of America's founding fathers are magnified and exaggerated while much of the good they did is either suppressed or systematically removed from the text books. Western Civilization is portrayed as the culprit of most of the world's problems. A multiculturalist, for example, looks at America as the villain, the aggressor, and as a country that has accumulated power through colonization and imperialism. In actuality, nothing can be further from the truth. There probably is not a country in all of mankind that has accumulated and acquired more power and at same time been so benevolent in how that power has been utilized and dispensed. After all, it was America that liberated the Iraqis from the perils of Saddam Hussein. It was America that liberated the entire world from the evils of Nazi Germany and from Imperial Japan during World War II. However, American exceptionalism and our Judeo-Christian value system are concepts that are dispensed with since they contradict the multiculturalist paradigm of moral cultural equivalents.
The Death of American Patriotism
Patriotism, or the idea of loyalty to America, is also routinely attacked by multicultural educrats. Patriotism is no longer viewed as an admirable character trait but as a sign of arrogance. New Age expert Eric Beuhrer observes, "One of global education's chief goals is to reduce the spirit of patriotism among young people." Notice this revealing quote from George Brock Chisholm, a humanist who was the first director of the World Health Organization. In a speech at a conference on education in 1954 he declared that, "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” The multiculturalist sees compulsory public education as the vehicle to bring about this desired result in the thinking of the masses. Ron Taylor well describes the ultimate goal: "It is their stated goal...to steal one generation of children and teach them to place loyalty to the state above loyalty to family." This is very the philosophy that our children, if we have them in public schools, are being consistently taught. Yet, a steady inculcation of the multiculturalist philosophy, with its accompanying anti-American, anti- patriotic, and anti-Western civilization themes, into the minds of the next generation is a necessary perquisite in order to usher in global governance. As long as the loyalties and affections of people remain with particular countries, such as the United States of America, and not the global society, the agenda of the New World Order cannot be furthered.
Do Children Belong to Parents?
Regarding this subject of educational indoctrination, it is important to understand that globalists do not see children as belonging to their parents. Rather, they think that children belong to them or to the global community. Recently, Melissa Harris Perry, an MSNBC host and Tulane University Political Science professor, said:
We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.
Collective ownership of children by the state rather than parents is a concept that completely contradicts the Scripture. Deuteronomy 6:6-7, going back as early as 1406 B.C., says to parents: “These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.”
Management by Crisis
There is yet another process at work, which is currently setting the stage for the coming one-world government. It is a concept known as "management by crisis." What do we mean by the expression "management by crisis"? Here is how it works. If you can convince people of the existence of a societal crisis of some sort, then they will voluntarily tolerate a surrender of their personal freedoms and resources to a governmental entity that promises to resolve the crisis for them.
How did universal healthcare, known as Obamacare, ever get passed in the United States of America? Prior to the passage of this legislation, we were repeatedly told about the existence of an American health care crisis. We were told about vast amount of people that did not have health care insurance. The fact of the matter is, when you looked at the American health care system as it existed prior to Obamacare, it was the envy of the world. In fact, foreign political leaders who have universal health care in their own nations, when they themselves experienced personal medical problems of their own, they did not submit themselves and their personal medical issues to their own universal health care systems of their own country. Rather, they came to America to have their personal health care needs looked over and taken care of. However, if your goal is to ultimately tear down the greatest health care system in the world and rebuild it in the image of an inefficient government bureaucracy, such as the post office, which is essentially what Obamacare has done, then beforehand you must convince people through repetitious propaganda that the American health care system is failing and in the midst of crisis. You must not only convince them that the American healthcare system is falling apart, but also that it has to be scrapped and replaced by something newer and "better." If the propaganda is repeated enough times, eventually a sizeable enough number of people will believe it regardless of its veracity or lack thereof. After all it was William James, the father of modern psychology, who said, "There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it." If you first convince people that there’s a crisis, then people will eventually say to government, "go ahead, come in, and fix the crisis for us."
The Gun Grabbers
The same strategy is happening right now with the issue of guns. The political left wants to disarm the American people. Because they ultimately want to take away your Second Amendment rights, what are they presently focused on? They are currently being propagandized into believing in the existence of a gun crisis. They are being taught to believe there’s a "wild, wild west" scenario currently transpiring in our society. Anytime a shooting happens, before the corpse is given time to even get cold, the liberal media begins to tout the tragedy as yet another example of the gun crisis in America. However, when the issue is examined objectively and independent of human emotion, the fact of the matter is there is no gun crisis in America.
It is interesting to note that rifles in 2011 were used in 323 murders. Yet hammers and clubs were used in 496 murders in 2011. Hence, if you believe that there is a national firearms crisis, then you also have to believe in the existence of a hammer and club crisis. If you want to ban rifles because of the existence of a firearms crisis, then logic would dictate that you must first ban hammers and clubs since there is a larger crisis is associated with the latter.
Never Waste a Crisis
According to this management by crisis method, in order to convince people to give up their freedoms, you first must convince them of the existence of a crisis. Beyond this, any minor crisis occurring in our society must be exploited and utilized as an excuse to further grow the size and scope of government. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former Chief of Staff and now the Mayor of Chicago, well articulated this principle when he said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” In other words, we have to seize upon these societal crises, real or imagined, in order to cause the government to grow even larger since in the midst of a crisis people will acquiesce a greater surrender of their personal freedoms and resources to the government.
The Sky is Falling!
This concept of management by crisis is something that is consistently employed at the international level. The United Nations, probably since at least around the early 1990's, has been sponsoring a series of global crises conferences. The theme of these conferences epitomizes the Chicken Little mentality who famously said, "The sky is falling!" Notice the following "parade of horribles" dangled before the people of the world by the United Nations. First there was the earth summit conference in Rio De Janerio in 1992 designed to protect the environment. This was quickly followed by the human rights conference in Vienna in 1993 designed to protect human rights. Next the United Nations sponsored the population conference in Cairo in 1994 in order to prevent starvation and poverty. After that, they sponsored the women’s conference in Beijing in 1995 to protect women’s rights. There was also the habitat conference in Istanbul in 1996, which was designed to provide global housing for all.  Most recently they had the climate change conference in Copenhagen in the year 2009. What the Copenhagen conference was designed to do was to implement climate change policy.
At a superficial level, these issues at first glance seem to be legitimate areas of societal and global concern. We should be concerned about women’s rights, starvation, etc... However, we must learn to look at these various conferences with a greater degree of discernment. There is a tremendous propensity for exaggeration of some global danger at all of these conferences. The threat that supposedly exists is hyped beyond what the facts dictate. The reason the threat or the crisis is hyped up is because there is another or ulterior agenda at work. This agenda is really not to solve the alleged crisis. Rather, the real ambition is to transfer wealth and sovereignty away from America into global government. Remember, people will tolerate a surrender of their personal freedoms and resources if they believe there is a crisis in existence and that the government will resolve the crisis on their behalf.
What is always dangled as the carrot that can supposedly resolve all of these alleged crises is a one-world government. Despite the type of problem being touted, globalism is always offered as the solution. In fact, the true crisis is the solution that will be imposed. The one-world government itself that will be imposed to resolve the alleged crises is actually the true crisis. In other words, the crisis is not population growth, or starvation, or any of these other issues, but instead is global governance. Once global government comes into existence our freedoms will rapidly be eliminated and will deteriorate. We will become mere subjects and slaves to an overarching global structure. Under such a centralized government, as Friedrich Hayek argued, we will be well on "the road to serfdom." 
Is it Global Warming or Climate Change?
Take, for example, the issue of global warming. Global warming alarmists contend that the earth is catastrophically heating up due to unbridled capitalism and human economic activity. Therefore, global government is necessary to regulate such human activity in order to save the planet from catastrophically overheating. However, when objectively analyzed, this hysteria is far afield from the actual reality of the situation. At the aforementioned United Nations' conference on the environment in Rio De Janerio, which was one of the first world crisis conferences hosted by the United Nations, globalists, environmentalists, socialists, Marxists, Humanists, and New Agers were all in attendance and calling for increased United Nations power to regulate the economies of the world on behalf of the environment. Despite the existence of all of the special interests, the conference elicited only a limited contribution from credentialed scientists presenting credible data supporting the theory of anthropogenic or man-made global warming. Tragically, those scientists that disagreed with the green "apocalypse machine" were ignored.
In order to become an intellectually honest global warming alarmist, three questions must first be successfully answered in the affirmative. First, is the earth really heating up? Second, if so, then is this heating of the earth catastrophic or harmful? Third, is this heating caused by human activity (anthropogenic warming) or is it instead due to the natural cycles of our world and solar system? When we look specifically at each of these issues, we discover that the global warming alarmists or advocates are not able to provide a satisfactory affirmative answer to any of these three questions. We really do not know if the earth is actually heating up. Even if it is heating, we do not know if such heating is catastrophic. Even if it is heating up to catastrophic levels, it remains uncertain that such heating is actually caused by human activity. Interestingly, global warming transpired during the time of the Vikings, long before the advent of SUVs and modern industry. Also, some scientists attribute global warming to sunspots or solar flares and even the carbon dioxide emitted from the ocean, which are obviously occurrences beyond human activity and control.
A fourth and related trend that is presently setting the stage for the coming one-world government is known as the Gaia Hypothesis. The previously described radical environmental extremism and zealotry is compounded by the fact that many in today's environmental movement subscribe to what is commonly called the Gaia Hypothesis. The Gaia Hypothesis can be defined as follows: the Earth is not an inanimate object but a living organism. Thus, the earth is a living, breathing, and thinking entity that we must be respectful to, or, the earth itself will retaliate against us. In other words, should we fail in maintaining proper respect for the earth, then the earth itself will punish us. How exactly will the earth punish us? It will do so through climate problems such as global cooling or global heating and through earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc...Essentially, the Gaia Hypothesis advocates humanity treating Mother Earth properly lest she be enraged and retaliate against us.
Sometimes we hear people use language and phraseology such as "the earth has a fever" or that "the earth is our mother." In so doing, they are ascribing to the earth, a non-living entity, a living or human quality. Theologically, this worldview is known as pantheism, which worships the creation in the place of the Creator. By confusing the creation with the Creator in this manner, pantheism contradicts core biblical priorities. Scripture teaches that the earth is merely an inanimate or non-living entity. God gave man dominion over the earth (not the other way around) so humanity could exercise stewardship over it on God's behalf (Genesis 1:26-30; 2:19-20). Paul, in Romans 1:22-23 condemned pantheism when he said, “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.” Here Paul condemned the unsaved world precisely for worshipping the creation rather than the Creator. Thus, the Gaia Hypothesis promotes the very doctrine and misguided priorities that Paul condemned.
Gaia's True Believers
Do people actually believe in or adhere to the pantheism promoted advocated by the Gaia Hypothesis? Yes they do! A few quotes should suffice. Notice the words of Gaia advocate Vaclav Havel, “According to the Gaia Hypothesis, we are parts of a greater whole. If we endanger her, she will dispense with us in the interest of a higher value–that is, life itself.” Gaia advocate James Lovelock similarly pronounced:
Gaia is Mother Earth. Gaia is immortal. She is the eternal source of life. She does not need to reproduce herself as she is immortal. She is certainly the mother of us all, including Jesus…Gaia is not a tolerant mother. She is rigid and inflexible, ruthless in the destruction of whoever transgresses. Her unconscious objective is that of maintaining a world adapted to life. If we men hinder this objective we will be eliminated without pity.
In other words, if we as human beings do not respect our mother then she will retaliate against us through natural disasters and the like.
It's not just policy wonks who espouse this philosophy. It also emanates from leaders in entertainment. Notice also the words of Danny Glover, a famous American actor, as he sought to identify culprit of the severe Haiti earthquake of 2010: "What happened in Haiti could happen to anywhere in the Caribbean because all these island nations are in peril because of global warming. When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm sayin'?" What Glover is here articulating is that because America did not go along with the globalist and climate change agenda by failing to sign on to the international treaty being touted at the Copenhagen climate change conference back in 2009, Mother Earth retaliated against us and caused the massive Haiti earthquake that affected and killed so many. Through this quote, Danny Glover is showcasing the Gaia mentality for the entire world to see.
Gaia and Global Monitoring
Radical environmentalism coupled with the Gaia philosophy is largely setting the stage for the coming one-world government by creating a rationale for global control of the masses. Globalists themselves often seem somewhat transparent and candid in revealing this true agenda. Globalists King and Schneider concede, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...” Former Vice President and global warming advocate Al Gore in his book Earth in the Balance admits that, "...we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization." All of this, of course, is setting the stage for the coming world government. The Antichrist’s government of the future will not be a government of freedom, but rather will be characterized as a government of complete and centralized economic control. Revelation 13:16-18 predicts this coming global socialistic and communistic type nightmare when it says, “And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.” The advent of the Gaia Hypothesis is largely setting the stage for this coming surveillance society since it provides the philosophical and even theological rationale for monitoring the global activity of mankind.
Trashing of the United States' Constitution
Another modern trend that that is also setting the stage for the coming world government is the neglect, obfuscation, and, in some cases, alteration of our own United States' Constitution.
If our Constitution stands for anything, it is the proposition of limited government. The Constitution demonstrates an antipathy toward big government. Our founders seemed to fear big government not only because of its ability to enslave but also due its appetite for massive tax revenues that could only be extracted from the hard- working American people. This fear is justified given the fact that the founders had recently been emancipated from England's oppressive government in the War of Independence. This fear of oppressive government explains why the Constitution, which is one of the greatest political documents in human history, comprises a mere ten pages. This page count even includes the Bill of Rights, which comprise the Constitution’s first ten amendments. Not only is the founders’ fear of big government evidenced in the small size of the Constitution, but it is also illustrated in the few powers that the Constitution actually assigns to the federal government. Kennedy and Newcombe explain:
How many powers does the federal government have? Today it almost seems to be an infinite number because of Supreme Court decisions and runaway legislation, but the Founding Fathers, in the Constitution, gave the federal government specifically twenty powers. There are only twenty things that the federal government is supposed to be able to do: all the rest remained with the states or the people. Even the enumerated powers were limited by checks and balances.
In fact, the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment specifically states, “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.” In other words, according to the framers' design, the federal government could perform only twenty functions. These are listed in Article I, section 8. Everything beyond these twenty items was reserved for either the states to perform or for the people to do for themselves. Madison in Federalist Number 45 could not be clearer on this point when he said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Therefore, in order to bring people into a global government, where government has total control and total power over them, then you first have to get rid of our current Constitution promoting limited government. In other words, limited government must first be scrapped so as to favor unlimited government. Thus, this very Constitution that constrains the size and scope of government must be seen in the eyes of the citizenry as a flawed document.
An Unknowable Document?
Beyond this living document interpretive approach, many also marginalize the importance of the Constitution by maintaining that the Constitution is so old that one cannot really understand what it says even if the interpretive goal is to derive the founders' original intent. This departure from the original legal sources created by the founders has been expedited by the advent of postmodern deconstructionism. In other words, with the entrenchment of legal positivism at the academic levels of the legal profession, it has become common for legal scholars to excuse their lack of attention to constitutional authorial intent under the guise that the intent of the framers was unknowable. For example, staff writer for The Washington Post and MSNBC Contributor Ezra Klein recently complained about the Republican idea of reading the Constitution aloud in Congress. Klein said, “The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending upon what they want to get done.”
The following remark from former Supreme Court Justice Brennan similarly reflects such an assertion:
It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the framers on application of principle to specific contemporary questions. All too often sources of potential enlightenment such as records of the ratification debates provide sparse or ambiguous evidence of the original intention…And apart from the problematic nature of the sources, our distance of two centuries cannot but work as a prism refracting all we perceive.
Brennan’s point is that even if we wanted to get back to the ideas of the founders, we do not have the ability to do so since the applicability of their writings to contemporary matters is sparse. Even when we do read the founders we do not read them accurately since we do so through a twenty-first century lens. Because we cannot understand what the framers wanted nor intended, the mind of the judge must rule the day and not the vision of the Constitution's framers.
Brennan’s statement, which typifies the mindset of postmodern deconstruction, has been vigorously challenged by conservative judge and scholar Robert Bork, who claims that the application of the intent of the framers to contemporary matters can be known through the Constitution itself, the records from both the constitutional and ratifying conventions, newspaper accounts covering these conventions, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, acts of the first congress and other branches of government interpreting the Constitution, founding era scholarly treatises expounding upon the Constitution’s meaning, and the founders’ own voluminous writings.
Brennan’s statement also does not sit well with the average Bible-believing Christian who argues that he can discern God’s will by reading the Bible, which was recorded in another language, from another culture, and written from two thousand to thirty-five hundred years ago. Thus, it seems absurd to say that modern judges cannot travel backward a mere two hundred years, in the same language, and from the same culture in order to ascertain the intent of the framers. Jonah Goldberg elaborates:
Last week, Ezra Klein, a famously liberal Washington Post blogger, explained to MSNBC host Norah O’Donnell that the “gimmick” of reading the Constitution on the floor was ultimately silly because the Constitution was written “more than 100 years ago” and is, therefore, too confusing for everyone to understand. By that standard, Moby Dick, Pride and Prejudice, Shakespeare and the Bible are long past their expiration dates and, by implication, impossible to follow accurately. One might also point out that the recently minted phonebook-thick Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is a good deal harder to decipher than the U.S. Constitution.
Thus, according to the prevailing wisdom of our day, the Constitution as originally construed, is entirely unknowable because the document needs to be kept "alive" by the reinterpreting efforts of contemporary jurists and also because the Constitution's age renders it unknowable.
A Flawed Document?
Others are even more brazen in their criticism of the Constitution's original intent by also contending that the founding vision of the Constitution is not something that should even be returned to since the instrument was flawed at its origin. The legal positivist often deprecates and dismisses the founders as dead, oppressive, European males. For example, constitutional law professor and then “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as having ‘deep flaws’ during a September 2001 Chicago public radio program adding that the country’s Founding Fathers had ‘an enormous blind spot’ when they wrote it. Obama also remarked that the Constitution ‘reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.’” Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives Jerrold Nadler similarly referred to the Constitution as "highly imperfect." Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has also pointed out the various imperfections in the Constitution that should be changed, including how deliberately cumbersome it is to amend the document. "It's certainly not easy to get the Constitution amended, and perhaps that's one flaw in the Constitution that I don't mention in the book."
The Supreme Court Goes Global
As noted in Ginsburg's above quote, one of the very frightening things to see developing is a real trend in the law away from our own history as a people and more towards international sources of law when adjudicating matters. This globalist trend can be discerned through the juxtaposition of two recent Supreme Court cases. In a 1986 case called Bowers v. Hardwick, the high court considered whether a state anti-sodomy statute violated the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, ruled that because there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that forbade such a statute and because such anti-sodomy laws were on the books at the time the Constitution was written and ratified, such a statute was constitutional. The court even indicated that although it thought that the law was silly, they had no right to strike it down since it was within the purview of American Constitution and history.
Less than two decades later in a 2003 case called Lawrence v. Texas, the identical set of facts came before the court. This time the court ruled that the state anti-sodomy statute was unconstitutional. Rather than basing its decision on our own Constitution, history, and traditions as the Bowers court had done, the Lawrence court based its decisions upon foreign sources of law, including the European Court of Human Rights and British Parliament. In other words, the court determined that the anti-sodomy statute was now null and void since it was out of step with world opinion. When these two decisions, both Bowers and Lawrence, are compared, there is an obvious trend in the law away from our own Constitution, culture, history, and traditions in favor of foreign sources of law when resolving matters.
Another trend which also is setting the stage for one-world government is unmanageable national debt. Our government today is spending money as if there’s no tomorrow. We are over seventeen trillion dollars in debt. It was Tip O’Neill who once quipped, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." Once you stop talking about hundreds, thousands, and millions, and you get into the subject of billions and trillions, we can’t even conceptualize numbers that big. "The estimated population of the United States is 319,457,125 so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,248.89. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $2.43 billion per day since September 30, 2012."
Toward a Global Currency
What actually is happening with such accumulated debt is that we are stealing from the next generation. This is known as generational theft. It’s analogous to going into a restaurant and ordering an expensive meal and then when the time comes to pay the bill you tell the waiter to bill your grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Even though they haven’t been born yet we will make them responsible for the tab. Runaway debt spending is pilfering from the next generation. As we continue to run the printing presses and the debt grows, the purchasing power of the dollar also decreases because other countries begin to see us as unreliable in terms of paying back our debt. This reputation has the capacity or the potential of pushing down the value of our dollar. Moreover, an excess of printed money creates inflation. Inflation occurs when you have too much money chasing too few goods. Runaway inflation also erodes the dollars' purchasing power. The dollar today buys less because of our runaway debt.
How does all of this relate to the subject of globalism? Eventually the dollar will become so weak that it will need to be replaced with a global currency. Edmond Conway, the economics editor of the Telegraph writes that the “UN wants new global currency to replace dollar: The dollar should be replaced with a global currency, the United Nations has said, proposing the biggest overhaul of the world's monetary system since the Second World War.”52 The dollar for many years has been the world's lead currency. Yet, if we continue spending far more than we’re taking in then the value of the dollar will continue to decrease. As patriots, Americans, Constitutionalists, and nationalists, we look at such devaluation as a sad reality. Globalists, on the other hand, celebrate this devaluation. The reason being is that one of these days the dollar will have to be replaced by some sort of transnational currency that will be global rather than national in scope.
Cloward and Piven
There is also a related strategy at work here called the Cloward and Piven strategy. This strategy is named after a husband and wife team. They are 60’s radicals who went into academia and became Political Scientists. Here is a brief description of their strategy: it is a political strategy to overload the American public welfare system to the point that it creates a crisis and bankrupts the nation, leaving the country no choice but to adopt a socialist or communist or globalist agenda. In other words, the goal is to intentionally drag the economy down through excessive spending, either on or other public works programs. The end result is to make a whole series of citizens unproductive and dependent upon the state. In other words, you deliberately grind America down to the point where our longstanding and capitalistic economic system collapses and thus must be replaced by something else. Once America is at the economic breaking point the globalist, or the socialist, or the Marxist then holds out big government as the solution to our intentionally inflicted economic wounds.
Ignorance or Contrived?
I have to ask myself at some point a basic question regarding all of today's centralized economic planning and runaway national debt. Are the people running our government ignorant common sense economics? Perhaps they are. However, there is another possibility. Perhaps they well understand all of these common sense economic truths and they have instead purposely refused to implement them because their true goal is to see America not prosper. Perhaps their agenda is instead is to grind America down as a preparatory step for the coming world government. Perhaps they are deliberately doing all of these things to debase the value of the American currency so it can be replaced with their own one-world currency and socialist globalist experiment. Thus, the present out of control government regulation, spending, and unmanageable national debt, to my mind, is part of the Cloward and Piven strategy helping set the stage for the coming one-world government.
Let me take you to a seventh and final stage setting event which I think is also preparing us for a one-world government. This final trend is something called spiritual ecumenism.
The Problem of Multiple Religions
Charles P Schleicher, wrote a book called Introduction to International Religions, back in 1953 In this particular quote from his book he notes that one of the great obstacles to the coming one-world government that he wanted to see materialize is the whole subject of different religious points of view. Schleicher observed, “There are those who believe that only a universal religion to which men are fervently devoted, one which unites men in devotion to a single God and in a common brotherhood, will serve to overcome the divisions among men and the worship of the secular nation-state.”
One thing that is very interesting to note here is his denunciation of the individual nation-states. Recall that it was God that brought those individual nations into existence at the Tower of Babel. Previously, we have described the purpose of individual nations. Notice that Schleicher categorizes the doctrine of the nation-state as a form of false worship. Such harsh terminology exemplifies how globalist elitists actually view the whole concept of individual nations. They view it as structure or framework that has to be erased. Satan, of course, is going to be successful in ultimately erasing borders and nations in his one-world government that’s on the horizon. Interestingly, even in our own day it’s interesting to see the disdain that these elitists have towards the individual nation-state.
In this quote he also notes that to get rid of these individual nation states we’ve also got to get rid of individual religions. In globalist thinking, individual religions, like individual borders, are things that divide people. So therefore, in order for a coming one-world government to come into full effect there has to be, what I like to call a spiritual ecumenism. In other words, there has to be a uniting in some sense of all the world's religions. You’ve got to take all these different religions out there, whether they are Islam or Buddhism or Christianity, and you have to merge them into one giant global scheme.
The New Age Movement came upon the scene in the early 1980s. The genius of the New Age Movement was that it took all religions and combined them into one fabric. It combined them into one mosaic. It combined them into one quilt, because what the New Age Movement teaches is that all people have the ability to ascend or evolve into deity. Now whatever path of enlightenment they choose to take in this upward ascent is really up to them. If they want to take the Christian route, then that’s fine. If they want to take the atheist route, that’s fine also. If they want to take the humanist route, that’s fine too. If they want to take the Islamic route, then that’s fine. If they want to take the Buddhist route, that’s fine. If they want to take the Mormon route, that’s fine. Thus, within New Age theology all religions are equal because all represent differing opportunities to progress into deity and follow a trajectory toward a common spiritual goal. Such a belief system takes all religions and really puts them on equal footing. Consequently, the coming of the New Age Movement in the 1980s promoted by people like the influential actress Shirley MacLaine was really a key stage setting event for the coming one-world religious system.
Perhaps the most influential purveyor of New Age thought in our world today is none other than Oprah Winfrey. Notice how the world famous day time television queen strongly reacted to a member of her television audience who insisted that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ:
…one of the mistakes that human beings make is believing that there is only one way…We don’t accept that there are diverse ways of being in the world; that there are millions of ways to be a human being. And many ways…many paths to what you call God. That her path might be something else and when she gets there she might call it the light. But her loving, and her kindness, and her generosity brings her to the…same point that it brings you……It doesn’t matter whether she called it ‘God’ along the way or not…There couldn’t possibly be just one way!…There couldn’t possibly be only one way with millions of people in the world!...You think…if you are somewhere on the planet and you never hear the name of Jesus but yet you live with a loving heart. You lived as Jesus would have had you to live. You lived for the same purpose as Jesus came to the planet to teach us all, but you are in some remote part of the earth and you never heard the name of Jesus. You cannot get to Heaven…?
From quotes like these it is apparent that there is a lot more than mere cooking and weight loss tips that Oprah regularly conveys to her massive audience. She is not neutral on the subject of theology but rather is clearly advocating a belief system.
One major problem associated with bringing in a world religion has always been how do you drag the Bible-believing fundamentalist evangelical wing of the religious world into this one-world religion? I consider myself to be a member of this evangelical church. I’m a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe what the Bible says from Genesis to Revelation. I interpret the Bible from Genesis to Revelation with a literal, grammatical, historical, contextual method of interpretation. Could it be possible that even that even this very group could be pulled into one-world religion?
This is where the subject of ecumenism becomes so important. Ecumenism is essentially the urge to merge. It represents a unity at all costs approach. It pursues unity at the expense of truth. This ecumenical agenda is something that has been promoted for many decades by the National Council of Churches, which is a very liberal, non- evangelical group. They do not believe in biblical authority in any sense but they have been arguing for many, many decades that Christianity or Christendom itself needs to be pulled into a larger religious fabric. Some of the key doctrinal truths of the evangelical Christian need to be watered down to the point where the evangelical church itself could become comfortable in the world religion of the future. What is astonishing in our day is that even the evangelical church itself, the Bible-believing church, is starting to sound more and more ecumenical.
Evangelicals and Catholics Together
This ecumenical urge to merge is even dominant and influential upon on the thinking of many key evangelical leaders. One example of this phenomenon is something that became popular in the early to mid-1990s called Evangelicals and Catholics Together. This concept was promoted by people like the late Chuck Colson, a popular Christian speaker and writer and the founder of Prison Fellowship, as well as many other key evangelical leaders. This is sort of the idea is that, as evangelicals and Catholics, we need to accept each other. We should come together as co-belligerents against things we both oppose such as Communism, Humanism, abortion, or pornography. We need to consider ourselves one big happy family and we should agree not evangelize or proselytize from one another's folds.
When this document was signed by many key evangelicals, it really had the tendency to take one's breath away as you were left wondering, has everybody forgotten the Protestant Reformation? Has everybody forgotten that we, as Protestants, broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the days of Martin Luther and John Calvin? Why the existence of this historical rupture between Protestants and Catholics? The answer to this question lies in the fact that we as Protestants saw things in Roman Catholicism that we could not find in Scripture. There are vast and insurmountable theological divisions between Bible-believing evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church. The rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation involved the five "solas." Sola is a Latin expression meaning "alone." These five sola are Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone). While Protestants embrace these five theological realties or solas, Roman Catholic theology rejects them. Yet, the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" mindset erases all of those theological barriers and puts evangelicals and Catholics on the same theological footing. Notice how in this instance involving Evangelicals and Catholics Together, the evangelical church itself is being progressively compromised as it is pulled into ecumenism and one-world religion.
Today's ecumenical influence upon evangelical Christianity is receiving further impetus by something called the emergent church. The emergent church is a theological movement within evangelicalism, which promotes among other things mysticism. One of its ambitions is to sort of leapfrog the Protestant Reformation and try to get back to various ancient liturgical practices that existed in the church prior to the Protestant Reformation. Notice this ecumenical quote from emergent church leader, Robert Webber, in a book called Ancient Future Faith. He says:
A goal for evangelicals in the postmodern world is to accept diversity as a historical reality, but to seek unity in the midst of it. This perspective will allow us to see Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches as various forms of the true church, all based around apostolic teaching and authority, finding common ground in the faith expressed by classical Christianity.
What Webber basically means by that is let’s just agree on three or four theological hills to die on, such as the atonement and perhaps, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and other "big ticket" items of that that nature. Other items deemed of lesser importance by the emergent church will no longer divide us. Examples of items of lesser consequence would be the Rapture, premillennialism, free grace theology, baptism by immersion subsequent to salvation, etc...The goal here is to marginalize and in some cases eradicate any belief that has the potential of dividing Christendom. If we focus on three or four doctrinal hills to die on, then we can merge with the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and any form of Protestantism, liberal or conservative, that we choose to align with. This is the ecumenical spirit of the emergent church that is finding more and more influence within evangelical Christianity.
Recently, we have seen some in the ecumenical movement reached an unprecedented low through the advocacy of something called Chrislam. The goal of this misguided belief system is to take Christianity and Islam and merge these two ideas together. The goal Chrislam is to find common ground in between Christianity and Islam. Can you merge Christianity and Islam together? You cannot merge these systems, any more than you can merge Biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism together. They are polar opposites. They naturally separate the way water and oil naturally separate. Yet the evangelical church has been so doctrinally dumbed down today that many evangelicals believe they can jump right on the bandwagon with Roman Catholicism, or Islam. Of course, I’m reminded of what the Apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 6:14-16:
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God….
We have examined seven events that are currently setting the stage for the coming one-world government. These include elite thinking, our educational system, management by crisis, the Gaia hypothesis, the globalist direction of our own U.S. Supreme Court, regionalism as a prerequisite for globalism, unmanageable national debt, and then finally spiritual ecumenism. As we see these various trends coming together in tandem, concert, and harmony with one another, humanity is being pulled in the very direction of the globalist, one-world scenario predicted long ago in the pages of God's Word.
A Note of Optimism
As promised from the onset, we want to end on a note of optimism by revealing the good news in a series of current events that on the surface might seem quite negative and pessimistic. No doubt, reading through all of these troubling trends that are putting us on a collision course with the future world government can seem troubling, daunting, and even overwhelming. Is there any possible silver lining behind all of these things? Just as the Bible predicts the rise of the New World Order of the Antichrist, the Bible also predicts its rapid demise. In other words, as intimidating as world government may seem, it is important to remember that it is only temporary. Its days are numbered. In fact, Revelation 13:5 indicates that world government at its zenith will only last forty-two months when it says, "There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him." A parallel passage is found in Daniel 7:25, which gives this same forty-two month duration. This passage says, "He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time." "A time, times, and half a time" represents a total time period of forty-two months or three and a half years. "A time" represents a Jewish year and the plural noun "times" represents two Jewish years. A "half a time" represents half a Jewish year. In fact, when this future world government is overthrown by God it will topple rapidly. Thus, both Revelation 13:5 and Daniel 7:25 limit the duration of the future world government's power to just forty-two months.
According to Revelation 18:8, Babylon, the capital of this coming world government, will fall "in one day." This verse says, "For this reason in one day her plagues will come, pestilence and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire; for the Lord God who judges her is strong." Revelation 18:10 indicates that it will fall "in one hour" when it says, "standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying, ‘Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’" God never relinquishes sovereignty over His universe. Consequently the world government of the future will come to a crashing halt in His timing and providence.
While the Antichrist's kingdom is quite temporal, God's kingdom that it will replace will never end. Isaiah 9:6-7 says, " For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this." No matter how bad this world becomes, God has left us with the hope that there is a better world coming. The Antichrist's kingdom will be temporal and limited. By contrast, God's kingdom will endure forever.
 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), 650.
 "Acton, Lord," in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton.
 John Eidsmoe, God & Caesar (Westchester, Ill: Crossway, 1984), 209-212.
 Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation (Glenside, PA: Larkin, 1919), 151.
 For a defense of this position, see Andy Woods, “The Rapture (Part 17-18),” online: www.bibleprophecyblog.com, accessed 28 March 2014.
 Cited in Pat Robertson, The New World Order (Dallas: Word, 1991), 147-48.
 Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, trans., Clinton Rossiter (New York, NY: Penguin, 1961), 292.
 David Rockefeller, Memoirs (New York: Random House, 2002), 405.
 Paul Kurtz, ed. Humanist Manifestos I and Ii (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1973), 21.
 Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, America's Providential History (Charlottesville, VA: Providence, 1989), 95.
 Orley Herron, Who Controls Your Child: Preparing Your Children to Win the Battle for Their Minds (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1980), 60.
 David Noebel, J.F. Baldwin, and Kevin Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, 3d rev. ed. (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit, 2007), 159.
 Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961).
 Charles Francis Potter, Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), 128.
 Chester M. Pierce, Harvard psychiatrist, speaking as an expert in public education at the 1972 International Education Seminar. Chester M. Pierce, M.D. Keynote address, The Association for Childhood Education International. Denver, 1972. Cited in Jim Nelson Black, Freefall of the American University: How Our Colleges Are Corrupting the Minds and Morals of the Next Generation (Nashville, TN: WND Books, 2004), 87.
 Kerby Anderson, “Globalist Pledge of Allegiance in U.S. School,” online: www.worldviewweekend.com:81/worldview-times/print.php?&ArticleID=2654, October 2007, accessed 2 April 2014.
 Kyle Olson, Indoctrination: How Useful Idiots Are Using Our Schools to Subvert American Exceptionalism (Bloomington, IN: Author House, 2011), 71-74.
 William Grigg, Freedom on the Altar (Appleton, WI: American Opinion, 1995), 132-34.
 Eric Buehrer, The New Age Masquerade: The Hidden Agenda in Your Child's Classroom (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1990), 62.
 George Brock Chisholm, First Director of the World Health Organization (WHO), Speech, Conference on Education, Asilomar, California, September 11, 1954. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brock_Chisholm.
 Ron Taylor, i>Agenda 21: An Exposé of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Initiative and the Forfeiture of American Sovereignty and Liberties, Kindle Edition.
 Melissa Harris Perry, MSNBC host. www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0.
 Cited in David Barton, Myth of Separation ((Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 1992), 46.
 Awr Hawkins, “FBI: More People Killed With Hammers and Clubs Each Year Than Rifles,” online: http://www.breitbart.com /a>, January 3 2013, accessed 7 April 2014.
 Christopher Corbett, "The U.S. And Other U.N. Serfdoms," in Foreshocks of the Antichrist, ed. William T. James(Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1997), 210-19.
 F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom,, ed. W.W. Bartley III and Bruce Caldwell, Definitive ed., Collected Works of F.A. Hayek (Routledge, London: University of Chicago, 1944; reprint, Estate of F.A. Hayek, 2007).
 Michael S. Coffman, Saviors of the Earth: The Politics and Religion of the Environmental Movement (Chicago, Ill: Northfield, 1994), 46-47.
 See "The Great Global Warming Swindle-Full Version" at http://youtu.be/YtevF4B4RtQ.
 How Green, “Report Show UN Admitting Solar Activity May Play Significant Role In- Global Warming,” online: http://www.foxnews.com/science, 01 February 2013, accessed 11 April 2014.
 Berit Kjos, Under the Spell of Mother Earth (Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books, 1992), 13-45. Coffman, 141-54.
 Vaclav Havel, "What the World Needs Now," New Age Journal, (September/October 1994): 162. cited in Grigg, 161.
 James Lovelock, Orion Nature Quart 8, no. 1 (1989): 58. Cited in Coffman, 145.
 Alexander King and Betrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution (New York: Pantheon, 1991), 115.
 Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit ((New York: Penguin, 1992), 269.
 D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What If the Bible Had Never Been Written? (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1998), 96.
 Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, 292.
 William J. Brennan, Jr.; cited in John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 398-99.
 Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: The Free Press, 1990), 161-67.
 Ibid., 164.
 Jonah Goldberg, "Got a Problem with the Constitution?," USA Today, January 4 2011, 7A.
 David A. Patten, “Obama: Constitution is ‘Deeply Flawed,’” online: www.Newsmax.com, accessed 25 August 2009, 1.
 Jason Horowitz, “Recitation of Constitution Set in House Renews Debate Over Founders' Intentions,” online: www.washingtonpost.com, accessed 6 January 2011, 1.
 Richard Wolf, “Former Justice Stevens Wants to Change the Constitution,” online: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics, 21 April 2014, accessed 22 April 2014.
 Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
 For a more in depth explanation of this legal trend, see Phyllis Schlafly, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It ((Dallas, TX: Spence, 2004), 47-56.
 Edmund Conway, Telegraph Economics Editor, "UN Wants New Global Currency to Replace the Dollar," online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/6152204/UN-wants-new-global- currency-to-replace-dollar.html, 07 Sep 2009, accessed 14 November 2014.
 Charles P. Schleicher, Introduction to International Religions (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1953). Cited in Robertson, 157-58.
 www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb2RUpMDk34. Underlining added.
 Charles Colson and Richard Neuhaus, eds., Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission (Dallas, TX: Word, 1995).
 Robert Webber, Ancient Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 85.
 See also Revelation 18:17, 19.