the "Resistance", the NAU, "Fed." Reserve, Rockefeller

As always, I don't think we can stop the fulfillment of prophecy, so I am just putting these things out there as an indicator of where we probably are in the timeline of history. I fear that many will try to resist the progression of all of this, creating a catalyst for the mark of the beast and persecution... of course, that would be prophecy fulfilled too, but the more people who know what's really going on, and are prepared to suffer persecution if neccessary, rather than join a violent resistance(I have encountered types who promote this idea, people following guys like Alex Jones with infowars.com, and prisonplanet.com, and Mark Dice with theresistancemanifesto.com, who have alot of the right information but take it to the wrong conclusion) and understand the scope of it all, the better, I think. In Revelation, we're told:


Re 13:1 ¶ And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.


It has already been decided that the beast, commonly referred to as "the antichrist", will overcome the saints who he can reach during the latter half of the seventieth week("forty and two months", verse 5 above). This is why we're told in verse 10:


Re 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.


With that said, here's those quotes, and the article:

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

-Paul Warburg, CFR, architect of the Federal Reserve system, in an address to the US Senate, 2/17/1950

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=10477781&content_dir=ua_congressorg


“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

—U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, a few years after authorizing the creation of the “Federal” Reserve

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schoon/2007/0619.html

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

—David Rockefeller, Bilderberger, Trilateral Commission, and CFR member/founder

http://primarysources.newsvine.com/_news/2007/08/29/930221-lifting-the-veil-on-the-north-american-union



Article from link above:

Lifting the Veil on the North American Union
News Type: Event — Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:23 PM EDTus-news, ron-paul, stephen-harper, north-american-union, montebello, nafta-superhighway, trilateral-commissionSynthesis
Is the NAFTA superhighway merely the first step towards full integration of the economic infrastructures of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico?

Photo by Samuel Luna. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

The North American Security and Prosperity Partnership Summit in Montebello, Quebec last week was notable in that the normal veil of secrecy surrounding the proposed North American Union was lifted, if only briefly, so the leaders could issue a series of non-denial denials. That is, they ridiculed the notion and spread scorn on those who would spread such a rumour, without authoritatively quelling the rumours in a manner that anyone would buy.

To be sure, there have long been critics of those who are considered the 'conspiracy theorists' spreading concerns about a corporate-government plot to supercede national laws through a series of treaties governing relations between the three countries of North America. The 'North American Union' theory is called by these pundits "a fearmongering urban "myth", completely without foundation.

Nevertheless, some major public figures and news outlets are not so sure. Even the mighty CNN is of two minds about it, with Yvonne Malveaux seemingly willing to relegate the NAU to "internet chatter" even while the often quixotic business patriarch Lou Dobbs consistently promotes the concept.

Meanwhile, as far back as last October, dark horse presidential hopeful Ron Paul called the NAU concept an "integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy and virtually borderless travel within the union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether." He said it was being foisted on the public by an "unholy alliance"

Others are stepping forward to oppose the NAU, as well, including the eponomously named Stop the North American Union and Stop the NAU.Org.

Even conservatives are on the bandwagon to kill this incipient 'Fortress North America', which is odd since it is the Bush administration that is most often cited as the driver behind the concept. In fact, not even the far-right are on board with this one. According to the John Birch Society's website:

The John Birch Society believes the American people should oppose any programs or projects that would replace our constitutional system and/or combine our government with the very different Canadian and Mexican governmental systems — effectively destroying the United States of America.
Hell, even First Nations people are expressing their opposition, not to mention just plain folks (110,000 of them.)

So if it's not true, why is the opposition so united across the political spectrum? If it's not true, why do we need a NAFTA superhighway? And why is Bilderberg attendee and Texas Governor Rick Perry so strongly pushing the so-called 'Trans-Texas Corridor', a 1200-foot-wide private toll road crossing Texas right through to the Oklahoma Border, described by some as the first step in integrating the economic infrastructure of the three countries.

At the Montebello summit, U.S. President Bush apparently dismissed the entire notion. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes clear that his statement is a classic "non-denial denial" of the sort that would have set off Ben Bradlee's BS detector immediately. Here's Bush, as quoted by the National Ledger:

"I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and by what some are trying to say takes place...it's quite comical actually, to realize the difference between reality and what some people on TV are talking about."

So, it's amusing, it's comical, and the reality is different from what's being talked about on TV. I notice that he didn't say it wasn't true.

And to say that there are no conspiracies surrounding the Montebello summit would be categorically untrue, based on admissions by the Quebec provincial police agency, the Surete Quebec, that they had undercover agents who infiltrated the crowd of summit protesters. Nevertheless, says the agency, the undercover operatives were not acting as agents provocateurs (a claim which became harder to accept once video was posted on YouTube clearly showing SQ undercover officers hefting rocks.)

Some critics claim that heavy handed tactics such as these demonstrate that we are living in the first stages of the NAU today, and that "the police state images from the summit are disturbing".

But, then, to counter-balance those claims, we have Bush's somewhat watered-down denial. Are there stronger denials on the record? What is the public position of one of the organizations said by conspiracy theorists to serve as President Bush's 'puppet master', the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR? From the report of a CFR Task Force in 2005:

""...the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity and opportunity...it's boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter, within which the movement of people, products and capital will be legal, orderly and safe."

Here is a comprehensive overview of the NAU courtesy of the August Review, which is helmed by leading trilateral expert Dr Patrick Wood.

"So, what's so big, bad and scary about the North American Union? Peace, security, prosperity...these sound like good things? One of the main issues is that lack of public input, accountability or oversight. The most damning criticism of the North American Union concept comes from those who point out that the NAU's provisions are being put into place via treaty, with little to no democratic input or even awareness. The key here is the problematic nature of regulations vs treaties (ie, no oversight)."

According to Mexican economist Miguel Picard, widely quoted in North American news sources:

"...there will be no single treaty and nothing will be submitted to legislatures of the three countries. Instead, he says, the plan for a “merged future” will be implemented through the signing of regulations not subject to citizen review."
But oversight, as we know, is often anathema to the Trilateralists. Here' s Trilateral

Commission eminence grise David Rockefeller:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries.”

"Our plan for the world"?

What are the chances that by "our", Rockefeller meant you and me?