If a poll were taken asking what the biggest threats presently facing the world are, the top three answers would be terrorism, climate change and the declining economy. Most people’s number one would be terrorism. World leaders are certainly concerned about the tenuous relations existing in the world and the ongoing threat of ISIS, and as a result they are proposing extreme solutions that promise safety and security, while at the same time they deny basic freedoms.
“The present is a time of overwhelming interest to all living. Rulers and statesmen, men who occupy positions of trust and authority, thinking men and women of all classes, have their attention fixed upon the events taking place about us. They are watching the strained, restless relations that exist among the nations. They observe the intensity that is taking possession of every earthly element, and they recognize that something great and decisive is about to take place–that the world is on the verge of a stupendous crisis.”1
To somehow combat the ongoing activities of terrorists and to preempt future attacks, world leaders are suggesting the unifying of the nations militarily. Great Britain’s former Prime Minister, Tony Blair “insists Europe needs more integration and revives calls for a European army as the only way to confront the terror threat from ISIS.”2
Blair stated, “‘In the field of security, the way forward is for European countries to work more closely together, not pull apart. The challenge of radical Islamism should provoke greater cooperation across European nations’ borders. The terrorists are planning their outrages without regard to international borders. I would argue that in the medium term, there will be a growing requirement for Europe to build defense capability. That force would not supplant NATO but would have the independent ability to take military action at times when Europe’s security interests are threatened.’”3
United States President Barack Obama suggested that with the ever-present threat of terrorism, a need exists for improved intelligence sharing between nations, stating at the Nuclear Summit in Washington, “‘At our session on ISIL this afternoon there was widespread agreement that defeating terrorist groups like ISIL requires more information sharing.’”4 This could quite possibly mean international surveillance.
Equally alarming is the ability for Arizonans to obtain the REAL ID compliant driver’s licenses, which “brings Arizona into compliance with the federal ID Act of 2005.”5 In response to the REAL ID Act and its implications and dangers to both citizen’s freedom and safety, former congressman Ron Paul on a number of occasions expressed the following opposition.
“This Bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty…” “The much-hailed 9/11 Commission report released in July recommends a federal identification card and, worse a ‘larger network of screening points’ inside the United States. Does this mean we are to have ‘screening points’ inside our country where American citizens will be required to ‘show their papers’ to government officials? It certainly sounds that way!” “National ID cards are not proper in a free society… This is America, not Soviet Russia. The Federal government should never be allowed to demand papers from American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional authority to do so. The REAL ID Act establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical characteristics. The legislation also grants open-ended authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to require biometric information on IDs in the future. This means your harmless looking driver’s license could contain a retina scan, fingerprints, DNA information, or radio frequency technology.”6
All it would take for the immediate implementation of the above-mentioned proposals and measures nationally and internationally is another major terrorist attack, and then the end of freedom as we know it will follow rapidly. The question remains, who would be the person to head an international military force, and oversee a global surveillance program and to regulate the issuance of the REAL ID card containing personal information? Of course the United States would stand as the head; however, behind the United States would be an entity that has influence and control over both church and state—the Pope of Rome, who is no stranger to international diplomacy. And just as Popery rose to prominence in A.D. 538, after the nations (beginning in 508 with king Clovis of France and ending with Emperor Justinian of Rome) gave their political and military forces over to Popery to be used at her bidding, so all of the nations will, out of desperation, voluntarily give their military power to the same entity in exchange for promises of peace and safety. It must also be remembered that Jesuits (of which Pope Francis is a member) are in political offices at every level in every country and are shaping the policies of nations, whose chief purpose is to accomplish the complete overthrow Protestantism and the reestablishment of Popery.
The international military and global surveillance techniques will be used upon true protestants, those who do not accept the government’s dictates and choose rather to follow a plain “Thus saith the Lord” and reject the “Thus saith the Church and State.” At that point, the words of Matthew 24:9 will be strikingly fulfilled: “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.”
1. White, Ellen. Education (1903), page 179.
Compiled Hillari Henriques