well first of all mr obama is not done yet and yes he has made it however we are not there yet
mr obama now have to fix what bush messed up an not only that he has been chosen to lead
us thur the 7 years of truibalaton ushering in the anit christ,and thats not going to be a easy job
keeping us safe from the mark of the beast,i know most of you dont belive this however keep liveing
and you will see the grate falling away.mr obama is NOT the anti christ,god has chosen him to lead
his people to safety make no mistake everyone will not follow him and he (OBAMA)will not decive
and the devil will his how you test the sprite if obama ask you to take the mark then you know hes the beast if he take a stand aginst the mark of the beast then you know hes from GOD.we dont know when he will show his head but we do know the beast will rise up doing a Economics crissess however we do
know that the beast will decived many and will have power to heal but no the real thing if that say to you jesus is over hear are shall say come see here he is dont belive "jesus is comeing in the clouds with
the voice of and angals with sound of a truimp BEWEAR we will have to ride this one out and we dont have time to waste we dont know the hour are day when the sun lose its light and the moon trun to blood
things are going to start to come to past fast things you been hearing them crazy preacher had
been saying years ago will now come up on you like a thift in the night now is the time to get your heart right with god.hell is real and its hot and you do know were you ar
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was introduced in Eisenhower’s presidency and was the act that kick-started the civil rights legislative programme that was to include the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Eisenhower had not been known for his support of the civil rights movement. Rather than lead the country on the issue, he had to respond to problems such as in Little Rock. He never publicly gave support to the civil rights movement believing that you could not force people to change their beliefs; such changes had to come from the heart of the people involved, not as the result of legislation from Washington.
However, he did push through during his presidency the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Cynics have stated that this was simply to win the ‘Black Vote’. Up to 1957, and for a variety of reasons, only 20% of African Americans had registered to vote. In Britain, the government takes the initiative in sending out voter registration forms which individuals have to return. In America it is up to each person to take the responsibility to register their vote. In the South plain intimidation and official apathy and obstacles meant that very few African Americans registered their vote. Those that did not disqualified themselves from voting.
The 1957 Civil Rights Bill aimed to ensure that all African Americans could exercise their right to vote. It wanted a new division within the federal Justice Department to monitor civil rights abuses and a joint report to be done by representatives of both major political parties (Democrats and Representatives) on the issue of race relations.
Eisenhower, perhaps shocked by the news broadcasts of Little Rock, publicly supported the bill (it was, after all, his Attorney-General who had produced the bill). However, the final act became a much watered done affair due to the lack of support among the Democrats. The Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, was a Democrat, and he realised that the bill and its journey through Congress, could tear apart his party as it had right wing Southern senators in it and liberal west coast ones.
In keeping with Congressional procedure, Johnson sent the bill to a judiciary committee which would examine it for flaws, controversial and unconstitutional points etc. This committee was led by Senator James Eastland - senator for Mississippi. Committee heads have great powers in changing bills and altering them almost beyond recognition. Eastland did just this especially after the very public outburst by Senator Richard Russell from Georgia who claimed that it was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states, thus weakening highly protected states rights of self-government as stated in the Constitution. He was most critical of the new division which would be created within the Justice Department
Johnson had other reasons for taking his stance. No civil rights act had been introduced into America for 82 years. If this one went through successfully and had support from both parties, it would do his position within the Democrats a great deal of good as he had plans in 1957 to be the party’s future presidential candidate. If he could get the credit for maintaining party unity and get the support of the South’s Democrats for ‘killing the bill’, then his position would be greatly advanced. If he was seen to be pushing through the first civil rights act in 82 years he hoped to get the support of the more liberal west and east coast Democrat senators.
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 maintained the mood of the bill - it aimed to increase the number of registered black voters and stated its support for such a move. However, any person found guilty of obstructing someone’s right to register barely faced the prospect of punishment as a trial by jury in the South meant the accused had to face an all-white jury as only whites could be jury members.
Political support and public confidence for the Act had been eroded when Eisenhower publicly admitted that he did not understand parts of it.
The African American community were divided with regards to the bill. University professor, Ralph Bunche, saw the bill as a sham and stated that he would have preferred no act at all rather than the 1957 Act. However, Bayard Rustin of CORE, believed that it was important because of its symbolism - the first civil rights legislation for 82 years. He realised that it could have been better but that almost certainly it was only the first of such acts and that it would be built on.
A new International Criminal Court was officially instituted at the United Nations Headquarters on the 11th of April, 2002, without ratification from the United States. President Clinton signed the treaty on his last day in office indicating the U.S. intent to seek ratification, however the treaty was never put to a vote before congress. Deemed by many in the U.S. to be a threat to national sovereignty, the Bush administration has strenuously objected to the ICC and has reportedly sought means to "unsign" the treaty.
The Rome Statute, launched in 1998, called for the establishment of this new International World Court to prosecute human rights abuses. Objections from the United States are based on the fear that the court could bring politically motivated charges against U.S. presidents and military personnel, and deny U.S. citizens any rights afforded them under the U.S. constitution. Americans - especially Christians, are right to fear this very real threat to our national sovereignty. The Earth Charter, co-chaired by Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong, and one of the forums that tout global governance in the interest of sustainable development, warns of a critical moment in Earth's history where we must embrace the "one Earth community with a common destiny" and "move toward the destruction of national sovereignty".
To fully understand the new World Court, one must go back to its conception. When studied in the context of the reports and commissions that marked its beginning, its much broader implications become evident.
The World Court's conception began as part of a much broader goal of reforming the United Nations, and was inspired by the belief that the end of the Cold War offered opportunities to build a more cooperative, safer and fairer world. This utopian dream of a united world was explored and mapped out by the Commission on Global Governance (CGG).
The CGG was established in 1992 with the full support of the U.N. Secretary General Boutros Ghali and with the goal of strengthening global cooperation, securing global peace, achieving sustainable development and universalizing democracy. Chaired by Ingvar Carlson, the former Prime Minister of Sweden, and Shridath Ramphal, former Secretary General of the Commonwealth from Guyana, the commission is made up of 28 public figures from around the world, all of whom participated in or formally endorsed the Stockholm Initiative on Global Security and Governance. You may recognize some of the names on the commissions membership list, such as Jimmy Carter of the U.S., Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Boutros Boutros Ghali of Egypt and Maurice Strong of Canada.
The Commission received funding from several governments including, Canada, Denmark, India, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. Funds from Japan were also made available through two United Nations trust funds. The Commission also received funds from the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (Kuwait) and the World Humanity Action Trust (United Kingdom), as well as from the MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Ford Foundation (all based in the United States). Other countries also funded meetings and paid for travel costs and hotel accommodations.
In 1995 the commission presented its proposals for improving the World's Governance to the United Nations in a report titled "Our Global Neighbourhood". The book-length report centered principally on the United Nations, and suggested that the U.N. should be revitalized "so that it can better respond to the needs of a modern world". It included the following proposals among others:
1. Reform the Security Council, so that it becomes more representative and maintains legitimacy and credibility.
2. Set up an Economic Security Council to have more effective and more democratic oversight of the world economy.
3. Establish a U.N. volunteer force.
4. Vest the custody of the global commons in the Trusteeship Council, which has completed its original work.
5. Treat the security of people and of the planet as being as important as the security of states.
6. STRENGTHEN THE RULE OF LAW WORLDWIDE
7. Give civil society a greater voice in governance.
8. Explore ways to raise new funds for global purposes (e.g. the global tax you are now hearing about in the news).
The Commission for Global Governance website states that their core values "call for a global neighbourhood ethic and commitment to core global values that can command respect across frontiers of race and religion". Much like the Earth Charter, Our Global Neighbourhood speaks of global governance, cultural diversity, a one-world economy, the new world order, and a global rule of law. All of these increasingly popular catch phrases send a chill down the spine of most Christians, and seem to suggest what most already suspect--the end times could very well be upon us.
The Commission didn't stop there, however. They also took up the politically correct topic of intolerance. In the Milano Charter issued on April 4th, 1997, Ingvar Carlsson, co-chairman of the CGG, called for a world struggle against intolerance, asserting that "the new enemy is not another's civilization but simply intolerance". The Milano Charter identifies "intolerance against the other's culture, civilization, religion and ethnicity" as "the very origin of the culture of violence." Using this definition, Contender Ministries, by contending for our faith in Jesus Christ and sharing our beliefs, could be accused of promoting violence. The logic of this statement, as does most of "The Global Neighborhood", follows the New Age belief that God is everything, and all beliefs are right, so to believe in one God or one religion over another is the only evil.
In 1995, commission co-chair Ingvar Carlsson had formed a group of 16 heads of government from all regions of the world to promote global cooperation in the implementation of their proposed reforms. In 1997, the group presented a statement to Secretary General Annan, urging their colleagues to give them their due attention. They wrote in their statement "It is time to go from words to deeds, and for member states to take decisions on actual reforms and to ensure practical steps of implementation. Let us empower the U.N. to confront through collective action, the global challenges of the 21st century." In response to the commission's statement, Secretary General Annan proposed that the council should serve to link the U.N. and civil society in their collective trusteeship for the integrity of the Global environment and common areas. With this new recognition, their next step was to address the wider issues of institutional reform and the need for changes to "improve the U.N.'s capacity to serve the world community in the new century". These issues were addressed at the Millennium Assembly along with a Special Ministerial Commission that would be established to implement these changes.
The tragic events of 9/11 served to speed up the implementation of "Our Global Neighborhood", by putting global security and global rule of law at the forefront of the globalization effort. We are now seeing the fruits of their labor and the beginnings of their grand plan for a new world order of co-operation, tolerance and global interdependence.
So what is this new World Court? It is the first step in an attempt to implement the ideas presented to the U.N. in the form of "Our Global Neighborhood' and the "Earth Charter". It comes from the work of those who plot the new world order at the Earth Dialogues and who believe as the Earth Charter preamble states, "that in order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of the Earth Charter principals with an internationally and legally binding instrument of development." To briefly address a future article, the preamble goes on to say that we must all "affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and the intellectual, artistic, ethical, and spiritual potential of humanity." In other words, faith in man rather than faith in God.
The successful establishment of an International Criminal Court that could potentially bring politically motivated charges against U.S. presidents and military personnel, and vaguely describes crimes against humanity as "injury to a population's mental health" brings us one step closer to the one world government predicted in Daniel 2. It also emphasizes the urgency of God's call to his children to share his saving grace with as many people as we can. One day sharing your faith, and certainly ministries like ours, will be labeled intolerant by the global community, or worse yet, we will be guilty of injury to a person's mental health. It's not a time to sit in your pew and just be saved. The time is coming when many will be indoctrinated into a religion that places its faith in the spiritual potential of humanity and Earth and fears the intolerant Word of God. Now is the time to share what you have in Christ with others
i was sitting talking on the phone when it hit me medicad is going to be reformed and thats a good thing as i started talking more something eles hit me welfare was created for whites because blacks had no rights when the system came up with welfare dont let me lose you think!!!about it back in the 20,s-threw the 80,s when black mens started to date white womens and the woman would have a black baby the system would tell the white lady long as she was with that nig***er she could not get any help fox 2 please dont get up set with me i am going threw history that is true hey if you dont belive me look back in the day with Bull connors and water hose and dogs and how blacks was not able to vote because they counld not read the hand written books as a black man i still feel fear full when i go into a mall because the white gaurd is walking and watching me so that i wont steal anything even thou we have plenty of black garuds and when ever i drive my nice car down the street with the fear of a white police officer may pull me over just because he hates blacks are he just mean and evil well i dont know how we got on all this but maybe times havent changed that much when it comes to people theres one thing for sure homes & cars,the sun ,moon ,shoes may change but for the most part people dont
written by
Anthony Duane Hosea
p:s reason why i was talking about health care
well!!!! just something to think about
