SIGNS OF THE TIMES: GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
By Debra Rae
February 2, 2009
Where’s the Hope in 2009?
With a flurry of inaugural balls behind him, President Obama faces an inherited plateful of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, stateside and abroad. Geo-political tumult and a mere glimpse at our unimaginably shrinking bank and investment accounts drive home this point.
Feeling betrayed by her leadership, our war-weary nation has taken solace in flawless transfer of governmental power so that, now, the U.S. and the world at large share a curious mix of fear and uncertainty coupled with hope for change that rides the cleansing wave of yes-we-can rhetoric.
No Need for Chrystal Ball-Gazing
Many embrace the notion Qui sera, sera, whatever will be, will be; but “it ain’t necessarily so.” Those who are duly vigilant and rightly armed for action need not be victimized by chance. After all, the Bible answers humanity’s age-abiding question, “What does the future have in store?” All who have ears to hear are invited to participate in what promises to be an incredible preface to the wrap-up of history—but certainly not without its woes.
About six hundred years before Christ, Daniel’s apocalyptic visions accurately anticipated and characterized major world governments to follow the Babylonian Empire—specifically, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and Rome revived. While the rest is history, a new Rome, once fully revived, will resemble the ancient counterpart with respect to its universal belief system, global impact and eventually its destined collapse. A product of the Bilderberg Group behind globalism, the European Community is what some theologians consider to be old Rome revived.
Indeed, in 1918, Russian Communist Leon Trotsky wrote, “The task of the proletariat is to create a U.S. of Europe as foundation for the U.S. of the World.” NAFTA, NAFTA Corridors, the Union of the Americas and proposal of the amero—all flesh out Trotsky’s global vision.
Clearly, the notion of global governance is not new to secularists. In 1928, former Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells published The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution. In Wells’ view, before the shadowy new order’s character is “plainly displayed,” existing governments first must be “weakened, effaced, incorporated and superseded.” To this end, Democratic Socialists of America insist that “now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty” (Eco-Socialist Review, Summer 1991).
Count on it. Collective consciousness has become all the rage. With increasing resolve, America’s once rugged individualism (now labeled selfish imperialism) is taking back seat to well-being of “the global village.” As capsulated in the 1994 U.N. Report on Human Development, the one-world premise is simple enough: Given that mankind’s problems no longer can be solved by national governments, world government is necessary. And—be sure—world government is upon us.
Home of the Kinda’ Free, Somewhat Brave and Fully Entitled
With unprecedented glee, Barack Obama's election victory was celebrated worldwide, but nowhere as enthusiastically as in Kenya. There, President Mwai Kibaki announced a celebratory national holiday for “a native son.” Catch is: Obama no longer is Kenyan. In the proverbial melting pot of America, it can be argued that there is no Norwegian- or German-American as there is no African- or Kenyan-American.
Herein lays an inevitable transformation. No more the “melting pot”—these days, America instead is establishing her metaphoric identity with the “salad bowl” in which each component maintains its own language and culture; dual citizenship and, it stands to reason, divided loyalties.
By recruiting big foundations and businesses to invest generously in the grievance industry, strategists milk the “cult of victimology” so that even “undocumented workers” claim entitlement to all the rights and privileges of Americans. Speaking English, taking the citizen’s oath and lawfulness are no-shows in this weighted-by-design equation.
Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum suggests that amnesty for tens of millions is but “a drop in the bucket” when compared to “temporary guest workers” for whom American citizens are expected to pay staggering entitlements. With more of Obama’s funding to illegal immigrants for health care and education services (lunches included), some surmise that America’s already begun her downward plunge under the titanic weight of diversity, multilingualism and entitlements (even for lawbreakers).
With Mexican drug-trafficking organizations’ permeating the farthest reaches of the U.S., and cartels lashing out at crackdowns on their activities, Mexico drug war narco-terrorism is more likely than ever to intensify within America’s borders. Like it or not, amnesty for as many as twenty million illegal aliens virtually guarantees increased crime.
The Incredible, Edible Obama
In December 2004, the AP News Service referenced PBS journalist Bill Moyer for his indictment of “an ideological press that’s interested in the election of Republicans.” Though likeable and highly regarded, Moyer overlooks the fact that reporters, writers and others in the media vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democrats. Even Peter Jennings acknowledges that the media has been “more of a liberal persuasion for many years”; and a recent Saturday Night Live Presidential Bash parodied the media’s transparent crush on Obama.
Within our borders, the United Nations Association of the United States is the most determined promoter of the U.N. and its goals. Early in 2008, Obama expressed strong commitment to the United Nations and its various sovereignty-compromising programs—specifically, the U.N. Millennium Development Goals 2000. (And, yes, within just a few years, realizing eight specified goals geared toward aiding developing countries will demand from already overburdened tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars.)
Advanced by the U.N. and fostered by corporate lobbyists, formal world federalism is undeniably linked to rights-based liberalism. Great news to internationalists: The nonpartisan National Journal called Obama “the most liberal senator in 2007.”
While propelling the misleading ideal of “global democracy,” today’s borderless, one-world state-in-the-making operates under the United Nations’ guiding principle of sustainable development. While the term “sustainable development,” or “smart growth,” has a noble ring, its liberal agenda is by no means faith-, family- or America- friendly.
Now, intolerance for homosexual unions is decreed a “global threat” because non-proliferating alternative lifestyles, as theirs, bear the Sustainability Seal of Approval. The same applies to legalized, nonproductive and “safe” voluntary prostitution, likewise advanced by an international Bill of Rights for women called the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Correspondingly, the United Nation’s Year of the Family campaigns to redefine the nuclear traditional family in support of cohabitation, single-parent households and (no surprise) same-gender partnerships.
The point being: Commitment to and support by President Obama for ultra liberal U.N. Millennium Goals—e.g., sustainable development and diversity—will not just burden the American taxpayer; they also will serve to usher in the fullest expression of rights-based liberalism via a New World Order for a New Age of so-called Enlightenment.
Obama: Every Man’s Man
In testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1950), international financier James P. Warburg insisted we shall have a world government—either by consent or conquest. To this end, globalism extends a hook to everyone—you name it: the bleeding-heart liberal, the pacifist, the activist, the idealist, the spiritually enlightened, the atheist, the underdog, the uninformed and the misinformed.
In spheres of education and employment, the government-endorsed policy of “positive discrimination” favors minority ethnic groups and women. Widespread “critical pedagogy” of “social injustice-teaching” sees to it. This is no small matter. By expediting government control over hiring, firing and other business practices, conceptual political correctness actually hinders assimilation and economic improvement.
It’s as if globalism were a chameleon, whose unique “body language” enables it to change color when attracting potential mates. This metaphor suggests that globalists quickly and opportunistically adjust their values so as to win others to a one-world point of view.
Guided by the Star of Sustainability
Compulsory green living is nowhere found in the Bible; moreover, theologian Wayne Grudem rightly questions the likelihood that God would design a world in such a way that, over time, mundane human activities (as breathing, cooking, traveling and keeping warm) would devastate His handiwork. Yet in an apparent effort to counter the culture of abundance with “a rite of atonement for the sin of excess,” increasingly more evangelicals devote themselves to “saving the planet.”
This mission comes with cost. In 1948, a preliminary draft of a World Constitution includes the right of a Federal Republic of the World to seize and use property in Sustainable Society—for the greater good. Keep in mind that sustainable development is described, not in any of our nation’s founding documents, but rather in the 1997 USSR Constitution (Chapter #2; Article 18).
The Marxist-Leninist maxim of “earning one’s keep on Planet Earth” is at the heart of today’s love affair with sustainable development. Sustainability is the socialist principle of government-managed development necessitating totalitarianism to guarantee that humans don’t mess with biodiversity.
Fact is, “sustaining America’s future” speaks more to absolute control over the global commons (environmental systems that support life) than it does to my children’s security. By participating in “collective public visioning,” good global citizens are held accountable for achieving rapid transition to community sustainability, green code word for shutting down progress in compliance with a no-growth, one-world collectivist agenda.
No More Poverty or Its Trappings
Through the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433, 2007), both Obama and Biden require our nation to achieve the U.N. Millennial goal of reducing by half the proportion of people worldwide who live on less than a dollar a day. Themselves profoundly strapped, Americans will be required to pony up enormous sums of money that James Galbraith believes will further empower the U.N., while enriching corrupt foreign dictators and doing precious little to improve the plight of the world’s poor (FACTS FOR FREEDOM).
U.N. Millennium Development Goals further purport to empower women by ensuring gender equality and “improved maternal health,” code for ensuring abortion on demand, globally. Annually, Joe Biden’s Violence against Women Act provides a billion dollars to feminist centers known to support abortion rights, embryonic stem-cell research and control over children in the welfare class by taxpayer handouts to women who made husbands and fathers “unnecessary” (Phyllis Schlafly).
Among Obama’s early executive actions was to lift the gag rule forbidding public funding for family planning programs that offer abortion. Moreover, he is preparing to loosen federal restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research even though virtually all of the current benefits to patients have come from non-destructive stem cell sources.
Research involving adult stem cells, bone marrow, placentas and umbilical cord blood provide stem cells without necessitating destruction of human life. Hence, there is no need to cross a fundamental moral line by using taxpayer funding to sanction or encourage destruction of human embryos. The good that we do should not come at the cost of unnecessary or inappropriate harm to some for the sake of others (Professor Paul T. Walls, Seattle Pacific University).
NGOs bypass elected officials and have become significant players in global development systems and as channels for delivery of iffy social services that all too often pressure, commercialize and exploit economically disadvantaged women. Nevertheless, growth of Civil Society (non-governmental organizations) has been one of the most significant trends in international development.
Where’s the Hope?
If the burgeoning of a totalitarian, one-world governmental system favoring socialism characterizes 2009, as it surely does, where’s hope to be found?
Be that as it may, some are surprised to learn that God Himself favors one-world government. The Book of Revelation describes a season of one thousand years during which time deception is quelled, wars cease, the animal kingdom is subdued; and believers rule and reign with Christ.
Not so with the Novus Ordo Seclorum (“New Secular World Order of the Ages”), in reality a godless counterfeit of God’s intended plan.
In all matters, one’s first and primary allegiance is to the Lord, but American Christians have the added duty to engage the representative form of government with which God has blessed the nation. To whom much is given, much is required.
This, my friend, is the restraining power of the church: living the Christ life, humbly but powerfully; circumspectly but with a single eye for the Savior; no longer I, but Christ. The Bible assures us that we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.
By divine enablement, yes, we can. By God’s grace, yes, we will.
© 2009 Debra Rae