The liberal NWO

Over the past several years I've been undergoing periodic shifts in my political views. For instance, I can remember hearing the verdict delivered by the US Supreme Court in 2001 handing that controversial election to George W. Bush and being thankful. I can remember telling a friend that I didn't believe that the US government would lie to the world about WMDs or the like being in Iraq so therefore they must be there.

Yes, I was naive.

But since that time I've become much more politically aware and informed. By no means is my political education complete but I have learned much in the six years since that conversation with my friend.

At one time I was a member of the Reform Party in Canada. Then there was a time when I voted for the NDP in several elections. Not an insignificant shift in viewpoint. I remember talking with a friend and telling him that I was once a "card carrying member of the Reform Party." At first he thought I was joking. When I assured him that I wasn't he was flabbergasted by the notion. I remember numerous discussions with a libertarian friend during which I defended the notion of wealth re-distribution and empowered national governments.

Another positional change that has occurred during this time is my stance on the role of the United Nations. During the same period I was speaking naively about the American motives and actions concerning Iraq, I was arguing that the UN should have the power to directly intervene in international conflicts. Of course this position was taken for humane reasons, arguing that it would benefit millions around the globe, especially in places such as Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia and the Balkans. Now I loathe the concept.

Over the past decade I have gone from a rather unthinking conservative to a questioning quasi-liberal to what I like to think of as a form of anarchism.

The idea of the individual is a rather modern notion whose roots I believe begin in the Protestant Reformation begun by Martin Luther. Until that point the idea that one person was as important or perhaps more important than the community was rare if not unknown. Now certainly it was a developing idea that took time to come to be clearly articulated, but I see its roots in the Reformation (I could go on further with this subject, talking about its perceived effects on society and comparing modern western individualistic culture with the more traditional but changing Confucius based culture of SE Asia and Korea in particular where I presently live but that is not the focus of this missive). Through this concept we have gained many things as individuals and it is the basis for many of the rights that many in the west now enjoy.

Despite this I think that for many there is a disconnect between the notions of political liberalism/conservatism and social liberalism/conservatism. I obviously can't speak for everyone or even that many, but of those that I have spoken to over the years social issues seem to be the main determining factor in choosing who to vote for. When people would ask me who they should vote for my advice is to identify what in their opinion is the top 3-5 issues facing them or society and then see how each of the political parties address those issues. Once you've done the research base your vote on the party that addresses those issues the best in their opinion. Those issues will change for each individual but in the end I think that many people vote based on social issues more so than political or international issues.

One of the issues in recent memory that has bypassed this idea has been the Iraq war. This was an international issue that motivated millions to cast their votes one way or the other; and not only in the US either. People in Canada, Britain, Spain, Australia, etc. voted based on their desire to see their countries involved or not in this war.

Another motivating issue over the past decade, and one that is growing in scope and influence is the idea of global warming. Now for many this is seen as a mixture of social and political issues. Many look to the social impact of such a notion as the basis for political action. In Canada this has seen an increase in support for the Green Party (not enough to gain a seat in the House of Commons but that is due more to our antiquated and dysfunctional electoral system than actual support for the party or its policies but again that is not the focus of this post).

Ever since Al Gore's Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth came out, global warming has been a mainstay of the 24 hour news cycle. A very simplistic and narrow summary of the stance is that human activity through mass farming and industrial activity has exponentially raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to a warming of the global climate that could/will have tremendously negative impacts upon the planet and humanity. These impacts are a runaway greenhouse gas effect that would melt off the polar ice caps and raise sea levels world wide destroying the habitat for hundreds of millions of people world wide. The ultimate doomsday scenario in this scheme is that we end up like our sister planet in the cosmos, Venus, whose climate is controlled by a runaway greenhouse effect resulting in air temperatures of 800C. Obviously this would have a detrimental impact on humanity and ultimately the earth.

Al Gore brought this issue to the fore of public consciousness in 2006 where it has remained ever since. In fact I would argue that it is the considered to be the foremost issue in the minds of people worldwide; well if you listened to the media anyways. Recently a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll, conducted Jan. 7-11, 2009 sees global warming as being ranked 20th out of 20 by Americans.

The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities. Between January 2001 and January 2002, the proportion rating environmental protection as a top priority fell by a similar amount (from 63% to 44%); a number of domestic priorities declined in importance following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. By January 2003, just 39% called environmental protection a top priority – comparable to today’s 41% – before resurging as a priority from 2006 to 2008, only to fall again this year.

However what is not talked about much or at least with much seriousness is the idea that there really is no scientific consensus concerning the theory of global climate change or more specifically that such a change is caused by humanity. It seems that whenever someone stands up to question what is presented in the media (and lets be honest the media is virtually the only window into what is going on in the world for a significant portion of the world's population) they are usually shouted down as crackpots. In fact such influential public personalities as David Suzuki (recently voted as the most trusted person in Canada in a Reader's Digest poll) claim that:

And so, even though the scientific proof for human-caused global warming is undeniable, we have the coal and oil industries funding massive campaigns to cast doubt on the science and we have politicians implying that the world’s scientists are involved in some sinister plot – all so we can continue to rely on diminishing supplies of polluting fuels instead of creating jobs and wealth through a greener economy that may save us from catastrophe.

Now Mr. Suzuki is a well respected and very informed person, especially concerning environmental matters. However I can't help but notice how he too couches the criticism of human caused global warming terms of money grubbing conspiracies rather than accepting that there are scientists out there that question what the public is being told. People are being scared into the notion of environmental armageddon in our lifetime (or at least the lifetime of our children and grandchildren) and being told that if drastic steps aren't taken NOW that all is lost.

However the question still remains, is it truly undeniable?

One person who questions the notion of undeniability is author Ian Wishart who wrote the bestselling book Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming. One of the questions that Mr. Wishart asks in his book is who benefits from these global scare tactics? One would think that the obvious answer is: humanity. That may truly be the answer if in fact global warming is an undeniable reality. If it isn't as more and more people are beginning to believe one still has to ask who benefits from all this global political action? In line of Woodward and Bernstein one should follow the money.

One of the proposed measures to mitigate the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the idea of carbon trading schemes, which are to be discussed at the upcoming Copenhagen conference. In a recent interview Wishart aks:

If you look at the economic prize at stake, consider this. We currently have gold markets, but you are not forced to buy and sell gold and only a tiny percentage of the community are active in the gold markets. The financial markets are larger, but even then most of us are not forced to buy and sell shares or trade forex, and only a minority of us actually do so. But if carbon trading becomes compulsory worldwide, effectively every single one of us will be forced to buy and sell through this scheme. No one will be able to go through their daily lives without being represented directly or indirectly in the carbon markets. Those who control the carbon markets will effectively control the world.

If we are going to cede that kind of control, and money, for a claimed crisis of planetary proportions, shouldn’t we first be absolutely certain that the crisis is real?

The magazine Investigate goes a few steps further in following the money and the potential consequences and realities of such a scenario. In their July 13, 2009 article "Global Governance on Climate Agenda" they discuss the roll of the UN as an emergent world governing body in some rather stark terms:

By now you should be beginning to appreciate how the new world order will work. The UN Security Council will become stacked with members undoubtedly approved by Socialist International, and the USA will lose its power of veto, substantially or even entirely. Because of new funding streams from carbon taxes and a global financial transaction tax, the UN will have its own revenue and be capable of putting its own “peacekeeping” military force into action. Meanwhile, the new Sustainable Development Council will have the same draconian powers to direct how the world economy should develop and how resources should be collected and spent. Countries wishing to dispute would get a hearing in the UN General Assembly, but if they didn’t have the political support they could be ordered to tow the line or face increasingly harsh sanctions from the UN community.

Voting rights on the new Sustainability Council would be based on “three main criteria: a country’s share in world population, GDP and contributions to the UN global goods budget.”

In other words, the more you contribute to the UN, the more say you have in governing the affairs of other countries.

This is where things come back to my previous comments on individualism and social issue voting motivations. Many look to the US for leadership on international issues and many were devastated and bewildered by the America's refusal to sign the Kyoto Accord. Even Barack Obama voted against it when he had the opportunity to do so as a Illinois state Senator. Now the US is facing immense pressure to sign on to these new carbon trading schemes being proposed. If the US signs many others will follow suit. Obama is now POTUS and was elected on numerous social issues and putting an end to the war in Iraq. Now he has the opportunity to accept or decline the protocols being presented and it looks like he will sign. The conference is still a few months away so we will have to wait to see if he does so, but if the US signs then other nations who might be questioning their stance will fall into line knowing that they won't have the US to back them and as such they are too weak to stand alone; unlike the US.

If this comes to pass then the rights of the individual will be more severely trampled than many can imagine. If we look to history for what happens when governments gain more and more power we see an alarming trend. In the 20th century the most obvious examples of overly powerful governments are the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Kampuchea (better known as the Khmer Rouge led Cambodia under Pol Pot in the late 1970s), and the Government Junta of Chile led by Augusto Pinochet to name but a few. The end result of each of these was not pretty and a direct result of the people giving up power to growing minority of people.

So what makes anyone think that placing power over themselves in the hands of foreign peoples or governments is a good idea?

I have no problem with greener energy technologies or conservation but I loathe the idea of people being scared into something as drastic as what is being called for by world leaders.

I can't say definitively that global warming is happening or not; human caused or not.

What I can say is that each of us owes it to ourselves to investigate the issue to the best of our ability. Discuss it with others and not only those with those who agree with us. We should not be afraid to hear a dissenting opinion. Then when we have a handle on the facts and can speak about the issue with some intelligence we can seek action.

Just as people shouldn't have been scared and manipulated into a war in Iraq, we should not be scared and manipulated into potentially stripping ourselves of our rights and freedoms.

Fighting against a conservative New World Order only to walk into a liberal New World Order will only end in the subservience of the individual.

Do the research.

Make up your own mind.

I leave you with a brief tidbit from Ian Wishart:

In the world? Of the world?

Living in South Korea for the past year, certain things have occured in my home town in Canada that I was unaware of. One is a contentious issue involving parishoners of a local church. An internal matter within the church has become very public when one parishoner chose to seek resolution through a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRT).

As I've already stated I was not present for the situation in question, nor was I a member of the church in question (my grandmother was but I was not). So what right do I have in commenting on something outside of my personal experience or participation? My primary concern and the reason for my comment is the chosen course of resolution taken by the apparently wronged party; the Human Rights Tribunal.

Now from what I understand the situation began when a group of congregants took issue with the Parish's new Priest over economic matters. It seems that this group of congregants were unable to reach satisfaction within the diocese concerning this matter and, according to the complaintant in the HRT case, chose to change tactics in their persecution of the Priest by attacking members of the Parish that supported the Priest. This led to the complaintant being asked to step down from his voluntary position as Altar Server by the Bishop.

In his description of the events leading up to his filing of his complaint with the HRT, the complaintant argues that the group of perishoners "felt that they were more qualified to run the church than the pastor, and ultimately more qualified to run the diocese than the Bishop. That is not the Catholic model." Now I have to assume that the Catholic model to which he is speaking is the one where the Church hierarchy is involved and the perishoners accept graciously the decision of the Church whether it agrees or disagrees with them. This however does not seem to be what happened as "in January, the Bishop decided to address the tactics of these parishioners in a letter to all parishioners that accompanied our year end financial report. The Bishop called upon this group to stop their malicious attack of Father Hood. The group was not persuaded by the Bishop's letter and they continued their campaign of slander and libel against Father Hood."

It does appear that despite the decision of the diocese against the group's actions against the Priest, the diocese did agree with the group in the matter of a homosexual person serving as an Altar Server. We are told that not only was the local Bishop involved but so too were the Arch-Bishop and the Papal Nuncio. It was after this that the complaintant was asked to step down from his voluntary position within the church.

The actions of the group against the Priest did not stop but expanded from involving 12 people to include 45 people. The Bishop was once again involved and told the party to cease and desisit from their actions against the Parish Priest as "the Bishop did respond with a very strongly worded letter to the 45, he told them that their accusations were unfounded, their actions were un-Christian, and their claims about the liturgy were not worthy of a response. His letter essentially ordered these people to stop attacking Father Hood and gave them the option of attending another church if they weren't happy."

It was at this point that the complaintant involved a lawyer and told that he "two options. One was to sue the 2 ringleaders of the group, the other was to file a human rights complaint. I opted for the human rights complaint. In my complaint, I have argued that this group of 12, by threatening the Bishop, have recklessly trampled on my rights as a human being, and my right to respond to my calling in the church. As such I have asked for the Bishop to reinstate me, and to preach a sermon on the ills of spreading rumour and innuendo. I have also asked each of the 12 parishioners to make a donation of $20,000 to a charity of my choosing. Finally, I have asked the diocese to cover my legal expenses, up to a maximum of $25,000."

This is my issue with this ongoing situation: the involvement of the secular authority (HRT) in the operation of the Church.

Now in Canada we don't have a clearly deliniated statement of the seperation of Church and State as our American neighbors do. However, it is accepted that the Church has no place to dictate to the State how it must operate just as the State has no right to dictate to the Church how it must operate. The actions of the complaintant work to end this and place the Church, its doctrines and actions under the control of the government. This is wrong.

Some might see this as a good thing. They might see this as a way of forcing the Church to 'evolve' so that it more clearly matches the current social positions of society. The function of the Church is not to mirror society. The function of the Church is speak truth to the world. It is able to do this because the Church is not of the world, it is of God. As Christ Jesus says: "I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it." (John 17:14-16)

The Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 that "if any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers."

In my opinion (for what that matters) the complaintant should have followed his own advice and followed the Catholic way in Church matters. He can try and wrap his complaint in the notion of defending the Parish Priest but the fact is that his complaint before the HRT is solely about himself and not the Priest. He goes against his own counsel and his Church (his situation went as high as the Papal Nuncio) by not only refusing to accept the counsel and admonition of the Church but by taking the un-Catholic way and presenting an internal Church matter before the State. Something that both Christ and the Apostle Paul said we were not to do. The inclusion of money in the matter only serves to cheapen it.

Too often people argue that the Church should change in order to meet our perception of what the Church should be. Just as people argue that God should be what we want Him to be. Who are we to tell God who He should be? Who are we to tell the 2000 year old Church to blow with the wind of change in society? If that were the case the Church would be built on shifting sands and not on the rock upon which Christ Jesus founded it.

Rubbing Obama's belly

Given the past week or so of violence and protest in Iran following a rather questionable election pressure is mounting on Obama to step up and put the Iranian leadership in its place by openly supporting the protesters in Iran.

I can sympathize with this position to a certain extent. A people are standing up against oppression and one would like to support that but on the other hand is it any of our business?

Would we listen in Canada if Iran's leader stood up and told us what we should do?

People are looking to Obama to lead and that's fine, but I can't help but get the sense that there are a large group of people out there that think Obama is some miracle worker with the answers to all of life's and the world's problems. It's a rather absurd notion to be sure.

First why should anyone listen to the US?

Really.

Why?

The obvious argument is that the US has discredited itself through the unilateral invasion of Iraq, the unlawful detention of foreign citizens in Guantanamo Bay, the use of torture on same prisoners and the questionable legal practices used to strip civil rights away from their own citizens. So why should anyone listen to the US when they speak of truth, justice and the American way?

The counter arguement to this is now: Obama! Like his name alone will ward off the encroaching darkness. All of what was previously argued happened under the hated W, but now Obama is in power and that creates a clear line of demarcation between what the US has done and what they will do.

I guess that that is plausible except for the fact that Guantanamo is still in operation. People are still being held by American authorities without charge or representation. Obama went to Egypt, itself a repressive regime and said nothing. He says nothing about the situation in Darfur or Somalia. Continues to do business with repressive regimes such as China and Pakistan.

Usually when such stuff is brought up people argue that it isn't POTUS's responsibility to police the world but rather to look after his own people. And in this they are correct, except when it suits their own sense of inflated ego, then the world should snap to and listen to what comes from the the White House podium and do as they are told. They want their cake and eat it to.

Clinton lost a lot of respect when he said nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. He had gone into Somalia and left with his tail between his legs. Then refused to send US troops into harms way to help end the genocide in Kosovo, utilizing only air power. Then Rwanda came about and it was argued that the US had no right to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations.

Well what has changed?

Nothing. America still acts when and where it wants and refuses to act where and when it wants. I guess that that is their right. Unless of course they taking advantage of or invading a foreign people, but some of the time that simply doesn't matter.

So I'm left with the question of why should Iran or anyone else for that matter listen to what the US has to say about their internal policies or actions?

Well Obama has played this situation rather circumspectly, issuing statments but not giving them himself. Not lending his teleprompter presence to the words. He's not getting directly involved and trying to be seen as not meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. Which of course would be a foolish thing to do after his Cairo speach.

The thing I have to wonder about Obama is that he seems to believe that it is the responsibility of the POTUS to defend Islam to the world and that the notions of free speach and assembly are inaliable rights given to all mankind. I have no idea where he came up with such ludicrous notions but he seems to believe them.

***

On a more facetious note if we want all these problems to go away (Darfur, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, China, North Korea, etc.) we need only send in the Scientologists.

Don't believe me?

Ask Tom Cruise.

Video.