Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13

Administrative Area

login

password

There'll be Nowhere to Run from the New World Government
Dec 21st, 2009
Daily NewsTelegraph.co.uk - Janet Daley
Categories: Today's Headlines;World Government

'Global' thinking won't necessarily solve the world's problems, says Janet Daley

There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which "global" swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were "global crises" and "global challenges", the only possible resolution to which lay in "global solutions" necessitating "global agreements". Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a "global alliance" in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)

Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word "global", as in "global economic crisis", meant: "It's not my fault". To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.

The dangerous idea that the democratic accountability of national governments should simply be dispensed with in favour of "global agreements" reached after closed negotiations between world leaders never, so far as I recall, entered into the arena of public discussion. Except in the United States, where it became a very contentious talking point, the US still holding firmly to the 18th-century idea that power should lie with the will of the people.

Nor was much consideration given to the logical conclusion of all this grandiose talk of global consensus as unquestionably desirable: if there was no popular choice about approving supranational "legally binding agreements", what would happen to dissenters who did not accept their premises (on climate change, for example) when there was no possibility of fleeing to another country in protest? Was this to be regarded as the emergence of world government? And would it have powers of policing and enforcement that would supersede the authority of elected national governments? In effect, this was the infamous "democratic deficit" of the European Union elevated on to a planetary scale. And if the EU model is anything to go by, then the agencies of global authority will involve vast tracts of power being handed to unelected officials. Forget the relatively petty irritations of Euro‑bureaucracy: welcome to the era of Earth-bureaucracy, when there will be literally nowhere to run.

But, you may say, however dire the political consequences, surely there is something in this obsession with global dilemmas. Economics is now based on a world market, and if the planet really is facing some sort of man-made climate crisis, then that too is a problem that transcends national boundaries. Surely, if our problems are universal the solutions must be as well.

Well, yes and no. Calling a problem "global" is meant to imply three different things: that it is the result of the actions of people in different countries; that those actions have impacted on the lives of everyone in the world; and that the remedy must involve pretty much identical responses or correctives to those actions. These are separate premises, any of which might be true without the rest of them necessarily being so. The banking crisis certainly had its roots in the international nature of finance, but the way it affected countries and peoples varied considerably according to the differences in their internal arrangements. Britain suffered particularly badly because of its addiction to public and private debt, whereas Australia escaped relatively unscathed.

That a problem is international in its roots does not necessarily imply that the solution must involve the hammering out of a uniform global prescription: in fact, given the differences in effects and consequences for individual countries, the attempt to do such hammering might be a huge waste of time and resources that could be put to better use devising national remedies. France and Germany seem to have pulled themselves out of recession over the past year (and the US may be about to do so) while Britain has not. These variations owe almost nothing to the pompous, overblown attempts to find global solutions: they are largely to do with individual countries, under the pressure of democratic accountability, doing what they decide is best for their own people

This is not what Mr Brown calls "narrow self-interest", or "beggar my neighbour" ruthlessness. It is the proper business of elected national leaders to make judgments that are appropriate for the conditions of their own populations. It is also right that heads of nations refuse to sign up to "legally binding" global agreements which would disadvantage their own people. The resistance of the developing nations to a climate change pact that would deny them the kind of economic growth and mass prosperity to which advanced countries have become accustomed is not mindless selfishness: it is proper regard for the welfare of their own citizens.

The word "global" has taken on sacred connotations. Any action taken in its name must be inherently virtuous, whereas the decisions of individual countries are necessarily "narrow" and self-serving. (Never mind that a "global agreement" will almost certainly be disproportionately influenced by the most powerful nations.) Nor is our era so utterly unlike previous ones, for all its technological sophistication. We have always needed multilateral agreements, whether about trade, organised crime, border controls, or mutual defence.

If the impact of our behaviour on humanity at large is much greater or more rapid than ever before then we shall have to find ways of dealing with that which do not involve sacrificing the most enlightened form of government ever devised. There is a whiff of totalitarianism about this new theology, in which the risks are described in such cosmic terms that everything else must give way. "Globalism" is another form of the internationalism that has been a core belief of the Left: a commitment to class rather than country seemed an admirable antidote to the "blood and soil" nationalism that gave rise to fascism.

The nation-state has never quite recovered from the bad name it acquired in the last century as the progenitor of world war. But if it is to be relegated to the dustbin of history then we had better come up with new mechanisms for allowing people to have a say in how they are governed. Maybe that could be next year's global challenge.

The Hollywood production of the end of the world epic "2012" is a reminder that they believe the world could end three years from today
Dec 21st, 2009
News UpdateJimmy DeYoung
Categories: Jimmy DeYoung News

The Hollywood film company Sony had its greatest success this year with the end of the world film epic "2012" which had the theme of how the Mayan calendar predicts that the end of the world will happen on December 21, 2012 - three years from today. The film has caused many people around the world to look into the claims of the ancient Mayan people who lived in the area of Central America near Mexico over 1000 years ago and were masters at keeping time without any of the instruments that we have today like the computer.

The Mayan calendar, according to the ancient writings that have been discovered in recent years, is to end in 2012 with a global catastrophic event in what many are calling the end of the world.

Jimmy's Prophetic prospective on the News

According to the Hollywood film epic "2012" this world will come to an end exactly three years from today which is in contradiction to what Bible prophecy says about the end of the world.

The Hollywood production "2012" made a lot of money for its producer, the Sony company, and at the same time, brought to the attention of everyone that saw this epic film, the possibility of the world coming to an end on December 21, 2012. Let me set you at ease. The world will not end on December 21, 2012 according to Bible prophecy.

The prophetic scenario for the end times includes a number of events before the end of the world. The next event is the Rapture of the church followed by a seven year period of judgment on the Earth called the Tribulation (I Thessalonians 4:13-18; Revelation 4-19). Jesus Christ will return to the Earth (Zechariah 14:4) and set up His thousand year kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6). After the kingdom, then the world is destroyed (II Peter 3:10). And there will be new heavens and a new Earth (Revelation 21).

The reality of 2012 is not the end of the world at that time but at a later date in history. Bible prophecy will be fulfilled.

All Eyes and Ears on Cabinet Session on Shalit Deal
Dec 21st, 2009
Daily NewsArutz Sheva - Tzvi Ben Gadalyahu
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel

 
Weeks of speculation on a proposal in the making for Israel to free hundreds of terrorists for the safe return of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit are at a climax as an emotionally taut nation takes sides.

The mini-Cabinet of seven ministers met Sunday night for the third time in one day on the issue, without reaching a decision, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will bring up the proposal before the full Cabinet at 9:30 Monday morning.

The mini-Cabinet includes members whom Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has depended on to keep discussions secret, without leaks to the media. However, Channel One television reported that Prime Minister Netanyahu is against the proposal while Defense Minister Ehud Barak favors it.

The family of Shalit and relatives of terror victims continued to take opposite sides on the principle of Israel risking more terrorist attacks and kidnappings by freeing terrorists. The Almagor terror victims association repeatedly has pointed out that previous releases of terrorists have resulted in the murder of at least 179 Israelis at the hands of the same terrorists who promised not to return to violence.

The family of Shalit made another emotional appeal to Prime Minister Netanyahu Sunday, expressing fears that a rejection of any proposal would leave their son to be “Ron Arad number two,” referring to the plane navigator whose fate has been unknown since his plane was downed over Lebanon more than two decades ago.

Both Almagor and the family of Shalit send letters on Sunday to the Prime Minister. Terror victims' families reminded him that his brother, Yoni Netanyahu, gave up his life while leading elite commandos to free kidnap victims in the dramatic rescue at Entebbe in 1976.

“Your brother rendered the highest sacrifice in order to defend the State of Israel against terror,” they wrote in a letter. “If you choose to surrender to terror, what is the significance of Yoni’s action? What is the significance for other soldiers and their families? If you surrender, who will be blamed for the river of blood that will be spilled? Don’t disappoint us and the people who voted for you.”

An equally emotional appeal by Noam and Aviva Shalit, parents of the kidnapped solider, included the plea “not to repeat the tragedy of Ron Arad. G-d forbid we [shou add to this wound which was seared onto Israeli society, and has seen sorrow for generations,” they wrote.

The seven ministers in the mini-Cabinet are reportedly divided. One of the members, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, chairman of the Israel Our Home (Yisrael Beiteinu) parry, has vowed that terrorists with blood on their hands will not be freed. Liked Minister Benny Begin also is said to agree with him.

Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor of the Likud has backed freeing prisoners. The rumor mill continues to spin with different versions of what is being considered, but no one has officially confirmed or denied several conflicting reports.