By Joseph Farah Posted: November 30, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 It's a funny thing about "consensus." Often we are told that because society has reached a "consensus" on a given topic, debate about it should be all but be extinguished. Those who are not part of the "consensus" are often ridiculed and marginalized. Those who are part of the "consensus" feel perfectly justified in imposing their view on the rest of the country – even the world. For example, next month there's a United Nations convention in Copenhagen at which the powers that be plan to reinvent the way the world is governed on the basis of a "consensus" that man-made catastrophic climate change is an imminent threat to the planet. Of course, first you have to ask yourself: "Is there really a consensus among the world's population that man's activity on the planet presents an imminent threat to survival?" The answer, of course, is no. Not only is there no consensus, I'm not even aware of any effort to conducting scientific surveys to determine if there is. The second question you have to ask is this: "Would it matter if there was such a consensus?" The answer, of course, is no. It wouldn't matter because the world is not and should not be governed on the basis of consensus. In fact, the world shouldn't be governed at all – unless or when God Himself descends from heaven with a shout and imposes His own righteous, all-knowing judgments upon it. Yet, next month, we're told, because of "consensus," decisions are going to be made at this U.N. convention that will affect the lives of every man, woman and child on the planet – and we will take some significant steps toward global governance. So be very wary when people cite "consensus" as a reason for doing anything. It's a trick. It's political sleight of hand. It's a con game – much like "man-made, catastrophic climate change." Neither one is real – and it wouldn't matter if they were. Both are merely excuses for actions that others want to impose on the rest of us. READ FULL STORY >
Monday, November 30, 2009
When 'consensus' doesn't count ~ By Joseph Farah
Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment