(Radio Show Transcript Follows)

The New World Order is coming

Are you ready?

Stand by for insights so startling

you will never look at the news the same way again.



This is David Bay, Director of Old Paths Ministries.

And this is the Cutting Edge, a radio program dedicated to warning and informing God's people. We are committed to the study and exposition of the inerrant, inspired and authoritative Word of God. The views expressed belong to us, and are not necessarily shared by this station.

Our society is deteriorating, and Bible-believing Christians are ill-prepared to face that deterioration. This radio program is dedicated to preparing God's people to meet the challenges of the Day, and to encourage obedience to the Word of God in being separated from worldliness and false doctrine.

The moral bankruptcy of our society is well-documented.

Few people understand why we have become morally bankrupt. However, when we look at society through the eyes of God, through the Bible, we can easily see why we are facing the unprecedented troubles today. This study of America through the eyes of God is what we will always do try to here; stay with us for some eye-opening truths.

We have demonstrated many times in past programs the role environmental activism plays in the eventual implementation of the New World Order. There is no question that Satan is working in the hearts and minds of the proponents of the New World Order to bring about the last stages of the plan. Bill Cooper, in his book, "Behold A Pale Horse", shares this quote, which we have shared with you in previous programs. This quote clearly shows how very close we are to the final implementation of the New World Order Plan; remember this final part of the plan was written in the late 1700's. "When we come into our kingdom (New World Order) our orators will expound great problems which have turned humanity upside down in order to bring the world, at the end under our beneficent rule." (p. 303). These planners of the New World Order, writing over 200 years ago, were saying that the last step is for their speakers to create global problems of such supposed magnitude as to require a global solution. We are seeing this happening nearly every day in some way, such as our celebrations of Earth Day, where speaker after speaker rose to the platform to decry the state of the earth, blaming the United States for its destruction and crying out for the solutions to the supposed catastrophic conditions of the atmosphere, landfalls, rain forests, etc. Environmental activists point to four basic supposed problems that they claim are threatening our earth and our life as we know it.

1. Acid Rain -- The world's industrial nations, especially the United States, are being accused of contaminating the world's atmosphere with emissions from our factories. Supposedly, many forests are being killed by this acid rain. Scientists are debating the acid rain issue, and according to some studies, the earth has more forests than at any time in recorded history.

2, Cutting of Rain Forests, or Deforestation -- There is no question that Rain Forests in the tropics are being cut. This cutting disturbs the balance of nature, environmentalists claim, by decreasing the earth's ability to absorb carbon dioxide, and by destroying the habitation of many species. This, in turn, breaks down the vital food chain.

These Rain Forests are not being cut at the rate that is being portrayed in the popular media, however, for if they were being cut at that rate, there would be no forest anywhere in a very short time.

3. Global Warming -- According to many environmental scientists, the average temperature of the earth is increasing. This warming is being caused by so-called "greenhouse gasses", such as carbon dioxide and methane that thicken the earth's atmosphere and do not release heat from the atmosphere into space. However, many scientists dispute that the earth is warming at all, but may, in fact, be cooling and entering a new Ice Age.

4. Ozone Depletion -- In addition to the "greenhouse effect", we are being told that the emitting of Chloroflourocarbons or CFC's for short, are destroying the ozone layer in the atmosphere. Ozone is the chemical in the atmosphere that protects us from the ultraviolet rays of the sun. Each fall, the Ozone layer over Antarctica develops what is called a "hole". This hole closes after a short time. These CFC's, chlorine, freon, and other chemicals used in many of the products we use everyday, such as refrigerators, have caused this natural yearly event to increase in scope so that the hole is growing. And, according to NASA scientists, it takes longer each year to close. The result, we have been told, is the eventual destruction of the Ozone layer and the end of life on earth.

Remember, the Plan for the New World Order, quoted above, and written in the late 1700's, calls for the creation of such great problems which threaten mankind and which will convince people to allow the final implementation of this new system of world government. The fact that we see this manufactured problems now being trumpeted demonstrates that we are very close to the end of the age.

Now, enter into this discussion, several books that discuss environmental issues, the most prominent of which has been written by our Vice-President elect, Albert Gore. This book is entitled, "Earth In The Balance". For the remainder of this program, we will examine this book in the context of its role in promoting the New World Order. Gore's avowed purpose in writing the book is to present himself to be a leader in responding to the challenge that he believes is presented by what he repeatedly calls a global crisis. The book is a cross between anecdote, scientific assertion written in a somewhat simplified manner, and proposals that will solve what he feels is the greatest problem that has ever faced the human race. From a stylistic point of view, Gore accomplishes his task brilliantly. He is the recognized leader on environmental issues in the United States, and his book has stirred many to agree with him that the future of the earth is literally hanging in the balance between habitable and inhabitable. In this sense, the book is truly one of the most significant books ever written. If Gore's analysis of our environment is accepted, the pathway to the New World Order will become a freeway, with no stoplights or speed limits.

His basic thesis can be laid out as a logical formula with two premises and a conclusion:

Premise #1: A Global Environmental Crisis is a threat to all life on this planet.

Premise #2: There is a Global Environmental crisis today.

Conclusion: Our lives are threatened.

Now, in any logical argument, the argument can be sound without necessarily being true. Gore's argument is sound in that it is presented in a way that is not contradictory. In other words, it is logically possible, but that does not make his facts true. The truth of his conclusion that "our lives are threatened" is predicated on the two premises. If Number One Premise is false and a Global Environmental Crisis is not life threatening, then our lives cannot be threatened. If it is life-threatening, but we do not have such a crisis, then our lives cannot be threatened.

In other words, both premises must be true in order for the conclusion to be true. We will examine the evidence of the second premise today by looking at the statements Gore makes in his book. We will attempt to answer the question as to whether or not he is correct in his assertion that we are in a Global Environmental Crises.

As we begin, it is important that we look at the philosophical suppositions that form the foundation upon which the book rests. On page 62 of the book, Mr. Gore builds his case for a history of climate changes. He points to climate changes that he believes have occurred over millions of years, and he further believes that these climate changes have the agent for the development of man's social institutions. He says, "Indeed, the succession of ice ages and warming interglacial periods between 1 million and 40,000 years ago, is believed by most historians to have provided the impetus for the development of rudimentary social organizations. The archaeological and anthropological records indicate that each time the ice retreated, the primitive peoples of the Eurasian land mass grew more populous and their culture more advanced". Gore indicates his complete belief in evolution when he states, "human evolution itself was shaped by dramatic transitions in global climate patterns during the past 6 million years". On page 100, Gore asserts that it is from the ocean that the earliest life forms evolved. While much of what Gore says in his book is true, he rejects the notion of a personal God Who creates and sustains His universe. This rejection of God is the basis of Gore's entire argument. He believes that human life can completely disappear from the earth; yet the Scripture teaches that God will preserve this earth until the time of final judgment. While it is possible that God will use some of the natural disasters foretold in Gore's book as the means of judgment, God's judgment will be for sin and not the consequences of poor environmental management. Gore's rejection of Biblical doctrine is most telling in his statements concerning Joseph in Egypt. He says, "Joseph's warning to Pharaoh to prepare for seven lean years following seven fat years reflects the new awareness of humankind of its vulnerability to changes in the weather patterns. In turn, when Pharaoh appoints Joseph, who interpreted the ecological meaning of Pharaohs dream, to oversee preparations for the lean years, his decision reflects the assertion by humankind of the power to anticipate, and prepare for climate fluctuations." (page 62).

Nothing is said here concerning God or His sovereign rule. In short, the rejection of a personal and omnipotent God as Creator and Sustained is a fatal flaw in the overall theory that climate changes are this instrumental to human existence. Attempts to prove a history of climate changes require a belief in evolution for which there is no scientific evidence and a contrived speculation that borders on the preposterous. Albert Gore's Southern Baptist roots are well known, and it is disturbing to see his rejection of the doctrines concerning the nature of God upon which that body was founded.

There are several areas of concern which Gore raises in the first part of the book. These areas are written to underscore the seriousness of the problem. Let us consider these concerns:

1. Ozone Depletion:

"The 600% increase in the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere during the past 40 years has taken place not just in those countries producing the chloroflourocarbons...but in the air of every country. The increased levels of chlorine disrupts the global process by which the earth regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation from the sun that is allowed through the atmosphere to the surface; and if we let chlorine levels to increase, the radiation levels will also increase -- to the point that all animal and plant life will face a new threat to survival." (page 29). The question of an Ozone hole has been brought to the forefront over the past several years. It was examined during the Presidential election and was a point of contention between the Presidential candidates. The question before us is basic; is there an Ozone Hole over Antarctica, and if there is, does this condition pose a threat to human life? The answer is that an Ozone Hole, as it is called, does occur every year over Antarctica. It can be observed in September and October, and usually disappears inn late November or early December. This so-called hole was discovered in 1956 and has been systematically studied since 1985. Ozone which is a chemical in the atmosphere occurring naturally, fluctuates by as much as 50% during the course of any given year. In 1958, the levels of ozone was measured by two French scientists. Comparisons between that data and current data indicate that there was less ozone then than there is now!! In the light of this scientific fact, it is difficult to put much stock in the assertion that the Ozone levels are depleting at growing rates. There is no question that Ozone levels do control the ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth. Yet, statements by environmentalists, such as Gore, that increases in UV radiation will lead to 200,000 deaths due to skin cancer are patently false and are a scare tactic to force the public to accept the agenda of the environmental extremists. The only skin cancer that is attributable to UV radiation is only fatal if left untreated for a considerable period of time. Incidences of this type of cancer are more prevalent as one gets closer to the equator where the ozone levels are thin-nest. The deadly strain of skin cancers are melanomas, and these cancers have nothing to do with UV radiation; in fact, they are often found in locations that do not come into contact with sunlight. The proximity to places where ozone is thin is irrelevant to the incidence of melanomas. No evidence has yet been found which prove conclusively that Ozone depletion carries life-threatening consequences.

Now the next question which must be answered concerning Ozone depletion is the assertion that CFC's cause Ozone depletion. In 1974, two California researchers, F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina claimed to find a link between Ozone depletion and CFC's. CFC's are used as coolants in refrigerators and air conditioners, as propellants in aerosol spray cans, and in foam insulation and solvents. Their gas molecules are extremely stable and Rowland and Molina theorized that they were drifting into the stratosphere, being broken down by solar energy, thereby releasing their highly reactive chlorine atoms. In turn, according to this spurious theory, the chlorine began working to destroy ozone molecules. Environmentalists latched on to this issue and in 1978, the U.S. became the first industrialized nation to ban the use of CFC's in aerosol spray cans. Yet, as atmospheric physicist, Dr. S. Fred Singer and colleague Candace Crandall noted in Consumer's Research for July, 1987, the Rowland/Molina theory has yet to be verified in detail because the mathematical model involves more than 100 chemical reactions. Furthermore, scientists have yet to explain why the so-called Ozone Hole occurs only over Antarctica and not over the nations which produce CFC's.

2. Global Warming

A second area that Gore deals with extensively in his book is the issue of global warming. He says, "Global Warming is also a strategic threat. The concentration of carbon dioxide and other heat-absorbing molecules has increased by almost 25% since World War II, posing a worldwide threat to the earth's ability to regulate the amount of heat from the sun retained in the atmosphere. This increase in heat seriously threatens the global climate equilibrium that determines the pattern of winds, rainfall, surface temperatures, ocean currents, and sea level. These, in turn determine the distribution of vegetative and animal life on land and sea and have a great effect on the location and pattern of human societies." Is global warming the threat Mr. Gore seems to believe it is? Contrary to Mr. Gore's statements that there is nearly universal agreement among scientists concerning the facts of global warming, there are a number of highly competent scientists that have differed publicly with the findings of the United Nations panel that predicted a 2 degree rise in temperature by the year 2025. These highly competent scientists are from such prestigious places as M.I.T., Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the National Weather Service, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, to name but a few. These scientists point out that weather data has been collected for 10 years by satellites. This data has been examined by NASA space meteorologists Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. J.R. Christy, who reported their findings in the March, 1990, Science Magazine. Their conclusion: "There is no obvious long-term trend; and anomalies during the first 5 years nearly balance those during the last five years."

For close to 100 years, temperature and precipitation levels have been recorded daily at thousands of stations worldwide. If any significant warming had occurred, these readings would show it. But, simply stated, they do not show any significant level of warming. Even global warming adherents recognize that there has only been a one-half degree Celsius change in global temperatures. Even this change in temperatures is highly questionable because the measuring stations are not evenly distributed around the globe. They are located on only 30% of the earth's surface. The satellite data is much more reliable. A damaging flaw in the global warming theory is found in the lack of temperature rise when the levels of carbon dioxide were at their highest. Gore himself admits that the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has increased 25% since World War II. If the global warming theory were correct, then there would be an accompanying temperature rise, and there is none. Commenting on the unsubstantiated claims about carbon dioxide, the University of Virginia's Dr. Patrick Michaels adds, "It's pretty apparent that the lion's share of the warming occurred before the lion's share of increases in carbon dioxide emissions. There are only so many things that can go against a simplistic theory before one has to admit that it is simplistic". Gore states that there is nearly unanimous agreement among scientists that global warming is true. In fact, he says that only a very tiny minority within the scientific community argue against the global warming theory (p.38), but, in truth, a 1991 Gallup Poll showed that only 19% of professional climatologists and meteorologists surveyed believed that any warming over the past 100 years has anything to do with human activity.

So much for unanimity, Senator Gore.

3. Deforestation

Mr. Gore points to deforestation as a cause of global warning, loss of species, shortages of rainfall, and erosion. All of these things are true, with the exception of global warming; as we have already stated, global warming is a myth. There is no question that species have passed out of existence in past centuries due to changes in habitat and changes in temperature. Yet, there is no conclusive evidence that this loss is harmful to humans. While it is unethical to kill species for the sake of killing, animals are not equal to humans, nor did God give the animals the same rights and privileges as He did to humans. When human good comes into conflict with animal good, human good must prevail. And it is also true that many of our lifesaving drugs come out of the Rain Forests. It would be a shame and a violation of good stewardship to destroy these things for uses that do not help mankind. History has also shown that the removal of Rain Forests does cause soil erosion and a reduction in rainfall. This does bring about ecological problems that can and should be avoided.

Now that Albert Gore has defined the problem as he sees it, what does he intend to do about it? This is a critical question, because Gore is the next Vice-President of the United States. Gore proposes several actions:

  1. Stabilize the world's population. He specifically mentions Birth Control in developing countries. But, many New Age leaders have always defined the stabilization of the population of the world as also including Abortion on demand. Do not be deceived; Gore's plan will increase the frequency of abortion.
  2. Gore proposes the rapid creation and development of environmentally appropriate technologies, especially in the fields of energy, transportation, agriculture, building construction, and manufacturing. This is not an unreasonable goal; however, on page 325, Gore proposes something which is not reasonable. He states that the internal combustion engine (your car) poses a greater threat than nuclear weapons to the future of mankind. One page later, he calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine in favor of more energy efficient vehicles. While Gore exaggerates the harm caused by the internal combustion engine, a more efficient technology that replaces it is not undesirable.

Gore then speaks of sharing environmentally appropriate technology. This idea is simply a redistribution of wealth, a major goal of the New World Order. Sharing our technology could benefit this nation more than it harms it, because with the spread and usage of advanced technology comes modernization for every nation to which this technology is given. These nations then can afford to purchase our exports. Once again, the goal thus offered is not a bad thing in a of itself. The problem that Gore does not seem to comprehend is that with the sharing of technology, the economic incentives to develop technology are diminished. Therefore, Gore and Clinton believe that it is the responsibility of Government to "invest" (using Clinton lingo) in private industry in order to produce the technology that Gore intends to share. When he says "share", he really means to give away. In order for this approach to work, a central economic planning agency must determine which companies will be the recipients of the Research and Development money that Clinton and Gore want to give away. In short, this plan puts the Federal Government into the role of financing technology that private industry now finances. If you were listening carefully to the love retreat that passed for economic dialogue in Little Rock last week, you are aware that such central Governmental planning is exactly what Clinton has in mind. We are moving ever more closely to the synthesis between Capitalism and Communism, otherwise known as Fascism. Fascism is defined as that economic system in which Private Industry controls the means of production, but where the Federal Government controls who produces what merchandise, what quantities will be produced, and to whom it will be distributed. This is the new system which will control the world economy in the New World Order, because an elimination of international competition is essential to building a cohesive world system.

3. Gore proposes that we should have a comprehensive and ubiquitous change in the economic "rules of the road", by which we measure the impact of our decisions on the environment. What the Senator is referring to is a system of trade agreements predicated upon an adherence to ecological principles. This goal is noble and if everyone adheres to the agreement, the results will undoubtedly be positive. However, the problem is that such a system of rules will be unenforceable apart from international sanctions backed by military force. In our present geopolitical system, such enforcement is all but impossible to maintain. Jordan's violation of United Nation's sanctions against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War is only one example of the idealism of Senator Gore.

4. Gore proposes to negotiate and approve new international agreements that will embody the regulatory frameworks, specific prohibitions, enforcement mechanisms, cooperative planning, sharing arrangements, incentives, penalties, and mutual obligations necessary to make the entire plan work. This sounds suspiciously like a One-World Economy and Government. While Gore states that he is against a One-World Government on page 301, such a system cannot be far behind if this solution is adopted.

5. Gore proposes to better educate the citizens of the world about the environment. The big problem here is not the process of teaching, but its content. The world's citizens do not need misinformation about global warming and ozone depletion, especially young, impressionable minds. Nor does one need the refresher course in Darwinian Evolution that Gore presupposes in this book.

6. Gore wants to establish social and political conditions most conducive to the emergence of sustainable societies, especially in the developing world. Gore speaks of making these developing economies in the image of "responsible" governments like ours. The situation in Somalia is ample evidence of what can take place in politically unstable societies; yet, it is questionable as to whether our system of government and economy is an appropriate model for Somalia to emulate.

Gore calls this six-point plan a Global Marshall Plan, patterned after the plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II; of course, we have shown in previous programs that this Marshall Plan was the first massive instance of a "Redistribution Of Wealth", and was preparatory to even more massive redistributions once the world enters into the New World Order. Since America funded the original Marshall Plan, Gore finds it essential that we fund this new one, as well. While this plan will probably have little effect on us as Christians specifically, it affect the world's economy drastically, with tragic results, thus paving the way for the One-World Government which Gore argues against. Gore's Marshall Plan has lofty, and generally lofty goals. The problem is that the means of achieving them will move the world the final distance into the New World Order.

Before leaving this subject, we feel it important to establish a Christian view of ecology. Unfortunately, many believers look at ecology as the private domain of New Age earth worshippers. This is not the case. While we reject the pagan views of the earth as a living, breathing goddess, we should nevertheless recognize that the Bible has much to say concerning nature, God's relationship to nature, and man's responsibility within nature. We will look at some axioms which will make these subjects a little more clear.

Axiom #1: God is the source of nature

God created heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1). God sustains life on this planet through His own power (Colossians 1:17). When God created all that exists, He said, "It is good". While we reject the notion of earth as a personal being, we must accept the fact God takes great delight in nature as we know it.

Axiom #2: Man is the highest of God's creation

Man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26); as such, man is crowned with glory, honor, and rights. The animals are never given these things. Rather, God made it quite clear that the animals were created for man's sustenance and pleasure. In fact, on several occasions, God commanded the slaughter of animals for the benefit of man. Further, we see Jesus, in Matthew 6, declaring that man is much more valuable than the lilies of the field or the birds of the air.

Axiom #3: Man has been given stewardship over creation

The Bible says that Man has been told to subdue creation (Genesis 1:28), to cultivate and keep or protect it. (Genesis 2:15). These three commands, taken together, put man in the position of caring and utilizing something that does not belong to him. Psalm 24:1 makes it clear that the earth is the Lord's (belongs to Him) and the fullness thereof. God has placed man in a position of trust over creation.

Axiom #4: All that man does in relationship to the environment ought to be to the glory of God, not for the purpose of greedy self-gratification. (Colossians 3:17-23). Therefore, we are to treat God's creation with respect and integrity because God made it and I love Him.

There are four implications of Axiom #4 that we should briefly discuss:

a. No resource using human activity should take place until the consequences of such activity have been well thought-out and established with reasonable certainty.

b. As managers of God's planet, man has a responsibility to know how the planet works. This involves scientific study and application.

c. The demands placed upon man by the human population and by creation itself are complementary. What is bad for one is ultimately bad for the other. A good example of this can be found in the poisonous environment in Eastern Europe. Senseless exploitation of the environment brings with it terrible consequences for all humans that live within that damaged environment.

d. Good stewardship does not mean the abandonment of technology. God told us to subdue the earth and to cultivate it. Anything that helps increase our power over it is good, but the pursuit of technology at the expense of God's creation is to violate our God-given responsibility to protect His environment. It is interesting to me that most of the reasons for environmental exploitation are economic. Money is not a good excuse to abandon sound doctrine, so why do we find it a convenient excuse to violate God's command to protect His creation?

In conclusion, let us say that Senator Gore's book must be evaluated in light of these actions. In that light, we must conclude that the goals that Mr. Gore sets forth are certainly within the scope of these actions, and, therefore, potentially good for all of us. Yet, it must also be said that the so-called facts that he uses to rationalize his goals are, at best, faulty, and at worst, downright dishonest. It would have been far better if he would have used the Scripture to point out the validity of his proposals; but it is difficult for a man who obviously does not believe the Biblical account of creation to expound on the relationship of man to that creation. It should also be reiterated that the means of achieving these goals will lead us into the New World Order. While we need to be good stewards of the environment, but we must not be deceived by the diabolical reasoning that is being used to usher in the kingdom of Anti-Christ.

Christian, be wary.

Christian, be holy.

Christian, be obedient.

You have been listening to the Cutting Edge, a radio program of Old Paths Ministries.

Return to The Cutting Edge Radio Show Transcript Index to select additional transcripts from our radio program.

Please feel free to E-mail Cutting Edge Ministries if you have any questions about our outreach ministry or any of these transcripts from our radio program.

Return to:

Christian site for those who seek information about or related to a wide variety of subjects including Bible Evangelical religion Billy Graham Bob Jones Christ Church James Dobson evangel faith God Hour of Power Jack Van Impe Jesus Jimmy Swaggert Kenneth Copeland Lutheran Baptist Methodist Ministry New Testament Old Testament Pentecostal prophecy protestant rapture religion Robert Schuller Roman Catholic spiritual The 700 Club Oral Roberts Baker tribulation