"People--Now That's the Real Problem"
This is just another example of how Satan uses his subtle lies to try to destroy humanity. Yes, it is a good thing to take care of our resources, for we do only have one earth. But the big caveat to this whole "Green Movement" is that the world was made for people, not the other way around. We are the ones who the world was created.
How this whole mentality has blown out of proportion was that there is a severe lack of trust in God as Father and provider. We think that b/c so many of our own fathers were not present, then Our Father in Heaven will not take care of us. We have to control, grasp, and manipulate, because no one is going to defend us. What is this? It's called original sin, repackaged, re-marketed so that our focus is taken off of God and onto us. But guess what? Having the world but no relationship with God won't satisfy us.
I hope you enjoy the following two articles. May we pray for Al Gore and all of his cronies, so that they may come to know the truth, realizing that we really do live under friendly skies, and that if we follow His ways, the environment will be just fine.
Czech President's 'Inconvenient Challenge' To Al Gore
By Christopher G. Adamo
May 29, 2008
Since leaving office, former Vice-President Al Gore has gained enormous stature within certain circles on the world scene, acquiring it per the standard liberal formula. Taking up his "Earth in the Balance" cause, he produced the feature length movie "An Inconvenient Truth," which is replete with fantastic prophesies of doom for the planet unless America immediately regresses to third-world squalor.
An insipid and unsubstantiated piece of propaganda, Gore's movie would never have resonated beyond the boundaries of a few egg headed film fests, were it not for the concerted efforts of virtually every liberal and socialist special interest known to mankind. Coming to his aid, they collectively proclaimed "An Inconvenient Truth" to be at once the scientific equivalent of Einstein's theory of relativity, packaged in cinematic genius that eclipses Ben Hur.
In the typical modus operandi of liberalism, an avalanche of recognition and awards were conferred upon Gore and his movie, from the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to an Oscar for "Best Documentary" to effusive accolades from every aspiring tinseltown movie critic. The film, along with all of his efforts to foment a global warming panic, have since been predictably declared as universal truth, a judgment based not on the availability of evidence, but on the profusion of like-minded liberal ideologues who are willing to accept and advance his hysterical claims.
Not surprising was the immediate branding of any who are dubious of Gore's outlandish assertions as "heretics." The liberal agenda, whether in relation to planetary catastrophe or the latest effort to confiscate and redistribute the private property of citizens, cannot tolerate honest examination. Thus, any effort to demand scientific evidence to support Gore's frenzied allegations will result in immediate charges of being a "global warming denier," an obvious attempt to link the honest skeptic to those anti-Semites who claim the Nazi holocaust never happened.
Sadly, far too many on the political scene who should recognize the "global warming" alarmism as the transparent power play that it is, instead choose to seek safe haven by accepting the premise of cataclysmic man-induced climate destruction. Others, hearing constant warnings of impending disaster, may actually be impressed by their shrillness and intensity, and thus prone to believe them.
In any case, a veritable ideological "stampede" is presently taking place, which threatens to undercut every aspect of American industry and commerce, thereby reducing the standard of living for all Americans. The exorbitant cost of gasoline and impending extinction of the incandescent light bulb are merely the first harbingers of a general degradation of modern civilization if the situation indeed remains unchecked, with much worse to follow.
All is not yet lost however. A steadily growing number of brave souls are rising up to challenge the legitimacy of Gore's assertions, despite the certainty that they will be derided and castigated throughout the media, and in virtually all major "educational" institutions. Among the most notable of these challengers is Czech President Vaclav Klaus.
In stark contrast to the pampered elitists of Western Academia, or their Hollywood and D.C. minions, Klaus has endured decades of deprivation in Soviet dominated Czechoslovakia. Thus he has seen, first hand the hardship and suffering possible under the iron fist of unrestrained governing institutions who have no regard for the common citizen except as a mere "resource" to be exploited for the good of the state.
During that time, he personally witnessed the denial of basic freedoms and sustenance to the people, while those in key positions of government enjoyed relative plenty. In many ways, what he saw was a sorry likeness of the hypocrisy among "climate change" movement leaders, as they regularly fly around the world in their private jets while issuing calls for more meager lifestyles among lesser people.
Recognizing the potential menace of the current situation and how liberals are exploiting it, Klaus has boldly challenged Gore to an open debate on the entire topic of "climate change." Knowing that the tenets of his "green religion" cannot withstand intense scrutiny, it is a challenge that Gore cannot afford to accept.
As the title of Klaus's book underscores, the question is not one of dangers to the climate, but of threats to the freedoms and well-being of average citizens. And though the theories of "global warming" are merely open-ended speculation, with time tables continually rolled back since the looming atmospheric upheavals never seem to keep pace with those dire forecasts, the encroachment on basic freedom and liberty is indeed progressing on schedule.
With unassailable insight, Klaus properly characterizes the moral arrogance of the global warming advocacy, again likening it to the ravages of communism with which he was so painfully familiar. At a national press club gathering last week, he compared the two sinister ideologies, sternly warning that "Like their predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past it was in the name of the Marxists or the proletariat. This time, in the name of the planet."
To the degree that the major media and liberal political machine take notice of President Klaus and his effort, it will undoubtedly be only to demean and undermine him. Yet as someone who understands the consequences of allowing a monster of this nature to grow unchecked he continues his fight, grimly confident in the knowledge of what awaits western civilization if the "global warming" apostles ever gain the power which they crave.
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
- Catholic Exchange - http://www.catholicexchange.com -
They’re Back: As Gas Prices Soar, The Population Controllers Once Again Blame People
Posted By Steven W. Mosher On June 5, 2008 @ 1:00 am In Today |
Recent crises have reenergized the population control movement. Worried about food shortages? Reduce the number of babies born, its advocates argue. Concerned about global warming? Contracept or sterilize more women. Want to bring down gas prices? Promote abortion around the globe. As “Going Green” columnist Bryan Walsh puts it in the latest issue of Time magazine (June 2, 2008), “Population is the essential multiplier for any number of human ills.”
Not so long ago, the population controllers would have been embarrassed to openly promote such ideas. After all, they have cried wolf so many times that most sensible people have stopped listening. The movement’s leading prophet of doom and gloom, Paul Ehrlich, has been repeatedly and utterly wrong. His 1968 jeremiad, The Population Bomb, warned that, with the earth approaching its carrying capacity, hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s. Instead, the estimated 6.66 billion people alive today live longer, eat better, and have higher living standards than ever before. Even Walsh has to admit that the “green revolution has vastly increased food production, while [Western trade and investment] have helped lift hundreds of millions in the developing world out of poverty.”
Another reason for their self-conscious silence was the massive human rights abuses that occurred in forced-pace programs. Supported, encouraged, and funded by Western governments, developing world dictatorships embarked upon programs that mandated contraception, sterilization, and even abortion for millions of women. China’s notorious one-child per couple policy is only the best known of dozens of programs that have violated the right of couples to determine for themselves the number and spacing of their children.
Now, however, the population-control minded environmentalists are back, and in full cry. Walsh, for example, blames the sudden spike in food and fuel prices on too many people, arguing that “if we can’t curb carbon emissions in a world of 6.8 billion [these guys always exaggerate the numbers], it may be impossible to do when there are 9 billion of us.” Leaving aside the question of whether we should control carbon dioxide — a trace gas on which all life on earth depends — blaming global warming on too many babies is the twisted logic of a profoundly misanthropic mind. How much carbon dioxide we produce is a result of how much fossil fuel we burn, not how many children are born. Nuclear power, for example, produces zero carbon dioxide.
Repeating the mistakes of his mentors in the population control movement, many of Walsh’s assertions are simply wrong. For example, his claim that “while population growth has slowed drastically in many countries in Western Europe and in Japan, where women are having fewer and fewer babies, it’s still rising in much of the developing world” is demographic nonsense. Birthrates are falling everywhere, not just in “Western Europe and Japan.” Europe as a whole — not just “Western Europe” — is losing population from year to year. Latin America is not far behind, and even Asia is averaging only 2.4 children per woman — and falling. The only region that still enjoys robust fertility is sub-Saharan Africa, most of whose countries, however, are plagued with HIV/AIDS, which is reducing population growth. Population growth everywhere is slowing, not rising, and the population of the world will probably peak before mid-century. In other words, what we are seeing is not a population bomb, but a population bust, with serious consequences for the whole realm of human endeavors.
Despite all this, Walsh and other like-minded environmentalists are determined to ratchet the birth rate down further, but how? He gently reproves “state-mandated birth control” as “essentially unfair.” Unfair?!? The Indonesian women who a few years ago were rounded up at gunpoint and sterilized might have difficulty with that weak characterization, not to mention the millions of Chinese women who are forcibly aborted each year.
Leaving that point aside, Walsh argues that “the key to limiting population growth… is to give control over procreation to women.” This assumes that women in the developing world are eager to follow their “sisters” in Hollywood and Manhattan down the road to “liberation” from childbearing (and from marriage, for that matter.) In fact, many women in the developing world (and in the U.S. as well) express a desire for more children than they are able to have, not fewer. And, as far as their health needs are concerned, they want access to clean drinking water, medicine and nutritional supplements, not handouts of birth control pills. Does Walsh truly believe that woman in the developing world will be rioting on the docks if they don’t receive their monthly shipments of contraceptives from the U.S.?
Meeting the real health needs of women in the developing world would mean funding primary health care for women and their families. Instead, the controllers ignore the views of women, view their fertility as a threat, and act to neutralize that perceived threat by disabling their reproductive systems. To paraphrase feminist Angela Franks, if women’s fertility is causing social, economic, environmental, or health problems, as the controllers believe, and if women refuse to acknowledge this reality, it is for the greater good that they be persuaded, or compelled, or forced to stop having children. Kingsley Davis and other population alarmists have long said that it is necessary, in the interest of reducing population growth, to make it less pleasant for women to do what so many of them enjoy doing, namely, raising children. [i]
Still, population control organizations find it highly inconvenient that their programs are not greeted with joy by their “targets,” and they go to great lengths to disguise or explain away this fact. Overseas, they work overtime to create the impression of robust popular and government support for their anti-natal programs, recruiting local surrogates, suborning government ministries of health and education, launching media blitzes, and sponsoring contraceptive giveaways. This façade falls away in discussions with donors, in which they arrogantly suggest that the women’s reluctance to contracept comes about because they either don’t know their own minds, or because they simply don’t know what’s good for them (or their country, or the environment, etc.). To the American public, they sell a different line, that women overseas have an urgent, pressing “unmet need” for contraceptives.
Walsh is ultimately not concerned about women at all, as his last paragraph reveals. If Americans don’t influence their government to push contraception, he writes, “they may find out very soon just what the limits of the earth are. It’s not just feminism to support population control — it’s environmentalism.”
He sounds a little bit like Paul Ehrlich after all, doesn’t he?
Article printed from Catholic Exchange: http://www.catholicexchange.com
URL to article: http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/06/05/112794/
Copyright © 2008 Catholic Exchange. All rights reserved.