Friday, July 04, 2008

The Anti-Human Agenda

There have been are many ideas floating out there about how the world will end. Some
have thought it would be via flood. Others an earthquake. Still others aliens. And now, the world will fry.

The best part of this whole "Green Movement" chaos is that humanity is the cause of all of the problems. Even though there is no substantial, definitive evidence, with no consensus from scientists, there is still the aggressively promoted belief that human beings are the one's who are guilty of causing the earth's temperature to rise. In order to stop this global phenomenon, we must limit the amount of children being born, thus promoting further anti-family agendas.

In reality, this movement is the new "god" that is to be worshiped. If you refuse to bow your neck to to his demands (especially as a scientist), you will be exiled from the public forum and considered as one who wants to destroy Mother Earth, who is the one who must be protected more than human beings.

I am all for tending the gardens that God has given us and taking care of the resources that God has given us, but we have to remember first and foremost that God is in control. The more that we follow His ways, the more that things will go well for us (even if there is suffering to be endured). However, when sin abounds, all of creation will groan (see Romans 8). In a certain sense, we do determine whether our world flourishes or flounders, but it is not based solely on the amount of emissions coming from our vehicles. By our sin, we have the ability to turn this world into some other paradigm that is a whole lot hotter than here.

What's the solution? Return to God's plan to care for the earth and everything in it, beginning with our fellow man. By learning how to be a gift, we will recover our humanity and take part in the redemption of all the world, including the environment.

A Lot of Hot Air
A Review of Václav Klaus’ Recent Book Blue Planet in Green Shackles
Written by Michael Whitcraft
Friday, June 13 2008
Czech Republic President, Václav Klaus knows first hand the horrors of Communism. Nevertheless, in a recent question-and-answer session in the US Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce, he stated:

As someone who lived under Communism for most of my life, I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st Century, is not Communism or its various softer versions. It was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.

In his recent book: Blue Planet in Green Shackles, he gives strong evidence of this contention, by showing how those who promote what he calls: “the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism” distort the facts on climate change – and man’s involvement in it – to promote what he calls “an anti-human ideology.”

A Political-Economic Approach
He refutes global warming hysteria, not so much from a scientific approach – which he admits is beyond his field of expertise – but rather from the standpoint of an accomplished economist and politician. While this may sound odd at first glance, it makes for a fascinating and utterly convincing read.

That is not to say that the book is void of all scientific data. President Klaus has included many references to accepted scientific studies to make his points. Thus, he is able to show that, despite all the fuss over global warming, average world-wide temperatures rose a mere 1.1 degree Fahrenheit in the entire Twentieth Century.

Similarly, he quotes statistician Bjørn Lomborg, to show that if the Kyoto Protocol were strictly enacted throughout the whole world, it would only slow the rise of global temperature by five years over the next hundred. Thus, mankind would experience the same temperatures in 2105 that he would have experienced in 2100 if none of the protocol’s provisions were even considered.

However, the book’s scientific content is not its strong point. Certainly, hundreds of books exist that debunk exaggerated theories on global warming in a more thorough and professional manner. The unique value of Blue Planet in Green Shackles is its analysis of the issue from a fresh new perspective.

While many may find it difficult to believe that any correlation exists between global warming, and economic and political theory, a summary of some of the book’s argumentation should demonstrate how intimately the two are connected.

Science or Ideology
For example, President Klaus concludes that the environmental movement is currently led more by ideology than true science. He affirms that environmentalism has become a quasi-religion that aims at destroying society as it is currently known.

He is not the only one who has come to this conclusion. In fact, some radical greens have admitted as much. For example, UN Chairman of the Council for the University for Peace, and architect of the Kyoto Protocol, stated: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our duty to bring that about?”

President Klaus summarizes his views: “If we take the reasoning of the environmentalists seriously, we find that theirs is an anti-human ideology.” He agrees with Ivan Brezina, who rejects the notion that environmentalism is: “a rational and scientific answer to a genuine ecological crisis,” but rather a general rejection of “the current form of civilization.”

That environmentalism is an ideology divorced from data and scientific fact is also evidenced by the ecologists’ campaign against affluence. They disregard the fact that only after a country has surplus funds and citizens living with a large degree of economic security, can it begin to give attention to less imminent concerns like the environment. Such concerns increase together with the nation’s wealth.

Thus, if environmentalists were moved by fact, rather than prejudiced against wealth and developed societies, one of their greatest methods of action would be to promote development and stimulate rather than suffocate economic growth.

A Denial of Human Progress
Another of President Klaus’ observations shows that when predicting future crises, environmentalists ignore technological advancement, which continually develops more efficient and cleaner ways to produce energy and provide for society’s needs. By ignoring this fact, they are able to predict seemingly catastrophic risks that have no basis in reality.

For example, as agricultural methods improved, fewer farmers on smaller lands could feed more people. Common sense shows that any scientist or statistician, wanting to predict the amount of resources that will be necessary one hundred years from now to feed the world’s population, must suppose that one hundred years from now there will be better methods of farming than those that exist today, otherwise his predictions will be gravely inaccurate.

Modern ecological scaremongers refuse to consider these inevitable advancements in technology. Thus, they base their predictions on false future models.

Precautionary or Overcautionary?
Another means ecologists use is to exaggerate the so-called “precautionary principle,” according to which, any measure is advisable, regardless of costs, due to the catastrophic risks that are involved. In other words, they intimate that even if their predictions are exaggerated – or just plain wrong – their proposals should be accepted because of the consequences the world will suffer if they are correct. This thinking is fundamentally flawed, because dire measures alone often produce dire consequences.

Fred Singer expressed this reality in financial terms that anyone can understand, saying: “I am not a big believer in buying insurance if the risks are small and the premiums are high…We’re being asked to buy an insurance policy against a risk that is very small, if at all, and pay a very heavy premium.”

A perfect example of an exaggeration of the “precautionary principle” is the Kyoto Protocol. There is simply no proportion between the supposed risks it safeguards against and the costs it’s application would require.

First of all, there are no definitive studies showing that man’s behavior is a significant factor in global temperature increase, or even that this warming is a matter for concern.

For example, while estimates claim that higher summer temperatures could result in the deaths of an additional 2,000 people in Great Britain over the next fifty years, the same estimates predict that 20,000 cold-related deaths during winter could be avoided by the same increase in temperatures.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, the best-case scenario for the Kyoto Protocol would only push back climate change five years over the next one hundred.

To eliminate these so-called “risks,” the protocol suggests implementing measures whose costs would be astronomical.

The restrictions it demands would have a crippling effect on economies worldwide, but especially on poorer nations. Worse yet, some scientists are suggesting that the Kyoto Protocol does not go far enough and insist that we must eliminate 60%-80% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Another example of exaggeration of the “precautionary principle” is the stir about nuclear power. Although, nuclear power has proved to be one of the most, if not the most, safe and reliable sources of power, environmentalist regulations has greatly stifled their production and tried to close those already in existence.

To understand the cost of replacing nuclear power, it helps to consider that the Czech Republic’s nuclear power plant in Tremlín alone produces the same power as 4,750 windmills. The construction of these windmills would consume 8.6 million tons of material and, if placed in a line as close together as possible, would stretch 665 kilometers. This line would be 150 meters tall and reach from the current Tremlín plant to Brussels in Belgium!

That does not even consider the 20-30 thousand birds that would be killed annually in the windmill’s propellers. Is the cost of closing these plants proportional to the supposed risks of nuclear power?

Furthermore, securitarian thinking often leads one to jump to conclusions and miss the bigger picture. This can cause greater problems than the original difficulty one hoped to avert. For example: an estimated 20 people in the US die each year from cancer related to pesticide use. Following the exaggerated precautionary principle, one might be tempted to ban pesticides without considering that this would lead to a 10%-15% rise in vegetable costs.

This price hike would limit the amount of cancer-fighting vegetables American’s consume to such an extent that it would cause an annual increase of 26,000 cancer-related deaths.

The incontrovertible facts and fresh approach contained in Blue Planet in Green Shackles make it a must read for anyone fed up with environmentalist propaganda and scaremongering. It is rich with argumentation and an excellent resource, though some of the economic argumentation may be hard for a layman to follow.

It is also secular in its approach and favors theories on evolution and overpopulation that will not sit well with Catholic readers. Furthermore, President Klaus is an unabashed follower of Ludwig Von Mises and in particular his very secular work Human Action, which he calls “the greatest book Von Mises ever wrote.” However, this work, particularly chapter 8, is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

Nevertheless, Blue Planet in Green Shackles is full of solid argumentation against the rise of “enviro-dictatorships” that threaten modern society. It is an effective tool against the environmental pseudo-religion of the Twenty-First Century that strives to build a society that would be the antithesis of true Christian civilization.
Last Updated ( Friday, June 13 2008 )


Wednesday, July 02, 2008

The Truth about Voting for Obama

There have been many arguments by some that to simply vote on one issue is lunacy, and that we need to take the broad spectrum of issues into account. However, as Randall Terry relates, not all issues are created equal. The vast amount of children that are murdered through abortion is much more important than caring for the environment, the economy, or even the war in the Middle East. There is blood on our hands and it is only through repentance, and voting correctly, that we can be washed clean.

Is it a Sin to vote for Obama for President?

(Like certain lunatics declare)

By Randall A. Terry

Founder, Operation Rescue

Before we even begin, let's try to settle if it is even a legitimate question: "Is it a sin to vote for Obama for president?" Some Christians will howl in disgust at the very question.

Other Christians will insist that we who serve the Lord Jesus Christ (from any Trinitarian Communion) should view our vote as a political expression of our faith; a part of how we seek to integrate the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the teachings of Christianity into public life. Hence, it is not only a valid question concerning Senator Obama and this election cycle; the principle of righteous/sinful voting is central in every election. (I.e., no devout Christian could vote with a clear conscience for an avowed racist who wanted to reinstitute slavery.)

Certain Evangelicals who declare themselves "born again" and believe the Bible is the "Word of God" (and are traditionally pro-life) have publicly embraced Obama's campaign for the Presidency. Certain Roman Catholics who claim to be devout (and are supposedly pro-life) are happily working in Obama's corner, and claiming to do so in clear conscience. Ex-Evangelical pro-life activist turned Orthodox Christian Franky Schaeffer, son of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer, recently came out in favor of Obama, praising his "holistic theology;" all of this is in spite of the fact that Senator Obama has declared he is "pro-choice" on the "issue of abortion."

The question is: can a Christian vote for a supporter of abortion on demand with a clear conscience?

I will answer this question with three simple illustrations.

Case #1. I am in my car at a red light, and an honest looking, well dressed man comes up to my window and says: "Hi. Could you please give me a ride to the bank? I have some banking to do and my car just broke down."

I say, "Sure. Hop in." When we arrive at the bank he thanks me and exits the car. As I drive away I glance in the rearview mirror, and to my horror see him pull a mask over his face, draw a gun from his pocket, and enter the bank.

I hit the brakes, searching for a plan of action. Gunshots and screams fill the air, and the man I drove to the bank comes running out -- after he murdered the banker, and stole all the money he could carry. He flees successfully.

The question is: did I sin by giving this murderer and robber a ride to the bank?

The answer is: no. I did not sin, because I did not know his intent. He deceived me.

Case #2. I am at a traffic light. A well dressed man comes up to my window and says, "Excuse me; I'm going to rob a bank. I'll steal all the money I can, then shoot the banker so that he won't be able to testify against me at trial if I get caught. Would you please give me a ride?"

I say, "Sure, hop in…" and give this killer a ride to the bank, and he fulfills his promise.

Given those facts, have I participated in the sin of murder and theft?

The answer is: yes. In the eyes of God, and in the eyes of any court of law, I would be guilty of participating in the sin of murder and robbery, because I knew his intent.

Some will say, "But Obama is not actually killing children. He is only supporting laws permitting abortion; he is not the abortionist who kills the child." Well put. Let me give the third illustration.

Case #3. A man approaches my car window and says, "I have a friend who intends to rob a bank and shoot the bank teller. I want to keep him out of trouble, so I promised to watch out for him while he murders the banker and takes the money. If a policeman comes, I will distract him so that my friend won't get caught. Will you please take me to the bank?"

I say, "Sure. Hop in. Let's go help your friend." (On the way over, we discuss how neither of us could ever murder a bank teller or rob a bank.) We arrive and watch the murderer/thief drive up, exit his car, cover his face, draw his weapon, and enter the bank. We hear screams and gunshots. Within seconds, a policeman emerges on foot from around the corner with his gun drawn, looking anxiously for assailants or victims.

The man I gave a ride to plays his role perfectly. He jumps out of my car, yelling and pointing; "I just saw a man running down that alley with a gun in his hand and a bag he brought out of the bank!" The policeman runs down the alleyway, vainly chasing the villain who is not there.

The murderer then emerges from the bank, glances over at his friend (my passenger), nods appreciatively, gets into his car, and escapes. His friend jumps in my car and asks me to take him to the nearest coffee shop. I comply, and he exits without further incident.

Given these facts, have I participated in the sin of murder and robbery?

The answer is: yes. Since I knew the intent of the accomplice when he got in my car – even though he did not pull the trigger and take the money – I helped him and his friend accomplish their goal, and I therefore participated in the sin of murder and robbery.

In the eyes of God, and in the eyes of any court in this nation, if I knowingly help an accomplice of murder and robbery commit his crime, I am also an accomplice in that crime.

Which brings us to voting for Obama.

At the very least, Obama is an aggressive accomplice of child-killers. He has declared his intention to help child-killers murder the innocent with impunity. He has pledged to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will sustain this holocaust for another generation.

Obama is a partner in crimes against humanity; he boasts a 100% pro-abortion voting record; he is in FAVOR of partial birth abortion, and he opposed a bill in Illinois that would require medical care for a late term baby that survives the abortion.

Let the full weight of that sink in: a late term baby girl is aborted, and survives the attempt on her life; but Senator Obama OPPOSES that doctors be required to give that resilient new-born fighter the medical care that would save her life.

Surely the demons rejoice at such loyalty to the angel of death.

The fact that Obama doesn't suck the bodies and blood of innocent human beings out of their mother's wombs, or carve out their mutilated corpses with his own hands is irrelevant. By voting to continue this holocaust, he is an accomplice to murder, and in league with hell itself.

The devil comes "to steal, kill, and destroy." Obama steals the future those children could have had for the glory of God and the good of humanity; he helps kill the innocent; he helps destroy future generations that would have come from these aborted children.

Hence, if we vote for Obama knowing his history and his intent to help murder millions of children, are we not accomplices in the crime of child-killing?

Jesus said: The Kingdom of God belongs to little children. If we vote for Obama and he wins, are we not robbing the Kingdom of God of her sons and daughters? Are we not robbers of God's plan for those children that are murdered by abortion?

Jesus said: Whatever you have done to the least of my brethren, you have done to me. The "least of his brethren" includes children in the womb. If we help child-killers, have we not turned our back on our Lord, and betrayed Jesus to the hands of his killers?

The answer to all the above questions is: yes. Any act of collaboration with the act of child-killing is a sin against God and man, the shedding of innocent blood.

The accusations of this logic being "extreme," or "myopic," or "single issue rabblerousing" or insensitive to "other important issues" are all chaff. Let the proponents of such excuses make their argument in the presence of a mountain of dead children – slain with the approval of Obama.

Don't be deceived by devilish diatribes. Abortion is murder. If you vote for Obama and try to justify your treachery, such self-deluded self-justification will bear no weight in the Courts of Heaven. God has commanded you:

Rescue those who are being dragged to death, and from those tottering to execution withdraw not. If you say, "I know not this man!" Does not he who tests hearts perceive it? He who guards your life knows it, and he will repay each one according to his deeds. (Proverb 24: 11, 12.)

If you withdraw your love and protection from the children who are being dragged to death and tottering towards execution under Obama's watchful eye, God will repay you for your deeds.

And future generations, who escaped Obama and his accessories to murder, will rise up and call you cursed; cursed for your part in slaying their sisters, brothers, cousins, classmates, neighbors, friends, spouses, bishops, pastors, teachers, doctors, priests, babysitters, policemen, firemen, engineers, and more.

A man or woman who declares that it is a sin to vote for Obama is not a lunatic; rather, he is a lunatic who declares it is not.

May God have mercy on you if you aid child-killers like Obama in their demonic mission.