When we told you about the crazy ideas published by Obama's science czar, John Holdren, several months ago, we thought that his Dr. Josef Mengele like ideas were just whacked out theories. Then he renewed his ideas.
Now the UN has released a report calling for measures to curb human births in order to "save the planet".
Unchecked population growth is speeding climate change,
damaging life-nurturing ecosystems and dooming many countries to
poverty, experts concluded in a conference report released Monday.
Unless birth rates are lowered sharply through voluntary family-planning programmes and easy access to contraceptives, the tally of humans on Earth could swell to an unsustainable 11 billion by 2050, they warned.
The UN currently projects that global population will rise from 6.8 billion today to between 8.0 and 10.5 billion by mid-century.
The researchers said that with one and a half million more humans
climbing aboard the planet every week, a recipe is looming for
ecological overload, famine and broken states.
One reason has been the family planning programmes in China and India that critics say veered into forced sterilisations and coercive abortions, breaching human rights.
The researchers acknowledged these problems but also pointed out that
without its "one-child" policy, China would have an extra 300 to 400
million mouths to feed today.
President Obama said that to know him you must understand the people with which he surrounds himself.
We know about Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. Recently we learned about his "Green Czar" the avowed communist Van Jones. We are beginning to hear more about Cass Sunstein being pushed as the "regulatory czar" who is anti-gun, anti-hunting and who thinks animals deserve the right to have attorneys sue humans and that bloggers are out of control and need to be regulated.
But who else is on board and what frightening ideas might they bring? Meet John Holdren, the science czar who believes in forced abortions, putting contraceptives in drinking water and other draconian measures in order to "save the planet". In his own words he said "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."
Does this strike you as a bit Crazy? Well get ready, here we go:
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce
global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have
to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the
research says.[Telegraph]
Kinda makes you want to scream out in public doesn't it?
Far be it from me to presume to know the words or meaning of the Rosh Hashanah prayer to which Obama's words spoken before a group of spiritual leaders including Rabbis have been attributed. But here is what Obama said:
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death"
Now let's put this comment in context. The call was an attempt to develop support for his health care program among religious congregations. The call was attended by an estimated 140,000 people and was sponsored by religious leaders from 25 denominations and religious organizations.
It is frightening to read that Obama made the above statement in this context. He tells us what he is really up to, and then when he is called on it, he denies what he has said.
You see, when Obama asserts that the government will be God's partner in matters of life and death, he resurrects all the fear about "death panels" and end of life care and valuing who gets to live and who gets to die.
When Obama declares that he is now a "partner" with God in matters of life and death, we must not forget that he is the most extreme abortionist president we have ever had.
Far be it from me to declare that I know the words or meanings of any Jewish prayer, but I can read, and what I read tells me that after we are called to account for our lives the words of Moses read on the morning of Yom Kippur are these:
"See, I put before you good and evil, life and death-choose life, that you and your children might live."
A man who would declare himself a partner with God in matters of life and death, who chooses death over the right to life, must be seen for what he is, in context.
I'm sure today that many will dissect Obama's speech in Cairo and find reasons to applaud his efforts to extend and olive branch to those who are holding swords over our outstretched necks. I'm equally sure that others will dissect his speech to find specific phrases they can endlessly repeat to ridicule the president.
I want to take a wider view, to gather in the entire perspective of what he has done. Here is how I see it.
First, as Obama surely knows having grown up on three continents in a family which had long Muslim roots, that Muslims do not see the world the same way Christians or Jews see the world. The Muslim faith calls for war against any non-Muslim. The dictates of their faith specifically say that Muslims have only three choices when it comes to non-Muslims, either convert them, kill them or keep a few alive to become slaves.
These are not my opinions, these are facts. This is the context of the Muslim world into which Obama stepped in order to deliver his speech. He had to know this. That is why despite the fact his audience was hand picked, they still gasped when he suggested that they become more tolerant.
Christians are much more charitable. In fact, it is only because of our Christian beginnings as a nation that religious freedom exists in the world. Our tolerance of other faiths is a uniquely Christian attribute. Muslims do not share that core value. Their religion teaches intolerance and justifies murder as a tool of that intolerance.
Therefore Obama's speech, his offering of the olive branch, appeals to his Christian countrymen, back home in a nation founded upon Christian principles. To the Muslim world intent upon converting, killing or enslaving all non-believers (infidels) Obama was showing weakness, vulnerability and provided them with an opening.
Reaching out to the Muslim world and asking them to accept our version of "peaceful co-existence" would require them to abandon their faith. Their devotion to their faith would never permit this, and so Obama's speech is likely to have no beneficial effects whatsoever.
He chose to ignore the real life example of how this approach has failed in the past. He should have asked our greatest ally in the world, Great Britain, about the consequences of the Muslim invasion. And he should have to look no further than the last two democratic presidents to see how the radical Muslims of the world have reacted when America comes to a knife fight armed with an olive branch. Jimmy Carter learned and so did Bill Clinton. The radicals acted during Carter's administration, they plotted without fear during Clinton's.
America would be well served to remember that it was upon our continent that our forefathers gave birth to this new nation not only fleeing here to escape religious intolerance in Europe, but coming here to evangelize as Christian missionaries to a savage world.
It would be one thing for Obama to have gone to Cairo and made a bold statement that continued murders in furtherance of the Muslim faith will not be tolerated by the United States, and that based upon their religious creed the world will never trust a Muslim nation to possess weapons of mass destruction. It would be one thing for our president to show strength and say that until the Muslim nations of the world could demonstrate a real and determined policy of religious tolerance within their borders that the world will never trust them to encroach upon any lands where liberty reigns supreme.
Instead, and though he stood erect, he bowed before the Koran, he bowed before Muhammad, and he telegraphed to those hell bent on destroying us, that based upon his special relationship with their religion, America will unclench its fist in the face of threatened harm.
Obama's speech has made the world a more dangerous place, make no mistake about it.
Barack Obama's invitation to speak at Notre Dame's commencement ceremony has set off a fire storm among many Catholics who view his appearance as an affront to the Vatican's stance on the sanctity of life.
Now, Michael Voris of Catholic TV hints that the Vatican may intervene to "right the current ship" at the University.
I received a link to this video a short time ago. I thought I would post it to see your reaction. If these statistics are accurate, this is a very eye opening revelation.
For the Love of God folks, I can't imagine how these things can all be an accident.
What, the vetting process in an Obama administration doesn't discover that his pick for Treasury Secretary cheated on his taxes, that his pick for Commerce Secretary is under investigation for criminal conduct, or that his pick for Global Warming Czar has socialist ties?
Well what about the message this choice by Obama sends to the world:
A Muslim scholar chosen to speak at President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural prayer service Wednesday is the leader of a group that federal prosecutors say has ties to terrorists.
Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, is one of many religious leaders scheduled to speak at the prayer service at Washington's National Cathedral.
But in 2007 and as recently as last July, federal prosecutors in Dallas filed court documents linking the Hartford, Conn.-based Islamic society to the group Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization.
Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama's inaugural committee, would not discuss the case or say whether the committee knew about it.
"She has a stellar reputation in the faith community," Douglass said Saturday night.
Seriously now, is it possible that we are about to open the gates and allow a Trojan Horse to roll into the White House?
Tom Eblen writing for the Lexington Herald Leader complains that Kentucky should stop promoting God to save money.
Someday, when state officials have added up all of the taxpayer money that will be spent on the lawsuit filed this week by an atheist group, I hope they will send the bill to state Rep. Tom Riner.
American Atheists Inc. sued the state because Riner, a Louisville Democrat and Baptist minister, inserted the amendment two years ago into legislation organizing the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security. The amendment designated the office's first duty as "stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."
As a person of faith — and a fellow Christian — I agree with Riner's views about God's role in the security of our state, nation and world.
As an American citizen, though, I don't think it is government's place to promote God.
And, as a Kentucky taxpayer, I'm furious that tens of thousands of dollars of public money is likely to be spent litigating this obviously unconstitutional attempt to require government to do the work of churches, synagogues and mosques.
I wouldn't be so angry if this was an isolated case, but it's not. Certain stripes of Christians have, time and again, cost Kentucky taxpayers big bucks because they insist on mixing church and state.
It's hard to say how much public money has been spent defending these lawsuits... But the cost has been significant, both in public employee time and taxpayer cash paid to plaintiffs' lawyers.
Tom justifies his arguments by suggesting that the Courts and the Constitution are on his side. He is right on the first count, but like the courts, wrong on the second.
Eblen says:
Federal judges, whether appointed by Democrats or Republicans, have generally agreed for the past half-century that when the framers of the U.S. Constitution wrote that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," they meant it.
History supports him when he says that this approach within the court system is a recent development. In fact the notions now sanctified by one court decision after another were unthinkable until the middle of the last century.
Prior to the organized assault on our American heritage as a Christian nation which began in the 1950's it was a foregone conclusion, and beyond question that America's strength, our liberties and our charity to the rest of the world was the proud result of our open and continuing recognition that it was in God we trusted, from whom all of our blessings flowed and in whose corner we firmly stood as Americans. But in the 1950's things began to change, and not by accident.
Karl Marx, the father of socialism, once observed that "The goal of communism is to dethrone God, and replace capitalism."
The book "Brainwashing-A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics" was compiled by the former card-carrying Communist Kenneth Goff. For revealing the communist strategy Goff was assassinated. But Goff made it very clear that the plan being implemented by the enemies of America employed very specific strategies. He outlines how he, as a dues paying member of the Communist Party attended their school in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
He details the course of study for waging psycopolitical warfare against the American people with the ultimate goal being the takeover of the nation. He exposes the manual used in their training called "The Communist Manual of Instructions of Psychopolitical Warfare". Just listen to what that manual said:
Degradation and conquest are companions...However, degradation can be accomplished much more insidiously and much more effectively by consistent and continual defamation...Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices , and national heroes must be systematically carried out, but this is the chief function of Communist Party Members, in general, not the psycopolitician... By attacking the character and morals of Man himself, and by bringing about, through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree.
We have battled in America since the century's turn to bring to nothing any and all Christian influences and we are succeeding. While we today seem to be kind to the Christian, remember we have yet to influence the "Christian World" to our ends. When that is done we shall have an end of them everywhere.
Tom Eblen does not assume a place of honor by hiding behind the robes of brainwashed judges. And historical accuracy is completely abandoned in favor of revisionism by suggesting that the First Amendment was ever intended to give courts the power to erase all references to God from our law, our government and our history books.
Each colony had its own church, and at the time the Constitution was written the biggest concern of the sovereign states was giving up too much control to a centralized government. Many of the states had their own "official" state church. They feared the establishment of an official "national church" and laws preventing them from practicing their own state religion by the acts of a Congress. That is what the words in the Constitution meant, and the ongoing effort to expand the meaning of those words beyond original intent is nothing less than an assault on the single most important recognition of fact which gave rise to the unique vision of liberty which was born here and articulated by our founding fathers: the self evident truth that God is the source of all our rights.
At the very moment when this concept was being fully revealed and considered by those brave men who were so bold as to speak this truth, one of the chief advocates for liberty, Patrick Henry had this to say:
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often, that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”
And at the very moment the Constitution was being written, the elder statesman whose influence in American life cannot be too strongly emphasized, Benjamin Franklin, at the age of 81 said this:
“I have lived a long life, gentlemen, and the longer I live, the more convinced I become that God rules in the affairs of men.”
The Plaintiff's in the lawsuit filed against Kentucky this week advocate that America must become a Godless nation. Regardless the cost in dollars, which Tom Eblen values so highly, of defending against their claims, the real cost to America of succumbing to this fraudulent notion is much higher.
We must resist the efforts of those who would divide us from each other and separate us from God. For it is only when we join together as one nation, under God, that we are indivisible and undefeatable, and can guarantee liberty and justice for all.
Muslim prayer rooms should be opened in every Roman Catholic school, church leaders have said.
The Catholic bishops of England and Wales also want facilities in schools for Islamic pre-prayer washing rituals.
The demands go way beyond legal requirements on catering for religious minorities.
But the bishops - who acknowledge 30 per cent of pupils at their schools hold a non-Christian faith - want to answer critics who say religious schools sow division.
Kentucky's homeland security bill requires that the agency stress "dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth", which of course is perfectly consistent with the founding principles of this nation. Despite their temper tantrums to the contrary, atheists refuse to accept the FACT that in America we officially recognize ours as being a nation formed under the authority of one God, in whom we officially place our trust.
But that hasn't stopped Ed Kagin and his band of fools from filing a lawsuit in Franklin Circuit Court seeking not only to have the agency stripped of its references to God, but also for damages. As reported in the Lexington Herald Leader:
"Plaintiffs also suffer anxiety from the belief that the existence of these unconstitutional laws suggest that their very safety as residents of Kentucky may be in the hands of fanatics, traitors or fools," according to the suit.
These matters are now working their way through the court system right here in the Commonwealth while we are distracted by the glare of national politics.
All content on this blog is copyrighted to Marcus Carey. All rights to all content on this blog are reserved to Marcus Carey. Any use of the ideas, imagery, analogies, analysis, comments or other content is subject to approval. You may link to any content on this site and approval to use content will be freely granted upon request subject to appropriate attribution.
