[A Personal Note: Being A Good Steward of the Environment and Saving Money. Several months ago, I heard about saving energy costs by disconnecting outlets that you are not using for any length of time. And so, I've begun disconnecting everything in my house after use for the day - from the television, to the computer, to the washer/dryer, etc., everything but the refrigerator and the stove. I've thus far averaged saving about $60/month! Your savings may vary, but I suggest you try it for a month and see what you can save.]
[From GlobalWarmingHoax.com]
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Creation and Man By: Chuck Colson, April 22, 2010, Breakpoint.com
Happy Earth Day 2010. No doubt you’ll be seeing plenty of news coverage about rallies, marches, and activities associated with this major environmental commemoration. Perhaps you or your children are marking the day by taking steps to promote a healthier environment. Growing a vegetable garden. Learning to compost and not over-fertilizing your lawn. Recycling your household waste. Buying energy-efficient appliances. These are just a few suggestions environmental groups and the Environmental Protection Agency are touting as good things to do. And I agree. Saving resources and money, ensuring our human habitat is clean and healthy, this is the stuff of good stewardship and common sense—things that especially we Christians should be known for. I say this knowing I’m going to get letters from concerned listeners—as I do every time I talk about protecting the environment. And there’s good reason for this.
After all, Christians are rightly concerned that extremists have turned Earth Day into “Worship-Earth Day.”
Just listen to a few of these suggestions for Earth Day 2010 that some of the more radical groups are proposing: taking down “global eco-criminals” like Exxon-Mobil; having school kids meditate about the Spirit of Life (that’s “Spirit of Life” with capital letters); seeking international cooperation on reducing the human population; or working for, and I quote, the “ultimate, inevitable, and necessary dismantling of industrial civilization.” We Christians certainly do not want to be yoked with new agers, neo-pagans, or folks who just downright hate humanity. But there’s no reason for us to surrender creation care to them, either.
Our faith, our Christians worldview, tells us that the earth is good precisely because God created it and declared it good. It is worthy of our care, and indeed, we were commanded to tend it. Wasteful and immoderate use of natural resources is not a Christian virtue. We must also realize that creation care begins with the care of the crown of creation: man, alone among living things, created in the image of God. In creating a clean sustainable environment, we do so primarily for humanity’s benefit. That’s why we reject out of hand environmental proposals that endanger human well-being—proposals that could doom millions, especially in developing countries, to poverty, disease, and hunger.
You see, how you approach environmentalism—or, as I would say, environmental stewardship—all depends on your worldview. If the universe really did come about by chance and purely natural causes, then man is worth no more and no less than any other living thing. In fact, the creation would be man’s creator. So care for creation would be much more important than care for man. But that is not the Christian worldview.
One of the best books I’ve ever read on the environment and this issue is produced by the Acton Institute and the Cornwall Alliance. It’s called Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition. We have a few copies available, and if you would like a free copy, please call us at 1-877-3-CALL-BP. So again, happy Earth Day. Celebrate that God has created such a beautiful planet, populated by humans created in His own image, and that He has called us to tend His creation as His stewards.
Further Reading and Information
Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition Acton Institute
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, Cornwall Alliance
Blessed Earth: Serving God, Saving the Planet
Blessed Earth
Global Warming as Religion: You Had to See It Coming, Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | December 2, 2009
‘Not Evil Just Wrong’: What’s Really at Stake with Global Warming,Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | October 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
#51 - "An Evangelistic Slam Dunk/The Roots of Basketball
[Please try to watch, "The Coral Ridge Hour" (actually only a half hour broadcast), every Sunday. (In Orlando, it is broadcast on channel 40.1 at 5 pm.) The first half is a usually a great message by Dr. D.James Kennedy and the second half is usually about a cultural or public policy issue from a spiritual perspective. I hope that you will circle May 18th to be sure to tune in for a very special broadcast on the story of where our country is headed. DON'T MISS IT!]
[Christians in Football. - I can't remember when I've heard of so many nationally known football players who are outspoken in their Christian witness. Among these are Drew Brees, the quarterback for the Superbowl Winning New Orleans Saints; Sam Bradford, the Texas Univ. quarterback that won the Heisman Trophy (best player in college sports) in 2008 who was yesterday selected as the #1 draft pick in the National Football League annual draft yesterday; and Tim Tebow, the FLorida Univ. quarterback who won the Heisman in 2007 and who was a first round pick in yesterday's draft. Also, the coach and owner of the Indianapolis Colts (who played in this year's Superbowl) also talk openly about their faith in Christ.]
The following is by Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com.,April 7, 2010
Here’s a good trivia question for you. Which major sport was invented as an evangelistic tool? Find out.
It was the basketball game for the ages. On Monday night, April 5th, the Duke University Blue Devils survived a desperate, last-second shot by the underdog Butler University Bulldogs to win the NCAA men’s basketball championship. It was a great game—a classic “David and Goliath” matchup, given that Duke has appeared in eight championship games under head coach Mike Krzyzewski, and that Butler had never even made it to the Final Four. You may hear folks talking about the game for some time. When you do, you can add to the conversation by revealing an interesting fact: Basketball was invented more than 100 years ago by a Christian theologian as an evangelical outreach tool.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, one of our Centurions, John Murray, recalled the story of the game’s founding. The inventor of basketball, James Naismith, became convinced that he stood a better chance of exemplifying the Christian life through sports rather than through preaching. So he took a job as a physical education instructor at the YMCA’s International Training School for Christian Workers in Springfield, Massachusetts. Naismith’s vision was “to win men for the Master through the gym.” In 1891, Naismith set out to invent a new indoor game that students could play during winter. He spent weeks testing various games, including versions of soccer, football, and lacrosse, to no avail. “Finally,” Murray writes, “Naismith decided to draw from all of these sports: with a ball that could be easily handled, play that involved running and passing with no tackling, and a goal at each end of the floor.” In short, he came up with basketball. From the beginning, Naismith and his athletic director, Luther Gulick, held the players to a high standard. As Gulick wrote in 1897, “The game must be kept clean.” A Christian college cannot tolerate “not merely ungentlemanly treatment of guests, but slugging and that which violates the elementary principles of morals.” He recommended that a coach should “excuse for the rest of the year any player who is not clean in his play.”
Basketball served as an important evangelical tool during the next 50 years, Murray noted. In 1941, Naismith wrote that “whenever I witness games in a church league, I feel that my vision, almost half a century ago, of the time when the Christian people would recognize the true value of athletics, has become a reality.” In the last 100 years, we’ve seen no shortage of Christian athletes who use their skill, self-discipline, and sportsmanship as a witness to Christ—from Olympic runner Eric Liddel in the 1920s, to football player Tim Tebow in our own generation.
In fact, so many athletes give the glory to God after a game that sportswriters sometimes get irritated with them. To which I respond: Which would you prefer—players known for their faith and good sportsmanship, or players who are arrested for assault or drug use?If you have a young basketball fan in your family, tell him or her the story of how basketball was invented. And pray for Christian players who can use the public’s love of sports the way Naismith envisioned when he invented basketball—as a witnessing tool to “win men for the Master through the gym.”
Further Reading and Information
The Spiritual Pathway to March Madness John Murray | Wall Street Journal | March 1
[Christians in Football. - I can't remember when I've heard of so many nationally known football players who are outspoken in their Christian witness. Among these are Drew Brees, the quarterback for the Superbowl Winning New Orleans Saints; Sam Bradford, the Texas Univ. quarterback that won the Heisman Trophy (best player in college sports) in 2008 who was yesterday selected as the #1 draft pick in the National Football League annual draft yesterday; and Tim Tebow, the FLorida Univ. quarterback who won the Heisman in 2007 and who was a first round pick in yesterday's draft. Also, the coach and owner of the Indianapolis Colts (who played in this year's Superbowl) also talk openly about their faith in Christ.]
The following is by Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com.,April 7, 2010
Here’s a good trivia question for you. Which major sport was invented as an evangelistic tool? Find out.
It was the basketball game for the ages. On Monday night, April 5th, the Duke University Blue Devils survived a desperate, last-second shot by the underdog Butler University Bulldogs to win the NCAA men’s basketball championship. It was a great game—a classic “David and Goliath” matchup, given that Duke has appeared in eight championship games under head coach Mike Krzyzewski, and that Butler had never even made it to the Final Four. You may hear folks talking about the game for some time. When you do, you can add to the conversation by revealing an interesting fact: Basketball was invented more than 100 years ago by a Christian theologian as an evangelical outreach tool.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, one of our Centurions, John Murray, recalled the story of the game’s founding. The inventor of basketball, James Naismith, became convinced that he stood a better chance of exemplifying the Christian life through sports rather than through preaching. So he took a job as a physical education instructor at the YMCA’s International Training School for Christian Workers in Springfield, Massachusetts. Naismith’s vision was “to win men for the Master through the gym.” In 1891, Naismith set out to invent a new indoor game that students could play during winter. He spent weeks testing various games, including versions of soccer, football, and lacrosse, to no avail. “Finally,” Murray writes, “Naismith decided to draw from all of these sports: with a ball that could be easily handled, play that involved running and passing with no tackling, and a goal at each end of the floor.” In short, he came up with basketball. From the beginning, Naismith and his athletic director, Luther Gulick, held the players to a high standard. As Gulick wrote in 1897, “The game must be kept clean.” A Christian college cannot tolerate “not merely ungentlemanly treatment of guests, but slugging and that which violates the elementary principles of morals.” He recommended that a coach should “excuse for the rest of the year any player who is not clean in his play.”
Basketball served as an important evangelical tool during the next 50 years, Murray noted. In 1941, Naismith wrote that “whenever I witness games in a church league, I feel that my vision, almost half a century ago, of the time when the Christian people would recognize the true value of athletics, has become a reality.” In the last 100 years, we’ve seen no shortage of Christian athletes who use their skill, self-discipline, and sportsmanship as a witness to Christ—from Olympic runner Eric Liddel in the 1920s, to football player Tim Tebow in our own generation.
In fact, so many athletes give the glory to God after a game that sportswriters sometimes get irritated with them. To which I respond: Which would you prefer—players known for their faith and good sportsmanship, or players who are arrested for assault or drug use?If you have a young basketball fan in your family, tell him or her the story of how basketball was invented. And pray for Christian players who can use the public’s love of sports the way Naismith envisioned when he invented basketball—as a witnessing tool to “win men for the Master through the gym.”
Further Reading and Information
The Spiritual Pathway to March Madness John Murray | Wall Street Journal | March 1
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
#50 - Before You Buy Any Girl Scout Cookies ...
[The article below refers to Planned Parenthood. With books have been written exposing their true agenda, I was shocked that on a recent talk show, even a fanatic liberal admitted that she did not know that those that do abortions do so for a tremendous profit. I was so incredulous I almost screamed. Here are just a few things you might not have heard: 1) PP has been responsible for almost a third of the abortions in this country since it was legalized by the Supreme Court over 37 years and 50 million pre-born babies ago. 2) At the cost of hundreds and even thousands of dollars each, PP is definitely a FOR-PROFIT group. 3) And yet, PP has received as much as $400 million EACH YEAR from our taxes. And 4) PP has never denounced the eugenics beliefs of its founder, Margaret Sanger. This is a belief in preserving this as a white race dominated nation . (Sanger herself stopped promoting this in the 1930’s after the Nazi’s took up this refrain, which they based on Darwinism and which led to the killing of the old, infirmed, and of course, the Jews.) And 5) PP has consistently built its killing centers in the midst of lower income African- American neighborhoods and just recently built the second largest such business in the nation in Houston, Texas. Even the media was forced to report a campaign by African American churches in one city that put up billboards decrying the killing of AA pre-born children. (Did you know that over 60% of abortions are of AA babies?) And so to be accurate, PP should be referred to as “Planned Genocide.”]
Unhealthy and Unhappy/ Planned Parenthood's Advice to Girl Scouts
By Chuck Colson|, March 26, 2010. Breakpoint.org
Next time you buy a box of Girl Scout cookies to feed your sweet tooth, think about what the Girl Scouts leadership is feeding to young girls.
I almost fell out of my chair when I read the news. The World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts hosted a panel in New York, part of the annual United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. According to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, the Girl Scouts allowed Planned Parenthood “to distribute brochures containing sexually explicit material to the young girls.” The booklet is titled “Healthy, Happy, and Hot.” Much of the content is so pornographic, I wouldn’t dare talk about it over the air or post it online. But you need to know that the sex guide advocates every imaginable kind of sex. As the guide blithely puts it, “There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!”
It also tells girls that “some people have sex when they have been drinking alcohol or using drugs. This is your choice.” Clearly, nothing is off limits—even for children below the age of consent.The Girls Scouts are claiming that they did not offer the booklet, despite the fact that it was seen on the table in their room by witnesses including Sharon Slater, president of Family Watch International. But why would Girl Scout leaders even bother denying it? They’ve had a long association with Planned Parenthood. As one of our Centurion graduates, Regis Nicoll, notes in an article on the BreakPoint website, Planned Parenthood is a welcome guest in 20 percent of the Girl Scout councils nationwide, conducting “educational” events.
During these events, Nicoll writes, attendees are given a book entitled “It’s Perfectly Normal.” The book enthusiastically promotes homosexual behavior and abortion, and includes graphic and, for me at least, vulgar descriptions of the human anatomy.
Planned Parenthood believes that sexual activity of any kind is a human right—at any age. To them, it’s never too early to start exposing children to their sexual philosophy. By contrast, of course, Christianity teaches that sex is a sacred act that ought to be reserved exclusively for a husband and wife. And we believe childhood should be a time of innocence—a time to be protected from adult subjects. Philosophy may only be part of the reason why Planned Parenthood is so eager to expose Girl Scouts to their trashy booklets. Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America, says it does so “with the intent of increasing their revenue.” Wright says that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s number one abortion provider, works with girls’ organizations “in order to profit from encouraging kids to be sexually active.” It’s obvious—the more sexually active, the more abortions.
What a way to destroy young women.Parents who question the Girl Scouts’ wisdom in allowing Planned Parenthood access to their daughters may want to consider a Christian alternative: American Heritage Girls. This group teaches leadership, character development, and spiritual growth. Or, if you are involved with Girl Scouts, for heaven’s sake, let your leaders know what you think about exposing young girls to sexually explicit materials and the destructive worldview they represent. Sadly these days, we need to be on the lookout for radical, destructive worldviews everywhere—even behind the boxes of Girl Scout cookies.
Further Reading and Information
The Girl Scout Sex Guide Aaron Ruse | Washington Times | March 18, 2010
Girl Scouts Distribute Planned Parenthood Sex Guide at UN Meeting
Terrence McKeegan | Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute | March 11, 2010
Learn More about the American Heritage Girls/American Heritage Girls
No Choice This Season: Life Is Worth Celebrating- Regis Nicoll | BreakPoint Online | December 21, 2006
Smart Sex (Audio)
Jennifer Roback Morse | BreakPoint Online | April 4, 2003
The Science of Teen Sex: An Interview with Dr. Freda McKissic Bush, Gina Dalfonzo | BreakPoint Online | April 14, 2009
Sex Positive: An Interview with Dr. Meg Meeker, Gina Dalfonzo | BreakPoint Online | July 29, 2008
Unhealthy and Unhappy/ Planned Parenthood's Advice to Girl Scouts
By Chuck Colson|, March 26, 2010. Breakpoint.org
Next time you buy a box of Girl Scout cookies to feed your sweet tooth, think about what the Girl Scouts leadership is feeding to young girls.
I almost fell out of my chair when I read the news. The World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts hosted a panel in New York, part of the annual United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. According to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, the Girl Scouts allowed Planned Parenthood “to distribute brochures containing sexually explicit material to the young girls.” The booklet is titled “Healthy, Happy, and Hot.” Much of the content is so pornographic, I wouldn’t dare talk about it over the air or post it online. But you need to know that the sex guide advocates every imaginable kind of sex. As the guide blithely puts it, “There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!”
It also tells girls that “some people have sex when they have been drinking alcohol or using drugs. This is your choice.” Clearly, nothing is off limits—even for children below the age of consent.The Girls Scouts are claiming that they did not offer the booklet, despite the fact that it was seen on the table in their room by witnesses including Sharon Slater, president of Family Watch International. But why would Girl Scout leaders even bother denying it? They’ve had a long association with Planned Parenthood. As one of our Centurion graduates, Regis Nicoll, notes in an article on the BreakPoint website, Planned Parenthood is a welcome guest in 20 percent of the Girl Scout councils nationwide, conducting “educational” events.
During these events, Nicoll writes, attendees are given a book entitled “It’s Perfectly Normal.” The book enthusiastically promotes homosexual behavior and abortion, and includes graphic and, for me at least, vulgar descriptions of the human anatomy.
Planned Parenthood believes that sexual activity of any kind is a human right—at any age. To them, it’s never too early to start exposing children to their sexual philosophy. By contrast, of course, Christianity teaches that sex is a sacred act that ought to be reserved exclusively for a husband and wife. And we believe childhood should be a time of innocence—a time to be protected from adult subjects. Philosophy may only be part of the reason why Planned Parenthood is so eager to expose Girl Scouts to their trashy booklets. Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America, says it does so “with the intent of increasing their revenue.” Wright says that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s number one abortion provider, works with girls’ organizations “in order to profit from encouraging kids to be sexually active.” It’s obvious—the more sexually active, the more abortions.
What a way to destroy young women.Parents who question the Girl Scouts’ wisdom in allowing Planned Parenthood access to their daughters may want to consider a Christian alternative: American Heritage Girls. This group teaches leadership, character development, and spiritual growth. Or, if you are involved with Girl Scouts, for heaven’s sake, let your leaders know what you think about exposing young girls to sexually explicit materials and the destructive worldview they represent. Sadly these days, we need to be on the lookout for radical, destructive worldviews everywhere—even behind the boxes of Girl Scout cookies.
Further Reading and Information
The Girl Scout Sex Guide Aaron Ruse | Washington Times | March 18, 2010
Girl Scouts Distribute Planned Parenthood Sex Guide at UN Meeting
Terrence McKeegan | Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute | March 11, 2010
Learn More about the American Heritage Girls/American Heritage Girls
No Choice This Season: Life Is Worth Celebrating- Regis Nicoll | BreakPoint Online | December 21, 2006
Smart Sex (Audio)
Jennifer Roback Morse | BreakPoint Online | April 4, 2003
The Science of Teen Sex: An Interview with Dr. Freda McKissic Bush, Gina Dalfonzo | BreakPoint Online | April 14, 2009
Sex Positive: An Interview with Dr. Meg Meeker, Gina Dalfonzo | BreakPoint Online | July 29, 2008
Friday, April 2, 2010
#49- Obamacare Means More Dead Preborn Babies
[In case you did not guess, this is the FIRST blog I've posted THIS YEAR. My health has continued to be so off that I have found it difficult to collect myself enough to post things until now. Needless to say, the roller coaster emotions as the entire country followed the health care reform debate continue to unfold boiled over for many of us after those we thought were solidly "pro-life" in Congress sold out their votes at the last crucial minute. I struggled for days between anger and disgust but I feel that I must at least post this posting by Chuck Colson that ran days after what some have called another Day of Infamy. TODAY, the respected Gallup poll said that only 44% of Americans now approve of President Obama's leadership and that 2/3 of Americans believe they will be hurt in some way by what was signed into law last week. Either the President is not as eloquent as he is touted to be - having given dozens of speeches defending his proposals over the past 14 months - or the American people are really smarter than he is willing to give them credit for and they can tell when something smells bad because it really is bad.]
A Mess of Pottage
Breakpoint.com., by: Chuck Colsonshed: March 24, 2010
Life and the Executive Order
To pass his health care plan, the President made a deal with pro-life Democrats. The deal was a farce. I’ll tell you why.
Last Sunday night [March 20], pro-life Democrats sold the birthright of millions of unborn children for a mess of pottage. Up until that fateful day, it wasn’t clear whether Rep. Bart Stupak and other pro-life Democrats would support the health care bill. Then, Stupak made a stunning announcement. In exchange for Stupak’s support, the President would sign an executive order prohibiting the spending of federal funds for abortions. I know Bart Stupak and have had great respect for him. And I understand the enormous—even vicious—political pressure the administration and House leadership put on him and his colleagues. But in the end, he and other pro-life Democrats have sold out the pro-life cause, and with it, the lives of the unborn.
Now, some abortion-rights advocates excoriated the President. The National Organization of Women said that it was “incensed” by the executive order. But as Bill McGurn wrote in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Planned Parenthood seems quite pleased. Why? Because as McGurn writes, “an Executive Order cannot change the law.” The Catholic Bishops know this. Which is why even before the executive order was announced, they made it clear that it would “not begin to address the problem” of protecting human life.
That’s because the courts have made it clear that an executive order will have no effect. There are four “decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation.” As the Bishops and their lawyers read the case law, funding for abortions is required in federal health care programs unless “Congress clearly forbids such funding.” Absent a clear prohibition, executive orders and regulations can—and will be—overridden by the courts. The precedents are clear.
And while Rep. Stupak lamely says that the President “does not plan on rescinding” the order, other people don’t share his confidence. And as Rep Paul Ryan said, the executive order “is not the rule of law...[but] the rule of man. One man can sign an executive order and one man can repeal that again.” Let me be plain. The executive order does nothing to protect the unborn. Even if the President intends to stand by his agreement, this does not bind his successors, the courts, or, for that, matter, the pro-abortion activists in his own party.
We stand on the precipice. Will an essentially pro-life American public stand for a health care bill that paves the way for federally funded abortions? I don’t know. I fear, however, that the passage of this bill has the potential for tearing America apart. Because Christians by the thousands, maybe millions, could be forced to choose between their faith, their consciences, and the law of the land. I’ve already had people call me to ask if they should pay their federal taxes, now that it is inevitable that their dollars will fund abortions. And heaven help the doctor or nurse or pharmacist, who refuses to take innocent life. He or she will lose their profession. Maybe this is why God led us, some months ago, to write the Manhattan Declaration, which nearly half a million Christians have signed. He foresaw that this would be a sellout. He foresaw the crisis we will face.
We must see this deal for what it was—a charade. And now we must take our stand on the side of life and conscience, no matter the consequences. Will you stand with us?
Further Reading and Information
Read and Sign the Manhattan Declaration Manhattan Declaration
House Passes Pro-Abortion Senate Health Care Bill After Executive Order Deal Life News | March 20, 2010
Pro-Life Democrats, RIP Wall Street Journal | March 23, 2010
Hope for Health Care Reform: What We Can Do Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | March 1, 2010
A Mess of Pottage
Breakpoint.com., by: Chuck Colsonshed: March 24, 2010
Life and the Executive Order
To pass his health care plan, the President made a deal with pro-life Democrats. The deal was a farce. I’ll tell you why.
Last Sunday night [March 20], pro-life Democrats sold the birthright of millions of unborn children for a mess of pottage. Up until that fateful day, it wasn’t clear whether Rep. Bart Stupak and other pro-life Democrats would support the health care bill. Then, Stupak made a stunning announcement. In exchange for Stupak’s support, the President would sign an executive order prohibiting the spending of federal funds for abortions. I know Bart Stupak and have had great respect for him. And I understand the enormous—even vicious—political pressure the administration and House leadership put on him and his colleagues. But in the end, he and other pro-life Democrats have sold out the pro-life cause, and with it, the lives of the unborn.
Now, some abortion-rights advocates excoriated the President. The National Organization of Women said that it was “incensed” by the executive order. But as Bill McGurn wrote in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Planned Parenthood seems quite pleased. Why? Because as McGurn writes, “an Executive Order cannot change the law.” The Catholic Bishops know this. Which is why even before the executive order was announced, they made it clear that it would “not begin to address the problem” of protecting human life.
That’s because the courts have made it clear that an executive order will have no effect. There are four “decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation.” As the Bishops and their lawyers read the case law, funding for abortions is required in federal health care programs unless “Congress clearly forbids such funding.” Absent a clear prohibition, executive orders and regulations can—and will be—overridden by the courts. The precedents are clear.
And while Rep. Stupak lamely says that the President “does not plan on rescinding” the order, other people don’t share his confidence. And as Rep Paul Ryan said, the executive order “is not the rule of law...[but] the rule of man. One man can sign an executive order and one man can repeal that again.” Let me be plain. The executive order does nothing to protect the unborn. Even if the President intends to stand by his agreement, this does not bind his successors, the courts, or, for that, matter, the pro-abortion activists in his own party.
We stand on the precipice. Will an essentially pro-life American public stand for a health care bill that paves the way for federally funded abortions? I don’t know. I fear, however, that the passage of this bill has the potential for tearing America apart. Because Christians by the thousands, maybe millions, could be forced to choose between their faith, their consciences, and the law of the land. I’ve already had people call me to ask if they should pay their federal taxes, now that it is inevitable that their dollars will fund abortions. And heaven help the doctor or nurse or pharmacist, who refuses to take innocent life. He or she will lose their profession. Maybe this is why God led us, some months ago, to write the Manhattan Declaration, which nearly half a million Christians have signed. He foresaw that this would be a sellout. He foresaw the crisis we will face.
We must see this deal for what it was—a charade. And now we must take our stand on the side of life and conscience, no matter the consequences. Will you stand with us?
Further Reading and Information
Read and Sign the Manhattan Declaration Manhattan Declaration
House Passes Pro-Abortion Senate Health Care Bill After Executive Order Deal Life News | March 20, 2010
Pro-Life Democrats, RIP Wall Street Journal | March 23, 2010
Hope for Health Care Reform: What We Can Do Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | March 1, 2010
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
#48 - Before We Get To the New Year...
Because my health has prevented me from blogging regularly, there are a few things I haven’t got to share about in awhile that I want to do before 2009 ends.
1.Christmas – *** Have you noticed how people on television were not saying “Merry Christmas” but “Happy Holidays?” I don’t fault people if they were they trying to be politically correct, but why couldn’t they say “Merry Christmas” AND “Happy Holidays?” When I said “Merry Christmas” to cashiers, I never got a “Merry Christmas” back but usually a “same to you.” It drives me nuts that students no longer have “Christmas vacations” but “Winter breaks” but now I can’t even hear the word “Christmas” said in public. You can probably tell that I feel that being “politically correct” or somehow sensitive to how others feel has just gone much too far.
***The best part of being in some stores or watching any Christmas special on television – even PBS- during Christmas was to hear Christmas carols. It must be a nightmare for the ACLU-Separation of Church and State-Atheist types who want all mention of God erased from the public square. For example, “Glory to the newborn King…God and sinners reconciled…Christ by highest heaven adored; Christ the everlasting Lord…Hail the Heaven born Prince of Peace! Hail the Sun of Righteousness…Born that man no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth…” (“Hark! the Herald Angels Sing”) Every carol preaches the gospel as clearly as any Sunday morning sermon. Interestingly, though, I did learn that not all Christmas songs speak of Jesus’ birth. For example, in “Joy to the World,” phrases such as “…the Savior reigns,” “He rules the world truth and grace, And makes the nations prove, The glories of His righteousness” speak not of the result of His FIRST coming but of His SECOND coming. It’s just like verses in the Bible where some refer to His first and some to His second coming.
2.Health Care Reform – *** When the “pro-life” Democrat from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson, who had said that he would not vote for the bill unless there was clear language in it that prohibited tax payer funding for abortion and represented the ONE vote that would stop the bill from passing the Senate, indicated that he would vote FOR the bill, I all but screamed! Despite what’s been said, the language of the bill he agreed on will NOT, in truth, prevent such funding. If every Republican amendment proposed to CLEARLY outlaw any tax dollars going to abortion services was defeated by the Democrats, do you really believe the final language of the bill was going to do that? (By the way, over 70% of Americans polled do NOT want tax payer funds going to abortion, with over 50% now opposed to abortion on demand.) The Senator knows this. And so, what really caused him to give in – his state was promised an exemption from Medicare taxes that will result from the bill. In other words, he was bought off. Just as I am sure all the other so-called “pro-life” democrats who voted for the bill also did. (Even the mainstream media that can be counted on to support policies promoted by the Democrats were forced to report on what favors many of the not so liberal Senators were given in exchange for their votes.) After Senator Nelson's utter failure to stand on principle and to sell-out the unborn, I believe every person in Congress who says they are "pro-life" should put an asterisk by their name so that we know that it doesn't mean their convictions cannot be bought at the right price.
*** I was stunned that the Senate Democratic leader Reid actually said that there was nothing unusual about this, that these were just “compromises” that are part of negotiations! I was surprised his nose didn’t take on a Pinnochio-size length as he spoke. As someone said when they called into a radio talk show: “The Democrats slogan is: If you have trouble passing a bill, lie, lie, again.” I would change that to say, …lie, bribe, and steal some more.” (Every time they add something to a bill, they increase our national debt and STEAL from future generations.) The real clincher that this wasn’t a compromise was the not-often quoted statement by one of the Democrats that the President got 95% of what he wanted. (This is the President who has made some clear promises to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions.) Wow, he compromised on 5%.
*** When their victory in passing the bill was assured, I was struck by the Senators who were self-congratulatory to gloating. It didn’t seem to matter to them that over 2/3 of Americans polled said that they are not in favor of the Senate’s bill. It seems that they are more interested in getting their way, that they are more interested in what they think is best rather than what the American people want. They call their bill “historic” and any combination of the Senate and House bill probably will be. But not historic in that it will accomplish good but bring great evil to this country. Ever since the election, people have gotten to like the use of that word so much they forget that many things in history were very destructive. Calling something “historic” doesn’t guarantee it will be something good. *** I was so upset by Senator Nelson’s sell-out that I decided against finding some way to share all this the next day because it would not be in keeping with this Christmas season. But I’m still very upset, and if you are pro-life and you care about what the Democrats reform will actually cost this country and future generations, I hope you’re upset. I hope you’ll join me in praying that somehow, as they try to mesh the Senate bill with the House bill, there will be enough problems to derail this very dangerous bill.
3. The President’s First Year in Office: ***During an interview with Oprah, one of his wealthiest supporters, the President was asked what grade would he give himself. While the grade most Americans polled gave the President was a “D,” he said he gave himself a “B+.” It tells you why teachers never ask students what grade they think they deserve. I would give him a “D-.” At least he is sending most of the troops our commander in Afghanistan requested, though it’s not clear to me (and I’m sure most Americans) why it took him 3 months to decide and why he didn’t anticipate such a request long before it was made. And praise God, he FAILED to persuade the Olympic committee to hold the 2016 in Chicago, which would have bankrupt the city that was already dealing with a deficit. (Montreal, Canada, which held the winter Olympics in the ‘70’s only recently paid off its debt from that Olympics!) And double praise, that he did NOT commit America to any binding and debt-incurring commitments at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. I give him low marks for plunging us into so much debt with the stimulus bill, the attempted (praying it still fails) Health Care Reform bill, his attempted energy (cap and trade) bill, his sending US dollars worldwide to provide for abortions during his first few weeks in office, for his approving more federal dollars to go to unnecessary research into EMBRYONIC stem cell research, and his having the federal government assume control of the financial and auto industries. I’m sure there are other things I’ve forgotten in this “historic” year but these were the ones that upset me the most.
*** I could not believe it when the President actually accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. (Did you know he was nominated just 2 weeks after he was sworn in?) He originally said that he didn’t know what he had done to be awarded the prize (as did almost 80% of the American people) and the Nobel committee itself said that it was given for what they HOPED he would do as a result of his overtures to Muslims and others hostile to American policies. (As some have said, it’s like he got a prize just for not being George Bush, who Europeans so dislike.) At least he is said to have given the $1 million plus prize money to charity, though what charity that is has not been disclosed. (Planned Parenthood, ACORN?) And, while on the subject, did you also know that the Nobel Prize was NOT given to Mahatma Gandhi, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (for his part in leading the fight in WWII), nor President Ronald Reagan (whom most credit with helping to end the scourge of Soviet communism and the threat of nuclear war).
1.Christmas – *** Have you noticed how people on television were not saying “Merry Christmas” but “Happy Holidays?” I don’t fault people if they were they trying to be politically correct, but why couldn’t they say “Merry Christmas” AND “Happy Holidays?” When I said “Merry Christmas” to cashiers, I never got a “Merry Christmas” back but usually a “same to you.” It drives me nuts that students no longer have “Christmas vacations” but “Winter breaks” but now I can’t even hear the word “Christmas” said in public. You can probably tell that I feel that being “politically correct” or somehow sensitive to how others feel has just gone much too far.
***The best part of being in some stores or watching any Christmas special on television – even PBS- during Christmas was to hear Christmas carols. It must be a nightmare for the ACLU-Separation of Church and State-Atheist types who want all mention of God erased from the public square. For example, “Glory to the newborn King…God and sinners reconciled…Christ by highest heaven adored; Christ the everlasting Lord…Hail the Heaven born Prince of Peace! Hail the Sun of Righteousness…Born that man no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth…” (“Hark! the Herald Angels Sing”) Every carol preaches the gospel as clearly as any Sunday morning sermon. Interestingly, though, I did learn that not all Christmas songs speak of Jesus’ birth. For example, in “Joy to the World,” phrases such as “…the Savior reigns,” “He rules the world truth and grace, And makes the nations prove, The glories of His righteousness” speak not of the result of His FIRST coming but of His SECOND coming. It’s just like verses in the Bible where some refer to His first and some to His second coming.
2.Health Care Reform – *** When the “pro-life” Democrat from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson, who had said that he would not vote for the bill unless there was clear language in it that prohibited tax payer funding for abortion and represented the ONE vote that would stop the bill from passing the Senate, indicated that he would vote FOR the bill, I all but screamed! Despite what’s been said, the language of the bill he agreed on will NOT, in truth, prevent such funding. If every Republican amendment proposed to CLEARLY outlaw any tax dollars going to abortion services was defeated by the Democrats, do you really believe the final language of the bill was going to do that? (By the way, over 70% of Americans polled do NOT want tax payer funds going to abortion, with over 50% now opposed to abortion on demand.) The Senator knows this. And so, what really caused him to give in – his state was promised an exemption from Medicare taxes that will result from the bill. In other words, he was bought off. Just as I am sure all the other so-called “pro-life” democrats who voted for the bill also did. (Even the mainstream media that can be counted on to support policies promoted by the Democrats were forced to report on what favors many of the not so liberal Senators were given in exchange for their votes.) After Senator Nelson's utter failure to stand on principle and to sell-out the unborn, I believe every person in Congress who says they are "pro-life" should put an asterisk by their name so that we know that it doesn't mean their convictions cannot be bought at the right price.
*** I was stunned that the Senate Democratic leader Reid actually said that there was nothing unusual about this, that these were just “compromises” that are part of negotiations! I was surprised his nose didn’t take on a Pinnochio-size length as he spoke. As someone said when they called into a radio talk show: “The Democrats slogan is: If you have trouble passing a bill, lie, lie, again.” I would change that to say, …lie, bribe, and steal some more.” (Every time they add something to a bill, they increase our national debt and STEAL from future generations.) The real clincher that this wasn’t a compromise was the not-often quoted statement by one of the Democrats that the President got 95% of what he wanted. (This is the President who has made some clear promises to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions.) Wow, he compromised on 5%.
*** When their victory in passing the bill was assured, I was struck by the Senators who were self-congratulatory to gloating. It didn’t seem to matter to them that over 2/3 of Americans polled said that they are not in favor of the Senate’s bill. It seems that they are more interested in getting their way, that they are more interested in what they think is best rather than what the American people want. They call their bill “historic” and any combination of the Senate and House bill probably will be. But not historic in that it will accomplish good but bring great evil to this country. Ever since the election, people have gotten to like the use of that word so much they forget that many things in history were very destructive. Calling something “historic” doesn’t guarantee it will be something good. *** I was so upset by Senator Nelson’s sell-out that I decided against finding some way to share all this the next day because it would not be in keeping with this Christmas season. But I’m still very upset, and if you are pro-life and you care about what the Democrats reform will actually cost this country and future generations, I hope you’re upset. I hope you’ll join me in praying that somehow, as they try to mesh the Senate bill with the House bill, there will be enough problems to derail this very dangerous bill.
3. The President’s First Year in Office: ***During an interview with Oprah, one of his wealthiest supporters, the President was asked what grade would he give himself. While the grade most Americans polled gave the President was a “D,” he said he gave himself a “B+.” It tells you why teachers never ask students what grade they think they deserve. I would give him a “D-.” At least he is sending most of the troops our commander in Afghanistan requested, though it’s not clear to me (and I’m sure most Americans) why it took him 3 months to decide and why he didn’t anticipate such a request long before it was made. And praise God, he FAILED to persuade the Olympic committee to hold the 2016 in Chicago, which would have bankrupt the city that was already dealing with a deficit. (Montreal, Canada, which held the winter Olympics in the ‘70’s only recently paid off its debt from that Olympics!) And double praise, that he did NOT commit America to any binding and debt-incurring commitments at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. I give him low marks for plunging us into so much debt with the stimulus bill, the attempted (praying it still fails) Health Care Reform bill, his attempted energy (cap and trade) bill, his sending US dollars worldwide to provide for abortions during his first few weeks in office, for his approving more federal dollars to go to unnecessary research into EMBRYONIC stem cell research, and his having the federal government assume control of the financial and auto industries. I’m sure there are other things I’ve forgotten in this “historic” year but these were the ones that upset me the most.
*** I could not believe it when the President actually accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. (Did you know he was nominated just 2 weeks after he was sworn in?) He originally said that he didn’t know what he had done to be awarded the prize (as did almost 80% of the American people) and the Nobel committee itself said that it was given for what they HOPED he would do as a result of his overtures to Muslims and others hostile to American policies. (As some have said, it’s like he got a prize just for not being George Bush, who Europeans so dislike.) At least he is said to have given the $1 million plus prize money to charity, though what charity that is has not been disclosed. (Planned Parenthood, ACORN?) And, while on the subject, did you also know that the Nobel Prize was NOT given to Mahatma Gandhi, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (for his part in leading the fight in WWII), nor President Ronald Reagan (whom most credit with helping to end the scourge of Soviet communism and the threat of nuclear war).
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
#47 - What You Haven’t Heard From Environmentalists (3)– THREE (parts one and two were postings on this blog #27 and #28)
On Monday, thousands gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark, for an international conference on climate change over the next two weeks. While those in attendance believe that the science of global warming (or climate change) is “settled,” there are tens of thousands of noted scientists who disagree, something I’m quite sure you’ve not heard about if you’ve been listening to the usual media outlets.
While the biased nature of news reporting was not enough to find disturbing, several weeks ago the world learned that scientists themselves were guilty of bias in THEIR reporting. “On November 23rd, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents. Climate change skeptics charge that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to skew scientific information in favor of manmade global warming. The leaked documents “show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,” CBS News reported. One climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research was quoted as saying: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” ’ – from Newsmax.com, Dec. 7
To give some balance to the reporting that you will likely hear in the next two weeks coming out of the conference in Copenhagen, I will present here on each posting under the title “What You Haven’t Heard from Environmentalist” several past articles by Chuck Colson and others addressing the climate change/global warming THEORIES we often hear.
Before I present some articles, I’d like to share several quotes I found at: GlobalWarmingHoax.com:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
Global Warming and the Media By Chuck Colson 2/3/2009, Breakpoint.org
Give Us All the Facts
You may have noticed that some of President Obama’s most ardent supporters speak of him in almost messianic terms. But there’s one public figure who apparently means it literally: James Hansen of NASA. Hansen, who is the “father” of the global warming movement, recently told the U.K. Guardian that the new President “has only four years to save the world.” Unless we implement drastic measures like a “moratorium on new power plants that burn coal” and a hefty “carbon tax,” we face an apocalyptic future—“global flooding, wide-spread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns.”
Of course, Hansen’s warnings made headlines around the world. Not only because “doom and gloom” sells, but because the mainstream media treats any claim about man-made global warming with the utmost credulity. Thus, last summer, when a “researcher” claimed that global warming might lead to more violent earthquakes, news outlets trumpeted the story. In their haste, they neither asked how warmer temperatures can cause earthquakes nor checked the researcher’s credentials. These included previous pieces on something called the “Thiaoouba Prophecy” and reading auras. Really. The story was quickly deleted from the outlets’ websites without retraction or comment.
Less comical but no less telling are the stories about the “disappearing” Arctic ice. A year ago, we were told that the Arctic had reached a “tipping point” and that Arctic ice could be “completely” gone, with dire consequences for polar bears and Santa Claus, within five years. What you probably haven’t heard is that, by October, that same Arctic ice covered 29 percent more area than it did the year before and that by the end of the year, it was approaching its greatest mass since 1979. And it’s still growing. There are countless other examples of where real-world facts conflict with global warming theory, not the least of which is that the Earth has been cooling since at least 2003 and arguably since 1998.
As the chairman of the International Geological Congress has asked, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?” Those of us shivering this winter have been asking the same question. It’s possible that he and other critics are wrong, of course. What is certain is that we are not getting anything resembling a complete presentation of the facts. The media reports the dire claims, and by the time the claims have been debunked, they have already moved onto the next one. Given the level of dissent and skepticism on the subject, we ought not to let ourselves be panicked and stampeded into taking drastic and costly measures. Nor should we allow the claims about “scientific consensus” to cow us. First, remember, there is no such consensus; and, second, scientists are just as prone to peer pressure and groupthink as everybody else.
This is a major issue. The costs here are immense, not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of human flourishing. I recommend we take a biblical perspective on environmental stewardship. The Acton Institute has produced just such a booklet—a wonderful tool. Come to BreakPoint.org or call in, and we’ll tell you how to get it.
For Further Reading and Information
Read the Acton Institute’s Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition.
“Arctic Ice Could Be Gone in Five Years,” Telegraph (UK), 12 December 2007.
“Arctic Ice Melting ‘Faster Than Predicted’,” Telegraph (UK), 24 April 2008.
Dennis Avery, “The Worst Climate Predictions of 2008,” Canada Free Press, 28 December 2008.
“Arctic Sea Ice Now 28.7% Higher than This Date Last Year - Still Rallying,” Watts Up With That?, 15 October 2008.
Regis Nicoll, “Climate Change Science: Long on Faith, Short on Fact,” BreakPoint Online, 5 December 2008.
“Stimulus through Contraception?: Fewer Kids to Feed,” BreakPoint Commentary, 2 February 2009.
“Just Do It: Good Stewardship and Global Warming,” BreakPoint Commentary, 2 November 2007.
The EPA's Assault On Carbon Dioxide (Forbes.com Commentary, 4/12/09) - Richard A. Epstein
The passing of the environmental torch between the Bush and Obama administrations became ever more evident last week when EPA head Lisa Jackson announced that carbon dioxide is now an official pollutant. Not just any pollutant, mind you, but one that moves in the fast company of methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride--all notoriously bad stuff.
For years, the Bush EPA refused to mount even a partial attack on carbon dioxide. In part, its opposition rested on the uncertain science about CO2's uncertain contribution to global warming. In part it rested on the view that the patchwork programs of the Clean Air Act (CAA) did not afford a sensible platform on which to launch such a huge and risky initiative.
Traditional administrative law principles seemed to give the EPA lots of leeway in backing off carbon dioxide. Courts routinely block agencies from implementing programs that go beyond their statutory marching orders. But courts are most reluctant to coax any agency to devote its limited resources to a program it doesn't want to undertake. It is too risky to let different courts order a single agency to march off in different directions. And it is nearly impossible for any court to monitor agency progress on a project that it doesn't want to carry out.
For these reasons, it was a surprise when, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court pulled that trigger in Massachusetts v. EPA. That decision ordered the EPA to investigate whether it should classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant under section §7251(a)(1) of the CAA, which says that the administrator shall "prescribe by regulation standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
Justice Stevens held that the EPA's only wiggle room under this statutory command was to decide whether carbon dioxide either caused or contributed to air pollution in ways that endangered public health. Otherwise it had no discretion to back off. And it is hard to deny that carbon dioxide might contribute something to global warming. Nonetheless, most people find it a bit odd to take after poor CO2 as a pollutant when its presence in the atmosphere is a necessary element to sustain life on earth. The rub is that too much carbon dioxide might choke the environment--assuming we could find that tipping point, which looks more uncertain with each passing day.
The science isn't what's troubling with the EPA's recent decision. That honor belongs to targeting new sources of pollution under the CAA, from tail pipes, or for that matter, coal plants. Congress chose to regulate new sources under the CAA in the naïve belief that old ones would quickly fade away. But that grandfathering decision induced people to keep older, more deadly, cars on the road--and power plants stay on line--far longer than they should.New technology produces better pollution controls than old ones--period. For automobiles, the EPA estimates that new cars today emit on average somewhere between 10% and 25% the amount of pollutants that new cars did in 1970 when the EPA became law. The worst new car is better than the best of the old cars, whose inferior pollutant systems only deteriorate with age. Suppose it were 100% sound for the EPA to attack carbon dioxide, then the available strategies under the CAA are the worst possible way to encourage the shift to safer technologies.
No sane libertarian favors death by asphyxiation. The reason we need something like the EPA is because ordinary private lawsuits cannot keep pace with pollution that comes from so many sources and harms so many people. But the legitimacy of ends does not excuse sloppiness on means. First, "do no harm," remains good social policy. The EPA needs to hold off its regulatory offensive against carbon dioxide until it gets statutory authority to tax or regulate those older sources that do most of the damage. And then it has to consider whether a comprehensive attack on CO2 is worth the candle.
Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, and a visiting professor at New York University Law School.
Don’t Waste Time Cutting Emissions
By BJORN LOMBORG, Op-Ed Contributor, April 25, 2009,
WE are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically. But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed. Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey. Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing. In Kyoto in 1997, leaders promised even stricter reductions by 2010, yet emissions have kept increasing unabated. Still, the leaders plan to meet in Copenhagen this December to agree to even more of the same — drastic reductions in emissions that no one will live up to. Another decade will be wasted.
Fortunately, there is a better option: to make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources. This requires much more spending on research and development of low-carbon energy technology. We might have assumed that investment in this research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not. Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good. If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good.
The Copenhagen agreement should instead call for every country to spend one-twentieth of a percent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development. That would increase the amount of such spending 15-fold to $30 billion, yet the total cost would be only a sixth of the estimated $180 billion worth of lost growth that would result from the Kyoto restrictions.
Kyoto-style emissions cuts can only ever be an expensive distraction from the real business of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. The fact is, carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it in China and India, where laborers now enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine.
No green energy source is inexpensive enough to replace coal now. Given substantially more research, however, green energy could be cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century. Sadly, the old-style agreement planned for Copenhagen this December will have a negligible effect on temperatures. This renders meaningless any declarations of “success” that might be made after the conference. We must challenge the orthodoxy of Kyoto and create a smarter, more realistic strategy.
Bjorn Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School and the author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”
While the biased nature of news reporting was not enough to find disturbing, several weeks ago the world learned that scientists themselves were guilty of bias in THEIR reporting. “On November 23rd, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents. Climate change skeptics charge that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to skew scientific information in favor of manmade global warming. The leaked documents “show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,” CBS News reported. One climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research was quoted as saying: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” ’ – from Newsmax.com, Dec. 7
To give some balance to the reporting that you will likely hear in the next two weeks coming out of the conference in Copenhagen, I will present here on each posting under the title “What You Haven’t Heard from Environmentalist” several past articles by Chuck Colson and others addressing the climate change/global warming THEORIES we often hear.
Before I present some articles, I’d like to share several quotes I found at: GlobalWarmingHoax.com:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
Global Warming and the Media By Chuck Colson 2/3/2009, Breakpoint.org
Give Us All the Facts
You may have noticed that some of President Obama’s most ardent supporters speak of him in almost messianic terms. But there’s one public figure who apparently means it literally: James Hansen of NASA. Hansen, who is the “father” of the global warming movement, recently told the U.K. Guardian that the new President “has only four years to save the world.” Unless we implement drastic measures like a “moratorium on new power plants that burn coal” and a hefty “carbon tax,” we face an apocalyptic future—“global flooding, wide-spread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns.”
Of course, Hansen’s warnings made headlines around the world. Not only because “doom and gloom” sells, but because the mainstream media treats any claim about man-made global warming with the utmost credulity. Thus, last summer, when a “researcher” claimed that global warming might lead to more violent earthquakes, news outlets trumpeted the story. In their haste, they neither asked how warmer temperatures can cause earthquakes nor checked the researcher’s credentials. These included previous pieces on something called the “Thiaoouba Prophecy” and reading auras. Really. The story was quickly deleted from the outlets’ websites without retraction or comment.
Less comical but no less telling are the stories about the “disappearing” Arctic ice. A year ago, we were told that the Arctic had reached a “tipping point” and that Arctic ice could be “completely” gone, with dire consequences for polar bears and Santa Claus, within five years. What you probably haven’t heard is that, by October, that same Arctic ice covered 29 percent more area than it did the year before and that by the end of the year, it was approaching its greatest mass since 1979. And it’s still growing. There are countless other examples of where real-world facts conflict with global warming theory, not the least of which is that the Earth has been cooling since at least 2003 and arguably since 1998.
As the chairman of the International Geological Congress has asked, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?” Those of us shivering this winter have been asking the same question. It’s possible that he and other critics are wrong, of course. What is certain is that we are not getting anything resembling a complete presentation of the facts. The media reports the dire claims, and by the time the claims have been debunked, they have already moved onto the next one. Given the level of dissent and skepticism on the subject, we ought not to let ourselves be panicked and stampeded into taking drastic and costly measures. Nor should we allow the claims about “scientific consensus” to cow us. First, remember, there is no such consensus; and, second, scientists are just as prone to peer pressure and groupthink as everybody else.
This is a major issue. The costs here are immense, not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of human flourishing. I recommend we take a biblical perspective on environmental stewardship. The Acton Institute has produced just such a booklet—a wonderful tool. Come to BreakPoint.org or call in, and we’ll tell you how to get it.
For Further Reading and Information
Read the Acton Institute’s Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition.
“Arctic Ice Could Be Gone in Five Years,” Telegraph (UK), 12 December 2007.
“Arctic Ice Melting ‘Faster Than Predicted’,” Telegraph (UK), 24 April 2008.
Dennis Avery, “The Worst Climate Predictions of 2008,” Canada Free Press, 28 December 2008.
“Arctic Sea Ice Now 28.7% Higher than This Date Last Year - Still Rallying,” Watts Up With That?, 15 October 2008.
Regis Nicoll, “Climate Change Science: Long on Faith, Short on Fact,” BreakPoint Online, 5 December 2008.
“Stimulus through Contraception?: Fewer Kids to Feed,” BreakPoint Commentary, 2 February 2009.
“Just Do It: Good Stewardship and Global Warming,” BreakPoint Commentary, 2 November 2007.
The EPA's Assault On Carbon Dioxide (Forbes.com Commentary, 4/12/09) - Richard A. Epstein
The passing of the environmental torch between the Bush and Obama administrations became ever more evident last week when EPA head Lisa Jackson announced that carbon dioxide is now an official pollutant. Not just any pollutant, mind you, but one that moves in the fast company of methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride--all notoriously bad stuff.
For years, the Bush EPA refused to mount even a partial attack on carbon dioxide. In part, its opposition rested on the uncertain science about CO2's uncertain contribution to global warming. In part it rested on the view that the patchwork programs of the Clean Air Act (CAA) did not afford a sensible platform on which to launch such a huge and risky initiative.
Traditional administrative law principles seemed to give the EPA lots of leeway in backing off carbon dioxide. Courts routinely block agencies from implementing programs that go beyond their statutory marching orders. But courts are most reluctant to coax any agency to devote its limited resources to a program it doesn't want to undertake. It is too risky to let different courts order a single agency to march off in different directions. And it is nearly impossible for any court to monitor agency progress on a project that it doesn't want to carry out.
For these reasons, it was a surprise when, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court pulled that trigger in Massachusetts v. EPA. That decision ordered the EPA to investigate whether it should classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant under section §7251(a)(1) of the CAA, which says that the administrator shall "prescribe by regulation standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
Justice Stevens held that the EPA's only wiggle room under this statutory command was to decide whether carbon dioxide either caused or contributed to air pollution in ways that endangered public health. Otherwise it had no discretion to back off. And it is hard to deny that carbon dioxide might contribute something to global warming. Nonetheless, most people find it a bit odd to take after poor CO2 as a pollutant when its presence in the atmosphere is a necessary element to sustain life on earth. The rub is that too much carbon dioxide might choke the environment--assuming we could find that tipping point, which looks more uncertain with each passing day.
The science isn't what's troubling with the EPA's recent decision. That honor belongs to targeting new sources of pollution under the CAA, from tail pipes, or for that matter, coal plants. Congress chose to regulate new sources under the CAA in the naïve belief that old ones would quickly fade away. But that grandfathering decision induced people to keep older, more deadly, cars on the road--and power plants stay on line--far longer than they should.New technology produces better pollution controls than old ones--period. For automobiles, the EPA estimates that new cars today emit on average somewhere between 10% and 25% the amount of pollutants that new cars did in 1970 when the EPA became law. The worst new car is better than the best of the old cars, whose inferior pollutant systems only deteriorate with age. Suppose it were 100% sound for the EPA to attack carbon dioxide, then the available strategies under the CAA are the worst possible way to encourage the shift to safer technologies.
No sane libertarian favors death by asphyxiation. The reason we need something like the EPA is because ordinary private lawsuits cannot keep pace with pollution that comes from so many sources and harms so many people. But the legitimacy of ends does not excuse sloppiness on means. First, "do no harm," remains good social policy. The EPA needs to hold off its regulatory offensive against carbon dioxide until it gets statutory authority to tax or regulate those older sources that do most of the damage. And then it has to consider whether a comprehensive attack on CO2 is worth the candle.
Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, and a visiting professor at New York University Law School.
Don’t Waste Time Cutting Emissions
By BJORN LOMBORG, Op-Ed Contributor, April 25, 2009,
WE are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically. But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed. Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey. Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing. In Kyoto in 1997, leaders promised even stricter reductions by 2010, yet emissions have kept increasing unabated. Still, the leaders plan to meet in Copenhagen this December to agree to even more of the same — drastic reductions in emissions that no one will live up to. Another decade will be wasted.
Fortunately, there is a better option: to make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources. This requires much more spending on research and development of low-carbon energy technology. We might have assumed that investment in this research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not. Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good. If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good.
The Copenhagen agreement should instead call for every country to spend one-twentieth of a percent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development. That would increase the amount of such spending 15-fold to $30 billion, yet the total cost would be only a sixth of the estimated $180 billion worth of lost growth that would result from the Kyoto restrictions.
Kyoto-style emissions cuts can only ever be an expensive distraction from the real business of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. The fact is, carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it in China and India, where laborers now enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine.
No green energy source is inexpensive enough to replace coal now. Given substantially more research, however, green energy could be cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century. Sadly, the old-style agreement planned for Copenhagen this December will have a negligible effect on temperatures. This renders meaningless any declarations of “success” that might be made after the conference. We must challenge the orthodoxy of Kyoto and create a smarter, more realistic strategy.
Bjorn Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School and the author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”
Sunday, December 6, 2009
#46 - Letters to the Church THREE - The Manhattan Declaration
[from Stan: As I have stated previous, as Christian, I believe that we have a responsibility before God, as stewards of this great country that we are privileged to be citizens, to stand up when evil threatens it. Twenty years ago this past spring, I spent four days in jail with over 600 others for blocking an abortion clinic as an act of civil disobedience, something I did in response to a clear call from God. Last year, a pastor in Scandanavia was jailed for preaching about homosexuality according to the teaching of Scriptures under hate crimes legislation similar to that recently signed into law by our President. (I called this bill to your attention this spring. Knowing they could not have it passed any other way, the Democrats in Congress attached it to a defense appropriations bill to make it almost impossible for conservative Republicans to oppose it.) Recently in Florida, “Michelle Winkler's life as a school administrative assistant dramatically changed the day the ACLU brought CONTEMPT charges against her for asking her husband to pray over a meal at a privately-sponsored employee banquet being held in a neighboring county. The ACLU attorneys had the audacity to ask the court to force Michelle to pay them over $30,000 in attorney's fees!” (For more information on this, I encourage you to check out LiberyCounsel.org where I learned of this.)
The document was recently signed by Christians across denominational and political persuasions asks Christians to get serious about whether or not we will stand up against evil policies that are infecting our society. If you go the appropriate website, ManhattanDeclaratioin.org, you will find the entire document to read and sign. Although it came to 7 pages when I downloaded it, it is a document worth your time reading, having, and signing, which I encourage you and your friends to do. Friend, we must ask ourselves the question: If we say we really care about what is happening morally in our country, are we willing to stand up to say so, even if one day it might mean committing acts of civil disobedience as that pastor in Scandanavia and Christians persecuted throughout the world our doing every day for even more egregious wrongs? I believe that it is sin before God to do any less.]
Manhattan Declaration Hits Almost 200,000 Signatures by Kim Trobee, editor
Statement on Christian beliefs is a clarion call to reach out to the poor and suffering.
The Manhattan Declaration was unveiled at a press conference Nov. 20. Now, more than 200,000 people have signed the document that outlines Christian teaching on abortion, marriage and rights of conscience. Chuck Colson, founder of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, said on his daily Breakpoint commentary that the declaration was a proclamation that Christians will protect the tenets of their faith.
"There, in front of all those cameras and lights, Christian leaders lovingly, winsomely and firmly took a stand," he said. "I will never forget the picture. I stood between Archbishop Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia. I looked over at Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, and Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action. It was a foretaste of what we're all going to see in heaven."
Other Christian leaders signing included Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church, the Rev. Chad Hatfield, chancellor and CEO of St. Vladimir's Seminary, Robbie George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, and Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.
Just four days after launching the Manhattan Declaration Web site, nearly 100,000 people had signed their support for the document, and that number continues to climb. Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said it's the kind of communication that captures the spirit of the Christian faith. "Inviting and answering questions, engaging in civil discourse, acknowledging where we've fallen short and investing more energy in doing the right things for other to see," he said. "It's the language of cultural change." Opponents have called the document a political tool to resurrect the "religious right." Colson said that couldn't be further from the truth. "This document is a clarion call to reach out to the poor and the suffering," he said. "It is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith. It underscores human rights, and calls on everyone to protect human dignity at every stage of life. The Manhattan Declaration was written for the common good and for justice."
TAKE ACTION
Sign the Manhattan Declaration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
