by Larry Miller

It’s easy to get caught up in the fight to keep our country free and forget our real purpose on earth. It was outlined when Jesus told his disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

We see the shenanigans of the Obama administration and the machinations of SEIU, ACORN, NEA and the whole alphabet soup of other leftist groups looking to pick our pockets and run our lives. But we have to keep in mind who the real enemy is while we follow James Madison’s advice that “Resistance to tyranny is service to God.”

We may not have much of a chance of changing the leaders, but the voters that picked these leaders will only change when they have a change of heart. We see tea parties increasing in influence, but how much better would it be if the values of the founders were internalized once again by the American people? And how much better for them as well if many could be shown the error of the “social gospel” or “liberation theology” ways?

As angry as we can get with Barack Hussein Obama, Andy Stern, John Holdren, Rahm Emanuel and the whole gang leading this country astray, we need to remember the words of Ephesians 6:12 that tells us “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (NIV)

Seeing these people as victims themselves is not falling into the same trap that they are setting for the country by declaring everyone to be some sort of victim in need of governmental assistance. It also does not mean that we give them a pass for their nefarious deeds, but it does somehow mellow the personal aspect of our struggle.

Now being viewed this way will send many of the secular statists of both parties bouncing off the wall, causing them to increase their hostility, yet I believe it is the way we must go. That doesn’t mean we roll over when confronted by their plans to deify leaders and the state. Our task is to put everything we have into the fight, but to keep in mind that the real enemy is spiritual and that is how we need to fight the fight.

We need to fight this battle on our knees, in the state houses, in Washington and anywhere else we have to smack down these intrusions on the liberty of the American people. If we recognize this, we can count on the promise that the battle is not ours, but the Lords. Not only the battle, but the ultimate victory.

Originally posted at Political Christian © Larry Miller

 

WesternFront America

By Larry Miller
During his inaugural address, Barack Hussein Obama promised “We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost,” This was in part, to counter what he perceived to be excessive deference to religious influences by the previous administration. At the time it was difficult to tell if he was embracing one and or simply rejecting the other.

The selection of John Holdren as the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy helps put the purpose into much sharper focus. If Holdren were simply a wild eyed academic, the damage he could inflict would be limited to the destruction of a relatively few impressionable minds behind ivy covered walls. But he is not… and the damage is incalculable if he is permitted to inflict his thinking on our whole country.

What is this thinking? How can we know what is going on in the demented mind of John Holdren. He has over the years had published hundreds of papers and articles and co-authored twenty books. These give a pretty clear picture of a man who appears to have watched far too many science fiction movies as a child.

These were the wonderful old black and white movies we saw on Saturday afternoons, such as The Monolith Monsters and Day of the Triffids. In these B movies… maybe even C movies, the problems facing humanity were almost as awful as their special effects. It was only through the lone, virtuous scientist that the earth was saved every time. I enjoyed those films myself but they could produce a warped vision of science versus the unwashed masses.

In 2006 he predicted that ocean levels would rise by thirteen inches by the end of the century. Not quite up to Algore standards, but sufficiently frightening to those who accept global warming, make that climate change, dogma.

Even more destructive though, are his views on population control… as if this were under the purview of human governments. In his book, Ecoscience (ISBN 0716705672), written with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich he expounds his views on excessive human population and what to do about it. He apparently saw no problem with someone in his exalted ivory tower setting deciding who should live, who should be permitted to have children and how many of us there should be.

If these passages don’t give you pause, perhaps you are reading the wrong material or do not comprehend the implications of this man’s thinking.

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (page 837)

On single mothers: “One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption-especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone.” (page 786)

On mass sterilization: “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems” (page 787)

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility-just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns.” (page 838)

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime-sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.” (page 942)

Some reasonable good political types would say that all this is a cause for concern. A cause for concern! Then they may even wring there hands a little. The correct response is to tell anyone who will listen that someone like this has the ear of a president who has already demonstrated contempt for constitutional limits on his authority and the bounds of common sense. It would scare the living daylights out of anyone who was paying attention.

We have our answer on the position of the president who is willing to use science, in it’s proper place, of course, as a bludgeon to control even more aspects of our lives and commit unspeakable crimes against nature. The man he appointed as his science guru belongs more in the east wing of an asylum rather than the west wing of the White House. We have already heard of some pretty outrageous schemes coming out of this administration but ideas coming from Holdren top them all. What we need to do is get past the false security that “It can’t happen here.” Then we have to do something about it.

© Larry Miller

 

WesternFront America

The opposite of health is disease, which, if terminal, results in death. The opposite of care is neglect, or dereliction, which can also result in death.

Keep that in mind as I present the case for renaming Obama’s nationalized health-care plan to better reflect the principles—or lack thereof—that are being proposed. The new name would be the nationalized negligence-unto-death plan.

A look at history will reveal why I recommend this name change.

The British, who have had a nationalized health-care system for several decades now, have also been dealing with rising health-care costs for many years. Thus, it is not at all surprising that, just recently, Parliament began debating whether British citizens should be allowed to assist others to travel abroad to commit suicide without risking prosecution.

Thankfully, some have argued that doctors in Britain want nothing to do with any sort of direct killing.  But the very fact that this discussion is occurring in a nation with nationalized health care—and rising health-care costs—should warn the politicians in Washington, D.C. that promising more than can be delivered can end up being deadly for some people.

Then there’s the news now coming from Canada, another country with a history of nationalized health-care: “With great caution, the Quebec College of Physicians is prepared to cross the line on the controversial debate over euthanasia and propose that it be included ‘as part of the appropriate care in certain particular circumstances.’”

Lest we overlook it, the abortion rate in Britain and Canada is very high, since there are few, if any, restrictions on it. In fact, in Britain, between 1968 and 2003, there have been almost six million abortions committed, or about 550 per day.  In 2006, statistics were released indicating that about three million abortions had been committed in Canada between 1969 and 2003. We learn from Jim Hughes, national president of Canada’s Campaign Life Coalition, “The magnitude of this atrocity appears to be lost on the average person in Canada.”

Clearly, in both countries, where some form of nationalized health care is in place, the suggestion that killing people is part of the long-term “benefit” is not unknown. This brings me to the sad state of affairs in the United States. In this country, we currently abort/murder one preborn child every 26 seconds. This is, by far, the most grotesque death rate in the allegedly civilized world. Mind you, this figure is for surgical and medical abortions only; the exact number of chemical abortions is unknown.

So, we should not be too surprised to learn that, under Obama’s health-care proposals, there would be changes in the way so-called health care is delivered— some subtle and some all too obvious. We have been given a hint of this in President Obama’s recent words about seniors. According to the Los Angeles Times,

President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don’t stand to gain from the extra care… He added: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Interesting, don’t you think, that a former community organizer with no medical degree is discussing how people should die and what they should be willing to surrender for the good of the cause? My oh my!
We also note that the president has sent his Office of Public Engagement (OPE) director, Christina Tchen, to speak at Planned Parenthood’s national convention.  Tchen was also part of a “common ground” conference call made by the White House, supposedly to engage people from both sides of the abortion debate in a dialogue.

“According to participants in the call, speakers expressed specific interest in finding common ground on pregnancy prevention—especially for adolescents—reducing the need for abortion, increasing maternal and child health care and assisting those who want to adopt children.”

We can very safely assume, from Tchen’s activities, that the White House’s chief advisors on formulating “health-care reform” will include the Planned Parenthood folks, who, as we know, never met an abortion they didn’t try to disguise with euphemisms. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood’s brand of “pregnancy prevention” leads to promiscuity, venereal disease and more money for the abortion coffers.
Congressman Chris Smith, a leading pro-life champion in the U.S. Congress, has warned of this and, according to a recent report, exposed the Obama agenda once again:

One quote from Obama himself, prior to his election, described “reproductive care” including abortion as the “heart” of his idea of healthcare reform.
“Well, look, in my mind reproductive care is essential care, basic care so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose,” Obama told a Planned Parenthood Action Fund Event in July 2007 during a Q&A session.
Obama also indicated that he expected all insurers to be forced to cover abortion, saying: “Insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care … that’s going to be absolutely vital.”…
”If the proposed plan moves forward without an explicit exclusion that ensures that abortion is excluded from any government mandated or government subsidized benefits, health care reform will be a death sentence for thousands of unborn children,” wrote Smith.

Obama’s health-care proposal has been described as “the silent FOCA” (Freedom of Choice Act), since, according to Smith, “Obamacare opens the spigot of public funding and does more to facilitate abortion than any action since Roe.”  I would add that it’s a “duty-to-die” proposal as well.

When we talk about bringing human beings into the world and caring for them, there should never be any thought of cutting costs over the bodies of people who are preborn, frail, deemed economically burdensome, etc. Such a notion is called utilitarianism.

Pondering the Obama plan, I have wondered aloud if it might include proposals to allow people to be sterilized in order to save money that would otherwise be spent on raising children and providing for their health care? Is it possible that the government could embrace a “child-free-zone” policy?

Let’s face it, when you have someone like Professor John Holdren now wielding power as the Obama administration’s new science czar, who can tell what kind of schemes might emerge to accomplish unspoken goals? All the while, Obama might be giving us smiling assurances that we all need to be not only healthy, but also environmentally friendly—by having fewer children, if any at all. Would anyone be the wiser?

If this sounds farfetched, then I recommend that you do a little research of your own. Experience should be the best teacher for the White House team, and Canadian David Gratzer, M.D. has already led the way: In Canada today,

[o]nly half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc…
Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction…
Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

What is the rush? Who will read the legislation, word for word? Who will investigate the impact? Will anyone pay attention to the details?

There is no need to repeat the failures of nations that have already experienced nationalized health care and have realized their errors, unless, of course, what appears to be bad medicine to some whets the appetites of those who don’t really object to a little nationalized negligence unto death.

Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

 

WesternFront America

England had “Mad King George” who was probably bipolar and eventually went completely insane around 1810. It would take another ten years before his suffering ended and he passed away, but his powers had passed to the Prince of Wales by then. In those days they knew when people were crazy and even provided an asylum from which we get the word “bedlam.”

As the days and week go by, they might as well post a sign outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue where our President conducts the affairs of state. It should simply say, “Welcome to Bedlam.”

One example of the kind of dangerous insanity circulating like swamp gas around the White House is Dr. John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor. He is so nuts that even The New York Times reporter, John Tierney, asked “Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor?”

When Bjorn Lomborg published “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, Holdren joined in an attack published in Scientific American that The Economist called “strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance.”

In a book that Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man who is now responsible for U.S. science policy advocated that women be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not, not unlike the Chinese one-child policy. Holdren also thought that single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies taken from them and given to other couples.

Holdren thought it would probably be a good idea that the population in general should be sterilized by intentionally putting infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water or food.

Holdren believed that those who “contribute to social deterioration” should be required by law to “exercise reproductive responsibility” or to put it in its purest Nazi terms, they should be sterilized.

As history reveals, the Nazis began by gassing the mentally challenged and moved on to wholesale genocide for Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and everyone else deemed an enemy of the state.

Holdren, who served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2006, holds views that are seriously out of touch with reality and totally out of synch with actual climate data.

Writing in Scientific American, he said, “the ongoing disruption of the earth’s climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable.”

Virtually no climate scientist believes that “man-made greenhouse gases” have anything to do with “global warming” because (a) there is no global warming and (b) greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide play no role whatever in climate change.

On July 13, the Space and Science Research Center called for the firing of Dr. Holdren and of NOAA administrator, Dr. Jane Lubchenko, while denouncing the Cap-and-Trade act, more formally and, in a spectacular act of mass deception, named the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

“These two individuals,” said the Center, “and other agency heads orchestrated and then signed off on the recently released government report, ‘Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.’ This report was a piece of blatant, politically motivated bad science and pure propaganda intended to reinforce the ‘big lie’ that global warming is still a threat to the planet.”

Meanwhile, over at the Environmental Protection Agency, a 37-year employee and analyst who offered a report seriously challenging the accuracy of global warming data found himself literally silenced and then alleged to be mentally unstable.

The Environmental advisor at the White House is Carol Browner, a former EPA Director during the Clinton years, close friend of Al Gore, and someone who shares his radical views on the environment and global warming. She answers to no one, not even the White House press corps who has not been able to get a word out of her. For all we know she is in her office assaying chicken entrails and shiny stones to come up with more environmental advice for the President.

Did I mention that the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, thinks we can save ourselves from global warming by painting the roofs of our buildings white?

There must surely be a few sane people among the mounting number of “czars”, advisors, and assistants, but so far the results of their accumulated advice have been frightening.

The economy is in free fall, the Cap-and-Trade bill in the Senate is based on climate fiction, billions are being given to the least practical form of energy generation, wind and solar, and the White House is talking about “reforming” the nation’s health system.

Every day the White House treats Americans to the Crisis-de-Jour; the latest nonsense being a Swine Flu “pandemic” and a questionable vaccine that will be forced on school children and others.

It’s bedlam!

© Alan Caruba

 

WesternFront America