Saturday, December 12, 2009

From Darwin to Planned Humanity

One thing the UN's climate conference in Copenhagen has not suffered from is a lack of controversy. Starting from the viral video of Lord Monckton warning of plans for a one-world government to the hacked emails of British and American scientists that uncovered a global-warming cover-up, the conference was always going to struggle to find credibility. The latest revelation from the conference takes the real motives of some of these so-called "green" people to another insidious level altogether.

Yesterday, a Chinese ministry official proudly declared that their one-child policy was a successful way to reduce emissions. The Chinese claim that their restrictive birth policies have resulted in an emissions saving of 1.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide.

I like to call this ideology Planned Humanity and I'll explain why.

Let's start with the Nazis. They relied on the theory of eugenics when implementing a strategy of purifying the German race from what they considered unwanted elements such as Jews and homosexuals. Eugenics has been described as "the self-direction of human evolution" which of course seems like a somewhat natural progression in thinking if you subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution. If we are just evolved monkeys, then we should act like the rest of the animal kingdom and only allow the strongest to survive.

Although discredited by the actions of the Nazis, eugenics managed to continue its legacy through Planned Parenthood. The founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood) was a lady by the name of Margaret Sanger, who just also happened to be a racist and a promoter of eugenics. Today, most of Planned Parenthood's locations are in minority areas and even though blacks only make up 13% of the US population, abortions in this minority group are one third of the total performed. Sanger's racist legacy lives on in the most diabolical way.

Okay, so that's how we get from Darwin to Planned Parenthood. How do we get to Planned Humanity?
Just this week the EPA declared carbon dioxide to be of public danger. Yes, that means you and I are polluting the earth every time we breathe out. By that measure, China is suddenly a very responsible, earth friendly country that's limiting its CO2 emissions by birth control.

So, if humans are reduced to a pollutant on the earth, and abortion is morally acceptable, then it's not a stretch to believe that having an abortion will be elevated to more than just a "choice". Now you're taking it to a whole new level of global responsibility: Have an abortion, and save the planet!

In fact, forced abortions for irresponsible CO2 emitters who over-populate would be perfectly feasible. A plan would need to be made to reduce humanity's emissions by controlling the population's growth. We'd need Planned Humanity.
We might like to believe that we have evolved beyond the excesses of the Nazis, and that no one thinks one race of man is more "efficient" than another, but as we've learnt through Planned Parenthood, an ideology based on something as evil as eugenics will never ensure a non-discriminating approach to the annihilation of human life.

Most of us would probably not believe that the shocking Planned Humanity of the Chinese could ever find itself a home here in the West, but my feeling is that the groundwork has already being laid. The evolution and pro-choice movements might just have found in global warming the spark to light their fire.

May God save us from ourselves.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

What will be left after the West has gone?

For the last 70 years, one thing has stood between tyrants and their ability to have their way in this world; American hegemony. Despised from Europe to the Middle East, it nevertheless managed to rid the world of the Third Reich, the USSR and yes, even Saddam Hussein. So, how is it that the land that afforded the West so much of the freedom it has enjoyed is not much appreciated around the globe?

The only way I can explain it is to say that I do not believe the concept of "The West" even exists much in Europe anymore, let alone any other part of the world. I lived in Finland for a few years, and people there hardly knew what I was talking about when I referred to the West. This may be a result of a historical disconnect from the concept, but I think it more attributtable to a conceptual disconnect from history.

Wikipedia explains the West to be:

Western European or Western European-derived nations which enjoy relatively strong economies and stable governments, allow freedom of religion, have chosen democracy as a form of governance, favor capitalism and international trade, are heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values, and have some form of political and military alliance or cooperation

It doesn't take a genius to look at that description and realize the components missing in Europe and America today that makes titling them "the West" incompatible.

Europe long ago gave up favoring capitalism and Judeo-Christian values, choosing instead socialism and the removal of God from their constitution. The idea of personal responsibility before one's Creator was replaced with a government ensured Utopia where narcissism was propelled to the national level, leaving Europe unable to even defend itself let alone resolve conflicts such as that in Kosovo without American intervention. Even democracy has been eroded as the European Union elitists in Brussels decided what is best for their happy, carefree masses.

It has taken the United States a long time to get to the point where it is ready to follow Europe's example, but now that it has, the pace of the change is startling. In less than a year, banks, automobile manufacturers and possibly now the health care industry would have been socialised. American's willfully chose a President who ran on the platform of big government that would replace personal responsibility. And it wasn't long after he came to power that he declared that this was not a Christian nation. Unless something dramatic happens, it is safe to say that America will soon look a lot more like Europe, and the West just be a relic of those days sometime before the Berlin Wall came down.

The question is what will fill the vacuum? With American power and dominance out of the way, what opportunity does this present for the world? A scary one to say the least, if the suggestions to date are to be taken seriously.

Russia, China and India have called for a new world reserve currency to replace the dollar, with President Medvedev having already minted a new coin which he proudly presented to G8 leaders this month. A picture of that coin is below.

They see a declining US economy that offers a chance for a new global financial system not so controlled by America.

The Pope has even weighed in, calling in his most recent encyclical for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy. He also supports wealth redistribution by governments on so-called moral grounds.

If capitalism, so long championed by Americans, is being targeted for removal by a system of globalised socialism, then what of democracy, a system the US has tirelessly tried to export? Look no further than Islam. Emboldened by the seeming collapse of capitalism, they are now ready to export their own political system to what once was the West. Make no mistake, Islam is much more than a religion. It means submission, and the proof of that is seen clearly in every political system that it produces. Ask Iranians today whether or not they feel any pressure to submit to the Islamic system that governs them. It's also worth mentioning that President Obama in his now famous Cairo speech spoke in clear terms to the Islamic world in ways that compared America's form of governance to those of Islam's.

Just this past weekend, a global Sunni network called Hizb ut-Tahrir openly held a conference in Chicago entitled "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam". Their aim is to establish a global Islamic empire, or caliphate, as commanded by Mohammed. Below is the YouTube video they used to advertise the event.

Now, few would believe that this group will achieve world dominance, but one only has to look at the success that Islam has had in countries like the U.K. to understand that the global Islamic agenda of world dominance is not abetting and is now being sought with greater encouragement than ever. And let's be clear, it is not ultimately your death they seek, but rather your submission to Islam, or in technical terms, Sharia law.

Whether the current US administration is willfully guiding America towards a new world order , or if they are simply ignorant to what's going on is yet to be seen. Unfortunately, if you believe anything Kissinger has to say then it's the former, since America's role in the world clearly needs to be changed for a new system to evolve.

So, what will be left after the West has gone is not really a sure thing. What we do know is that one day all of man's vain attempts at world dominance will be laid waste as every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Oh, and by the way, unlike other gods, He doesn't need man to bring in His kingdom through holy war, or jihad.

Laying claim to Jerusalem Part II

This is a follow up to my previous blog about the mystery that is Jerusalem and the struggle that still rages over its sovereignty. As if to prove the point I made about President Obama laying a foundation upon which Israel's claim to sole sovereignty is denied, his administration has now been found to have asked Israel not to build apartments in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem.

There are numerous problems with this development.

The primary issue goes back to Israel's sovereignty. What's apparent is that Obama, like so many other Presidents before him, lusts after the Holy Grail of world peace; reconciliation between Israel and the Arabs. What's frightening is that he's decided Israel's natural expansion in the land is the greatest impediment to that peace being achieved. On the one hand, it's confirmation of the fact that Israel's contribution to this conflict has little to do with its military endeavors, and a lot more to do with the outrage and violence that is produced on the part of the Arabs as a result of Israel's very existance on the land. On the other hand, it shows a complete lack of impartiality, and even a dangerous tendency to support the notion that Palestinian areas should be Judenrein.

In this particular case, the land in question was in fact purchased by an American Jew in 1985, and is currently abandoned. It was not annexed, stolen, nationalized or assumed control of by any method other than in a legal manner as exercised in most parts of the world where exists the rule of law. Unfortunately, for a President who believes that Israel's right to exist flows from the horror of the Holocaust, it is not surprising that a different standard is applied to the Jew when seeking to operate as any other citizen in the world.

It is my belief that the American administration is working hard to ensure that the final peace deal does not fail. To do that, they have decided that Israel must understand that their claim to sovereignty over Jerusalem is not only under contention, but is ultimately to be denied. To put it another way, the issue of Jerusalem, which was always a final status item, has already been decided upon by Obama, and now Israel only has to submit and the Holy Grail will be securely within his grasp.

Netanyahu must be commended for standing firm under the mounting pressure. There's much at stake. After all, either Jews have a right to exist in the land of their forefathers or they are just refugees displaced after the great and many evils of World War II.

Laying claim to Jerusalem

There's something mysterious about Jerusalem. I've lived there, on two separate occasions, for a total of almost seven years and I'm always excited to go back. Yet, when I finally get there, after the long climb up the road from Ben Gurion airport, it's always a little anti-climatic. On paper, Jerusalem is really nothing that special. Sure, it has the history, but there are far more beautiful cities in the world. There are certainly cleaner ones, with better planning and nicer drivers.

Yet everyone wants a piece of it. And everyone has a different opinion on who it belongs to and what should be done with it.

Even President Obama.

In his famous speech from Cairo, Obama opined for "all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer". This story is traditionally understood by Muslims to have occurred on the Temple Mount. Aside from the obvious problems there are with a professed Christian stating that his God's idea of peace is for the three major (and competing) religions to just "mingle" in His holy city, there is a dangerous thought at work here. Assuming that all three faiths, Christianity, Judaism and Islam have an equal claim on Jerusalem sets a very dangerous precedent.

The issue is one of sovereignty. Or, let me be more specific, denial of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem. Obviously, Jerusalem is currently under Jewish control, and in fact all three faiths do already worship there in remarkable freedom. It's worth noting that in 1967 when Israel captured the Old City in the Six-day War, Minister of Defence, Moshe Dayan made an immediate statement affirming Israel's commitment to freedom of religion, and ceded administrative control of the Temple Mount to the Islamic Trust (Waqf). What is it exactly about this situation that doesn't work for everyone now? Why is it that America's President thinks there is something broken here that needs to be fixed?

You have to go back to the story of Isra. If Moses, Jesus and Mohammed all joined in prayer, who did they pray to? Are we to believe that there are three routes to the same god? Am I to understand that my God is so confused that He cannot decide how to "reveal" himself to different people? That's not what this is about. No, this is all about affirming the validity of the three religions, and in turn their respective claim to Jerusalem. It's not really about God at all.

And that's the big glaring point! It's God who has a claim to Jerusalem, not Judaism, or Christianity or Islam. And He's decided to give it to Israel as an inheritance. They are His custodians whether you like it or not. What a cheek, to bring God into an argument and then deny Him right to His own land. Of all the real estate in the world, God chose a thin sliver of dust filled land as His own, and picked a small group of people from the nations to live there and deliver His message of salvation to the world.

When you deny the Jewish people the right to sovereignty over Jerusalem, you might as well tell God to get off His throne because you think you've figured out a better way to run the universe. The audacity.

So, getting back to my opening line, what is it that makes Jerusalem so mysterious? Why is it so exciting and yet so frustrating? For me, there's just something eternal about it. You can't have heaven in your heart, and not be stirred by the Spirit when you enter the city God says He will make new, and then rule and reign from for eternity.

This year in Jerusalem!

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Who will speak for the unborn?

This week, Obama gave another commencement speech, this time at Notre Dame University. Not afraid of a little controversy, he waded into the abortion debate right there in front of a community of Catholics. His "fair-minded" approach was to suggest that since the pro-choice and pro-life views are irreconcilable, we should all focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies and increasing adoption. Sounds good, right?

Maybe in a world where we all accept abortion is not murder. However, less and less of us are buying that, despite our pay grade.

Almost 90% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Mid-way, at six weeks, the heart is already beating. You don't need special training to work out whether that little fella is alive yet or not. Even if we assume that only 25% of abortions occur after 6 weeks, that amounts to a quarter of a million lives being aborted annually in the US.

None of this resonates with our President, despite his statement that it has "moral and spiritual dimensions". So, who will speak for the unborn? Who will cry out for the millions of lives being sacrificed annually to the god of convenience?

During Obama's speech something quite chilling happened. Watch the video below and turn the volume up between 1.27 and 1.38 seconds. While he babbles on and on with all his "fair-minded" talk about abortion, a baby starts crying in the crowd.

Yes, there's a moral and spiritual dimension to this issue, and yes, sometimes God will even use a baby to make a point, especially when everyone else is silent.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Commencing with the good and the bad

I decided to tune into last night's broadcast of the President's first commencement speech at Arizona State University. Having recently attended my wife's commencement at Vanderbilt University, I was interested to hear what Obama would have to say to graduates entering work life in the current economic climate.

First off, there's no doubt that the President can deliver a mean speech. He could easily have the reverse career of Reagan and go into acting after politics. Not likely, but anyway, besides great delivery, there was actually some good content in the speech.

I think his main take-home for the graduating class of 2009 can be summed up by the simple phrase, "substance over form". While attacking the culture of greed that has permeated American society, he successfully, I believe, inspired the next generation to take a path more righteous; to forgo the pursuit of wealth and status in favour of a life of meaning and accomplishment. Good stuff. Can't fault the man there.

But, here's where the speech lost its way a bit. Obama insists on invoking the legacy of Abraham Lincoln when he speaks. While it's understandable, since everyone admires Lincoln, there's a huge difference between how the two men understand the role of God in this country. Obama attributes the greatness of America to the outstanding character of certain individuals and generations throughout its history. Lincoln, however, saw a direct relationship between the nation's relationship with God and the blessing it subsequently received. He even went so far as to say that the Civil War may been God's judgement for the nation's falling away. (See this excellent analysis by comparing two men's National Day of Prayer Proclamations).

Imagine Obama telling the nation to repent because it had turned its back on God and was now suffering an economic collapse as a result. Rather, while recently in Turkey, Obama emphasized that point the America is not a christian nation. See below.

While Obama may actually have a point, in that the nation is in the very quick process of turning away from God, as a professed christian himself, he seems to feel no need, or indeed have any courage, to lead the people back toward the God to whom they owe their freedom, liberty and success.

As most politicians do, he ended his speech with a nice healthy "God bless you, and God bless America". And that's where I get really annoyed. If you're not willing to publicly credit God with any previous blessing, then why call upon Him to rain down His blessing now? If Lincoln is a model leader for this nation, then why not be unashamed as he was to call the nation into repentance before expecting a blessing from God?

The good thing is that the President is an inspirational leader with an excellent work ethic. The bad thing is that he doesn't seem to understand God's sovereignty, and that works need faith, just as faith needs works.

Suggested reading for the President: Hebrews 11, James 2, and Lincoln's National Day of Prayer Proclamation.

And here's his speech in case you missed it:

Part I

Part II

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Who says Obama only bows to Saudi kings?

A friend of mine was very kind to point out, following my blog about Obama bowing to the Saudi King, that it is not uncommon for the President to strike this posture when meeting other heads of state.

To prove this, below is a picture of Obama from his recent trip to Mexico where he met the Mexican President and his family.

See, he even bows to the family dog!

So, what exactly have we proved here? Seems Obama treats the Saudi King just like a dog.

And the English Queen? Well, she'll just have to settle for being pawed by Michelle.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Just where do Obama's loyalties lie?

Sometimes, actions really do speak louder than words. If Obama's body language during his recent trip to the UK is anything to go by then we should all be very worried as to where his loyalties really lie.

Here he is meeting the Christian Queen of England:

And here he is meeting the Muslim King of Saudi Arabia:

Did you see him bow to the Queen? No. Think about it.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

High hypocrisy

Everyone's outraged by $165 million in bonuses paid out by AIG to its executives after being bailed out by the government to the tune of $180 billion. Congress is moving quickly to slap on a tax to recoup the money. Obama even feigned some anger, telling Geithner to find a way to block the bonuses.

Bunch of hypocrites.

Just last week, Obama called for the earmark process to be reformed while rushing through a $410 billion spending bill that included $8 billion in earmarks. Apparently, there wasn't time to go line by line through that bill, given the urgency, so the American public just has to suck it up again.

Funny how that works, because one might think that had proper thought been given to the AIG bailout, the company may have been forced to first renegotiate its contracts to exclude costly bonuses, before any money would be handed over. Should we really expect irresponsible companies to behave after being rewarded for almost ruining the entire financial system?

No, I guess only the government behaves like that.

And in any event, I seem to remember a certain individual being thrown an inauguration party that cost $170 million before he had even completed a day of his term.

Shouldn't the highest post in the land set the highest standard? Not so far. Welcome to high hypocrisy.

Monday, February 16, 2009

A good week for Islamic extremism

Four days ago, Dutch MP Geert Wilders was refused entry to the UK on the grounds that he would threaten public security. He was interviewed by the BBC after being detained immediately upon arrival. It should be noted that Wilders represents the 3rd largest political party in the Netherlands and that he has no criminal convictions against him in the EU. Charges of hate speech have been filed against him in the Netherlands, but he is still innocent until proven guilty.

Wilders had actually been in the UK a few weeks before, without inciting any violence, or threatening any public security. The issue here comes down to the fact that he was invited to show his movie Fitna at the House of Lords. Wilders has had numerous death threats made on his life as a result of the critical views of Islam he expresses in the film. As if that is not ironic enough, it would seem that the British government is now willing to muzzle free speech for fear that its Islamic community may live up to the kind of violence Wilders says their religion engenders.

Here's Fitna in case you haven't seen it so you can decide for yourself just how dangerous this kind of free speech can be:

Part I

Part II

Across the pond, Obama did a sharp turnabout in US policy this last weekend by reversing a seven year legacy that the Bush administration upheld when the State Department announced that it would be sending a team to join the negotiations in Geneva ahead of the UN Conference on Racism in April. At face value this may just appear part of the new President's talk-to-anyone approach, but what might be missed is the real reason his predecessor kept the US out of this particular UN event.

The purpose of this conference is to evaluate the goals set by the first conference of this sort held in Durban on the eve of September 11. Then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, pulled the US out of that conference due to the deliberate, and anti-Semitic, way in which Israel was singled out for condemnation.

For President Barack Obama to believe that things will somehow be different this time round is naivete at best, downright dangerous at worst. With Libya holding the Human Rights Council chair and Iran guiding the proceedings, the agenda is focused on criminalising the state of Israel and outlawing any form of so-called Islamaphobia.

This video sums it up:

Call me paranoid, but the West, if there is such a thing anymore, appears to be caving in to the threat of Islamic violence on all fronts. So, watch out what you say about Islam, because the Muslim response may break our sacred peace. And don't dare stand up for Israel, because that might enrage entire Islamic nations.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Inauguration Day

Just a few random thoughts after Obama's big day.

Gotta admit that our new President is inspiring, no matter what you may think about his policies, beliefs or associations. There's a certain discipline about him, a firm focus on achieving his personal objectives. In this case, those objectives will become a part of our corporate future. Heavy stuff.

As many have said already, let's hope that he's the best President ever. Heaven knows we're going to need a rediculously good one.

Talking of heaven, Pastor Rick Warren served his saviour well today. He gave Jesus honour before millions at the mall and around the world. When he lead the attendees in the Lord's Prayer, he made sure to note who the author was. Obama could not have made a better choice. Good signs.

With all that is going on though, you won't be hearing much about Gaza. Israel very thoughtfully pulled its troops out in time for the new President's swearing in ceremony. Its mission for the most part complete, they have done Obama a huge favour by delivering a new reality on the ground. Hamas came out of this conflict less popular than ever. They thought their fighters would stand up to Israel as Hizbollah did in Lebanon, but instead they cowered behind women and children and have lost credibility throughout the Arab world.

Tomorrow, President Obama won't have to deal with having to make a call between allowing Israel to defend its citizens from Hamas terror or stopping the loss the civilian life in Gaza as Hamas fights a war from behind its own people.

However, as many a President has learned, the Israel-Arab conflict is not one that can be ignored for long. The world will pressure the new President to take a harder line with Israel than Bush did. And Muslims around the world will be looking for Obama to deliver on his promises of reconciliation. The decision Obama will inevitably be faced with is a choice between improving America's "standing in the world" or standing up for Israel in the world.

May God help him, guide him and give him wisdom. He has our prays.

Monday, January 5, 2009

The Bush standard

It's popular nowadays to bash Bush. Few will rally to his defence. But, today, that didn't stop the President from defending Israel, and laying the blame for the ongoing violence in Gaza squarely at Hamas' door. He said that Israel has the right to defend itself and that a truce must see Hamas unable to launch more rockets into Israel.

Bush has set a standard for dealing with the Israel-Palestinian conflict; no moral equivalence. Try to find another world leader who's ready to call it like it is, who's willing to take a side and admit the obvious that Hamas and the Palestinians who voted them into power have brought this trouble upon their own heads.

Obama has many challenges before him when he takes office this month. Meeting the Bush standard on this issue will certainly be one of them.