Posts Tagged ‘Science’
Praying for Rep. Beutler and her husband, especially since she is now the target of hate mail from Lefty trolls who are reveling in her pain.
Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler, a pro-life Republican from Washington state, recently shared the sad news about her unborn baby and a potentially fatal diagnosis.
Beutler posted a message on Facebook saying her unborn child has been diagnosed with Potter’s Syndrome, a condition which prevents the child’s kidneys from developing properly and is typically fatal for the baby.
On May 1, Beutler, 34, announced that she and her husband, Daniel Beutler, were expecting their first baby this fall.
“We don’t know what the future holds for our family, but we ask for your prayers and appreciate the privacy a family needs in such circumstances,” Herrera Beutler wrote. “According to the medical information and advice we’ve received, I will be able to continue to balance the responsibilities of an expectant mother with serving as your representative in Congress.”
“Our baby has a serious medical condition called Potter’s Syndrome,” Herrera Beutler announced Monday on Facebook. “We have had a second opinion and the medical diagnosis was consistent with the initial news: there is no medical solution available to us. We are praying for a miracle.”
Unfortunately, “tolerant” leftist hatemongers have decided to unleash their venom on a suffering pregnant woman:
While many offered Beutler love and support, others took it as an opportunity to gloat or proclaim that the child should be aborted. Matthew Archbold, a writer for the National Catholic Register, collected some of the comments left at the Huffington Post and elsewhere. A few gems:
– Oh goody… and she’s GOP…. let’s all watch this one develop. Let’s see if she follows the party line ….
–Abort the baby. Wait a few months. Get pregnant again. This is not a big deal.
– Why not be proactive and get an abortion?
– Sorry, prayers won’t do a damn thing.
– She should just go to a Planned Parenthood and be done with “it”, after all, it’s not a human yet.
–I laugh at her in that her political ideology has her in a corner I would wish nobody in.
This sickening behavior – gloating over a baby’s illness and her mother’s pain – is more common than you might think.
[...] What motivates these people to abuse women who have chosen to carry to term despite a poor prenatal diagnosis? I strongly suspect that many of them have been involved in an abortion – or know they would want one in a similar situation. It angers them to see someone make a choice they didn’t have the courage to make themselves. But it’s impossible for any normal-thinking person to really know what motivates them.
Like all good sociopaths, the bullies try to shift blame on to the victims, saying they were “asking for” such treatment because of their political views. Since a pro-lifer would “force” women in her situation to give birth, she deserves to be shamed and harassed throughout her difficult pregnancy.
But anyone with a normal sense of compassion and empathy would say that’s not just irrational. It’s evil. Few things are more sociopathic than abusing a pregnant woman carrying a terminally ill child – no matter what her political affiliation.
Planned Parenthood endorses post-birth abortion
View on YouTube
You won’t believe your ears. The casual way in which this woman dehumanizes infants into mere property that can be disposed of at will is vomit-inducing.
Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.
Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.
“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.
Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”
“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”
Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”
Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
“I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.
“That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that,” Snow said. “I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”
Advocates for infanticide correctly understand that the only difference between a baby inside and outside the womb is age and location. Both are living, biological human beings. So if “convenience” is the only standard for deciding who is “fit” to live, individuals outside the womb become equally disposable. Once you establish the precedent that government can deny one group of human beings the right to life, taking life from another group is relatively easy.
This is why the media is ignoring the trial of Kermit Gosnell, a late-term abortionist who would gruesomely snip the spinal cords of surviving babies with a pair of scissors. They can’t allow people to realize where their agenda really leads. They are willing to defend and justify the cruelest forms of murdering helpless infants in order to protect their false “choice” narrative.
Don’t forget that as an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted FOUR TIMES against legislation that would have provided medical care for exactly these babies, who survived a botched abortion only to be left to suffocate or dehydrate.
Liberal conspiracy theorists unite! Rolling Stone, Al Gore and others have already donned their tinfoil hats!
Hans Bader at Open Market calls it “Shades of McCarthyism“:
A government-funded study — paid for by the National Cancer Institute! — says (ridiculously) that Big Tobacco and Koch brothers created the Tea Party. The study is now being parroted by Al Gore. The study is based on strange reasoning, such as the fact that one group funded in small part by tobacco companies used the word “Tea Party” in passing in 2002, a group largely unrelated to the groups that later came into being and used it in 2009. (Because, obviously, no one had ever used the words “Tea Party” before the 21st century.) Never mind that much of America’s non-profits get money from tobacco companies, which fund countless causes, such as arts funding, domestic violence shelters, and non-profits across the political spectrum — the family behind Lorillard Tobacco is famously liberal and donates to liberal politicians. But Al Gore trumpets the study, relying on its taxpayer-funded status to buttress its credibility…
[...] As the Huffington Post notes, this “study” was “funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health.” The federal government has become so politicized that it can even use money intended for cancer research to demonize the administration’s critics.
The study was funded by federal taxpayer grants through the National Institutes of Health and its subsidiary the National Cancer Institute, both federal agencies. It’s difficult to tell how much grant money specifically went toward this study, but federal records show researchers at the university have received $7 million since 2007 to study tobacco issues.
Of course the Tea Party principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and free enterprise must be a “tobacco issue,” right? That’s why they can redirect money that was intended for cancer research into opposition research and spinning conspiracy theories (who needs cancer cures when the REAL threat is those “right wing extremists”?).
The theory was developed because a study funded by the National Cancer Institute found that the Tobacco industry and Koch brothers advocated and organized for limited government, and even used the term Tea Party. Because, as we all know, before the Tobacco industry and Koch brothers advocated for limited government and used the term Tea Party, no one had ever done that in the entire history of the United States.
It is so stupid, and such an abuse of taxpayer funding, that one would have hoped it would die in the laboratory, but it was just the sort of crackpot theory to which the left-blogosphere inevitably would be drawn. And it has.
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” ~ Colossians 2:8
The Government has washed our nation out to a sea of debt to other nations. They have created a culture of falsely believing that all life choices should equal the same financial outcome for everyone, and that everyone who believes they are due material wealth ought to have it. Children have become an “expensive burden” we seek to avoid, but debt for personal expenditures and entitlement programs are not offensive today. The common idea is that “Children are soooo Expensive!”
In our culture, we have chosen lifestyle of debt, life-long entitlement mentality and lavish living. Frugality of past generations is largely gone. Some of the poorest people appear to be able to afford Smart Phones. Priorities are definitely skewed.
There is certainly nothing wrong with nice things, beautiful homes, etc. In fact, having ambition to succeed is inherently American. However there is something decidedly different about the last two generations of Americans. The last two generations have decided to pursue these material and temporal possessions at the expense of their children, and their eternal Christian inheritance. The other problem is that very few families can actually afford to live this lifestyle, regardless of how many children they have. Most people, right out of the gate into adulthood, begin their lives in debt. They begin either in debt themselves for college, or living a lifestyle sustained by the help or debt of their own parents.
This has left a huge societal impact, because Christian families are simply not having children anymore, because of the misguided belief that their single most important contribution to their children is what they can give to them materially speaking. With fewer Christians raising their children in an intact Christian home, fewer responsible, hard working, and freedom-loving adults are being set out into society. We can clearly see the impact on our freedoms and our government and society since the nation began forfeiting children in favor of debt.
Since this has culturally become the norm, there are several societal prerequisites to qualifying to have children. Notice none of them are of eternal benefit for others, or for ourselves. This means that what society deems of value, God has spoken and said is largely worthless..even the vast educations..etc. Again, goals and accomplishment are not worthless or evil. Parents inherently want a good future for their children, and often will sacrifice to help obtain that. However, if parents put more stock into ensuring their children have all their whims met, rather than raising solidly grounded, disciplined and responsible children, we have products of their misguided efforts abounding. The pursuit of these idols of wealth above eternal perspectives, or if they are pitted against raising any children for the Kingdom, then they limit the ability of people to raise children fully for the Lord and to stand on principle in his or her nation.
You’d think if half a million people showed up in D.C. for ANY cause, it would generate more recognition on the evening news than a 10-second soundbite and a few dismissive remarks. With today’s media hopelessly intertwined with the Left, you’d be wrong.
Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the country gathered on the National Mall to voice their opposition to legal abortion in America at the 40th annual March for Life Friday.
Standing below a banner highlighting the 55 million abortions that have occurred since the legalization of Roe v. Wade, politicians and advocates spoke against the practice and the policies that validate it.
In a new low, the lamestream media have found a way to omit the inconvenient word “life” from their reporting:
Thinking of learning a new language? Try English – broadcast media style. Specifically, try abortion-reporting speak – a tongue as notable for the words it doesn’t use as those it does.
This year’s annual March for Life, this Friday, Jan. 25th, marks the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. And, though you might think it would be difficult to talk about something called the March for Life without using the word “life,” the broadcast networks have shown the utility of abortion-reporting speak. In the past 10 years, 91 percent of ABC, NBC, and CBS anchor reports on the March for Life and Roe v. Wade failed to mention the word, “life.”
In 22 reports, “life” was used just twice. The first came from NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell. O’Donnell said in a Jan. 22, 2003, “Today” segment when she introduced a “pro-life group.” The other came from CBS’ Russ Mitchell in a Jan. 22, 2007, “Early Show” report when he described a “march for life” marking the 34th Roe v. Wade anniversary.
The other 20 reports employed a variety of alternate descriptions for the March for Life and pro-life activists. The March and counter-demonstrations were rallies sponsored by both opponents and supporters of Roe v. Wade, according to NBC’s Brian Williams on Jan. 24, 2005 and his colleague Ann Curry on Jan. 22, 2007. The marchers were “opponents” (ABC’s Jake Tapper, Jan. 23, 2006), and “anti-abortion activists” (NBC’s Tom Brokaw, Jan. 22, 2003) rather than “pro-lifers” or “pro-life marchers,” as they self-describe.
The linguistic selections are far from unconscious. A recent interview by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell illustrated the “life” language prejudice pervading broadcast media. When Republican strategist Juleanna Glover identified herself as “deeply pro-life” in an interview, Mitchell interrupted, “Well, what I would call anti-abortion,” and added, “to use the term that I think is more value neutral.”
And the bias is institutionalized. Journalists should “Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice,” according to The Associated Press (AP) Stylebook’s 44th edition. Instead of making the argument about life and death or choice and constraint, AP advocates for the flat, procedural term: abortion.
This is the sick mentality we’re dealing with, though most radical environmentalists wouldn’t dare to admit it publicly.
Well-known TV presenter and environmental activist Sir David Attenborough has a dire warning for humanity – we need to die off of our own volition or mother nature will do the job for us.
Attenborough, famous for hosting numerous nature documentaries over the span of the past six decades, told Britain’s Radio Times that humans are a plague on the earth and the only way to save the planet is to limit human population growth.“We are a plague on the earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde,” Attenborough said.
“Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.”
Attenborough is best known for his “Life on Earth” series of wildlife documentaries, as well as for a previous statement extolling the virtues of saving the environment by eliminating people.
“Maybe it is time that instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment,” Attenborough is widely quoted to have said in a letter to John Guillebaud, Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health at University College London.
Funny how none of these guys every volunteer to remove THEMSELVES from the planet in an effort to stop this “plague.” It’s OTHER people whose lives they consider disposable.
Paul Ehrlich, the doomsday biologist who coined the term “The Population Bomb” more than 40 years ago with a book of the same name, says the world now faces “dangerous trends” of global climate change and overpopulation, which threaten our extinction.
Reducing the number of people is still the answer to civilization’s woes, Ehrlich and his wife Anne wrote in anarticle published Jan. 9 by London’s Royal Society.
“To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied,” Ehrlich wrote.
Ehrlich spelled out exactly what he meant in an interview with a liberal blog/news site called Raw Story.
“Giving people the right to have as many people, as many children that they want is, I think, a bad idea,” the Web site quoted Ehrlich as saying.
“Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins,” Ehrlich added.
How much you wanna bet this guy believes it’s a mother’s “right” to murder her unborn child….just not to give birth to him/her if he/she happens to expand your family larger than some bureaucrat with a god complex thinks it should be?
Of course, the “solutions” to these quacks’ anti-human hysteria involves confiscating more of your tax money to pay for other people’s abortions and population control schemes:
Little does it matter to people like Ehrlich and Attenborough that population control has usually been deeply rooted in eugenics, a science attempting to reduce “undesirable” populations, asDaniel Patrick Moloney has documented.
Nor does it seem to matter that attempts at population control have only resulted in outcomes such as China’s oppressive and coercive one-child policy, which, coupled with a cultural preference for boys, is not only decimating the country’s demographics, but causing the sex-selective abortion of millions of baby girls.
Fortunately, pro-life advocates succeeded yesterday in halting the Obama Administration’sattempt to include abortion in the list of rights protected by the United Nations. This week, we can hope they will continue to make progress toward protecting lives in the United States.
Contrary to the lies of “pro-choice” activists, the pro-life movement works to provide REAL choices for women: crisis pregnancy centers, adoption services, foster homes for unwed mothers, assistance for single mothers, counseling, and dozens of other services provided by people who care for both the baby AND the mother.
Liberal writers such as Matthew Yglesias are given to observing that pro-lifers believe that “life begins at conception and ends at birth.” At Commonweal, David Gibson, a journalist who frequently covers the abortion debate, asks how much pro-lifers do for mothers: “I just want to know what realistic steps they are proposing or backing. I’m not sure I’d expect to hear anything from pro-life groups now since there’s really been nothing for years.”
This lazy slander is as common as it is untrue. Of course, there is much more that needs to be done, but in the decades since Roe v. Wade, pro-lifers have taken the lead in offering vital services to mothers and infants in need. Operating with little support–and often actual opposition–from agencies, foundations, and local governments, pro-lifers have relied upon a network of committed donors and volunteers to make great strides in supporting mothers and their infants. It’s time the media takes notice.
In the United States there are some 2,300 affiliates of the three largest pregnancy resource center umbrella groups, Heartbeat International, CareNet, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA).
Over 1.9 million American women take advantage of these services each year. Many stay at one of the 350 residential facilities for women and children operated by pro-life groups. In New York City alone, there are twenty-two centers serving 12,000 women a year. These centers provide services including pre-natal care, STI testing, STI treatment, ultrasound, childbirth classes, labor coaching, midwife services, lactation consultation, nutrition consulting, social work, abstinence education, parenting classes, material assistance, and post-abortion counseling.
[...] If pro-life Americans provide so many (often free) services to the poor and vulnerable–work easily discovered by any researcher or journalist with an Internet connection–why are they sometimes accused of caring only for life inside the womb? Quite possibly, it is the conviction of abortion advocates that “caring for the born” translates first and always into advocacy for government programs and funds. In other words, abortion advocates appear to conflate charitable works and civil society with government action. The pro-life movement does not. Rather, it takes up the work of assisting women and children and families, one fundraiser and hotline and billboard at a time. Still, the pro-life movement is not unsophisticated about the relationship between abortion rates and government policies in areas such as education, marriage, employment, housing, and taxation. The Catholic Church, for example, works with particular vigor to ensure that its social justice agenda integrates advocacy for various born, vulnerable groups, with incentives to choose life over abortion.
One of the significant ironies of accusing pro-lifers of being “anti-vulnerable,” “anti-women,” and “anti-poor” is that poor women tend to be more pro-life than their more privileged counterparts. It is especially important, therefore, to offer them options that do not simply appeal to their economic interest or personal autonomy narrowly understood, but rather that accord with their moral outlook and overall wellbeing.
Limbaugh: Marco Rubio Is Being ‘Romneyed’
View on YouTube
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.” ~ Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”
That’s what a Leftist reporter from GQ attempted to do this week by throwing Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio an irrelevant entrapment question about the age of the earth:
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
They set these kinds of traps all the time for conservatives and Republicans, trying to get them to say something that the Left can use either to paint them as a “crazy fundamentalist,” or to alienate them from their conservative base. Rubio gave a great answer, but they’re still trying to crucify him for it.
You need to read the full interview to appreciate how much of a non sequitur this question was. He’s going back and forth with the author, Michael Hainey, about the standard post-election fare — Obama, 2016, his biography — and then, out of nowhere, “How old do you think the Earth is?” It’s not organically part of the conversation but suddenly there it is, and Hainey doesn’t follow up on it. It has a distinct check-the-box feel to it, as if either he himself or his editors wanted to make sure that the question was asked but weren’t particularly interested in the answer. Which, actually, is exactly the point of a question like this. They want to put Rubio on the spot by seeing if he’ll risk alienating religious conservatives before the 2016 primaries by rejecting Young Earth creationism. If he does, then he may have a problem in famously evangelical Iowa. If he doesn’t, then the media can start hand-wringing over the next big Republican star supposedly pandering to creationists. The point is to discomfort him politically, not to explore the subject.
Marco Rubio is on the short list of Republican presidential contenders for 2016. Of course, that’s a long way away, so who knows if he remains on the short list.
So Rubio’s a target even more so than in the past couple of years. Every question in every interview is a potential land mine. There can be no off-the-cuff remarks.
The motus operandi will be to “crazy” him, the long-standing tactic used against Republicans and particularly people like Rubio who sprang from the Tea Party movement (something he doesn’t wear on his sleeve very much) or who occupy that most reviled place in the mainstream media, religious Christians.
Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller says that they’re trying to “Palinize” Rubio because they view him as a threat:
[T]his is a strategy. Like Sarah Palin in 2008, Democrats view Marco Rubio as a major threat — not just for one or two elections — but someone who could undermine their advantage among the college educated, the young, and Latinos. Like Palin in ’08, he is viewed as an existential threat.
And just like Palin — whom they feared — they wan’t to destroy his credibility; to make him a joke.
It’s time to hit them with their own tactics. Make them answer for their own ridiculous positions, like Obama’s votes in support of infanticide or the crazy Marxist theology of every religious person in Obama’s life (including all the nuts who showed up in his ads).
How long are we going to continue to play defense on this stuff and refuse to go on offense?
The latest strategy is to try and smear any religious person running for office as “anti-science” and therefore a menace to society. WE don’t bring up irrelevant issues of theology and faith, but they’re determined to use it just like the “war on women,” so Republicans better anticipate the attacks, close ranks and refuse to eat their own, as this strategy is certainly intended to make them do.
The Declaration of Independence made us free from European powers. Obama wants to surrender our national sovereignty to unelected foreign bureaucrats once again, giving them the power to “redistribute” the fruits of American labor to third-world dictatorships.
A One World Socialist State is no longer just a crazy conspiracy theory…it’s the goal nearly within their reach.
It’s long past time to DEFUND the United Nations entirely of American money, and have them move their headquarters off our shores. They have become the tyrants the purport to prevent.
It should come as no surprise that President Obama will raise taxes if he is re-elected. But here’s the shocker: He will invite the United Nations to tax Americans directly. And the proceeds would go directly to the Third World. In this way, Barack Obama will, indeed, realize the dreams of his father.
In our new book, “Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom,” Eileen and I describe how there is now pending in the U.N. all kinds of plans to tax Americans and redistribute their wealth – not to other Americans – but to other countries. These taxes will not be like our U.N. dues paid by a vote of our Congress. Nor akin to foreign aid which we choose to give. They would be mandatory levies imposed by treaty on American citizens. And, since they would be enumerated in a Treaty – not an act of Congress — only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board. The Republican House has no role in the Treaty-making process.
(Of course, we do not believe that actual black UN helicopters will land in our midst to take over our country. But we use the symbolism to warn that the liberal, bureaucratic elites in the UN, enabled by Obama and Hillary, mean to create global governance to override American self-rule and independence).
Here is what we say in “Black Helicopters” that Obama, Hillary, and the UN are planning for us:
- A “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions. Every time you buy or sell a stock or a bond or exchange money while travelling, you’d be hit with a financial transactions tax (a percentage of your transaction) that would go to the UN.
- A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO).
- A UN-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don’t delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1600 current billionaires who will be hit. Once the precedent of a UN tax on US citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans. Again the funds will go to the UN.
- Under the Law of the Sea Treaty – up for Senate ratification in December of the lame duck session – offshore oil and gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the third world.
- A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe. Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the third world.
- A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate third world nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output.
- These taxes are, of course, only the first steps. Once the principle is established of UN taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit.
When We Left Earth: Apollo 11 Moon Landing
View on YouTube
Neil Armstrong was a great American: hard-working, honest, humble, a man of strong convictions, faith, and integrity. He was raised at a time when Americans were taught to love God and appreciate the heritage, freedom and opportunity of our exceptional nation.
He became a world-renown figure as the first man to walk on the surface of the moon in July 1969 – the face of America and mankind’s most incredible technological achievement. Yet, he never forgot that he was merely the most visible member of the extraordinary team that worked tirelessly to make that moment possible, and his experience only gave him greater awe for the Creator of the heavens and earth, who had given human beings the intelligence and capacity to accomplish such amazing feats.
Neil Armstrong was a quiet self-described nerdy engineer who became a global hero when as a steely-nerved pilot he made “one giant leap for mankind” with a small step on to the moon. The modest man who had people on Earth entranced and awed from almost a quarter million miles away has died. He was 82.
Armstrong died following complications resulting from cardiovascular procedures, a statement Saturday from his family said. It didn’t say where he died.
Armstrong commanded the Apollo 11 spacecraft that landed on the moon July 20, 1969, capping the most daring of the 20th century’s scientific expeditions. His first words after setting foot on the surface are etched in history books and the memories of those who heard them in a live broadcast.
“That’s one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind,” Armstrong said.
In those first few moments on the moon, during the climax of heated space race with the then-Soviet Union, Armstrong stopped in what he called “a tender moment” and left a patch commemorate NASA astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts who had died in action.
“It was special and memorable but it was only instantaneous because there was work to do,” Armstrong told an Australian television interviewer in 2012.
Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin spent nearly three hours walking on the lunar surface, collecting samples, conducting experiments and taking photographs.
“The sights were simply magnificent, beyond any visual experience that I had ever been exposed to,” Armstrong once said.
The moonwalk marked America’s victory in the Cold War space race that began Oct. 4, 1957, with the launch of the Soviet Union’s Sputnik 1, a 184-pound satellite that sent shock waves around the world.
Although he had been a Navy fighter pilot, a test pilot for NASA’s forerunner and an astronaut, Armstrong never allowed himself to be caught up in the celebrity and glamor of the space program.
“I am, and ever will be, a white socks, pocket protector, nerdy engineer,” he said in February 2000 in one of his rare public appearances. “And I take a substantial amount of pride in the accomplishments of my profession.”
A man who kept away from cameras, Armstrong went public in 2010 with his concerns about President Barack Obama’s space policy that shifted attention away from a return to the moon and emphasized private companies developing spaceships. He testified before Congress and in an email to The Associated Press, Armstrong said he had “substantial reservations,” and along with more than two dozen Apollo-era veterans, he signed a letter calling the plan a “misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future.”
Armstrong’s modesty and self-effacing manner never faded.
Joan Anderson recalls at Guideposts Magazine a little-known historical fact about Neil’s famous moon landing:
Shortly after the men landed, Aldrin radioed NASA and asked for a moment of silence so that “each person listening in (could) contemplate the events of the last few hours.” During this quiet period, Aldrin opened little plastic packages containing bread and wine, silently read a few verses of Scripture and received communion. “It was interesting to think that the first liquid ever poured on the moon and the first food eaten there were the Christian communion,” Aldrin said later.
Only the pastor at Aldrin’s Houston Presbyterian church—and a few NASA personnel—knew that communion was happening on the moon. Why? Because the famous atheist, Madelyn Murray O’Hare, was involved in a legal fight protesting the reading of Scripture by the Apollo 8 crew. To broadcast a private communion in a very public arena might create even more challenges, and dull the luster of this accomplishment. So Aldrin was asked to “keep it quiet,” which he did.
It was twenty years before the secret was revealed.
So what was Madelyn Murray O’Hare and her atheist friends so worked up about? This simple expression of faith by three astronauts during the Apollo 8 mission to orbit the moon:
View on YouTube
Sadly, the Narcissist-in-Chief couldn’t resist commemorating one of the most humble heroes on the planet with a photo of….himself, of course!
Maybe he’s still holding a grudge over the way that Neil blasted his plan to gut NASA‘s space exploration program.
If Obama wins re-election, he will have no problem surrendering our sovereignty to these people so they can tell Americans what to do and take our money to pay for their Socialist Utopia scheme.
Prompting warnings of a “global governance” push, the United Nations released a report Thursday proposing mechanisms including a global carbon tax, currency transaction tax and a “billionaire’s tax,” to finance development and global needs such as combating climate change.
The U.N. World Economic and Social Survey (WESS) says such taxes could raise more than $400 billion a year, at a time when donor countries are unwilling or unable – “in the midst of difficult financial times” – to maintain the levels of development aid necessary.
“Donor countries have fallen well short of their aid commitments and development assistance declined last year because of budget cuts, increasing the shortfall to $167 billion,” said survey author Rob Vos in a statement.
“Although donors must meet their commitments, it is time to look for other ways to find resources to finance development needs and address growing global challenges, such as combating climate change,” he said.
“We are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions.”
What all of these proposals have in common – in addition to their obvious intended use in promoting statist policies – is that they would erode the influence of national governments, reduce international accountability, promote waste, and undermine individual sovereignty and liberty. …Before long, international organizations will begin proposing – no doubt in the name of efficiency or reducing the burden on nation states – that affected taxpayers withhold and transfer taxes directly to the international body. This would effectively mean the end of the Westphalian system of sovereign nation states, and would result in a slew of new statist policies, and increased waste and corruption, as bureaucrats make use of their greater freedom to act without political constraint.
It’s truly a brave new world, comrades. If you’d care to light up a Marlboro or pour yourself a glass of beer, trivial things like having Washington pick your pocket are old hat. You should pay for your sins on a more global stage. Before you know it, they’ll be selling cigarettes from vending machines one at a time for five bucks a shot and bartenders will carry loan applications for when you’d like a cold one.
Resisting the Green Dragon of Environmentalism
View at American Vision
Environmentalism is a religion. “Mother Earth” is their goddess, one’s sin is quantified by a “carbon footprint,” global warming/the coming ice age/climate change is Armageddon, and “going green” is the path to salvation. The high priests of “settled science” will tolerate no dissent from the established orthodoxy, and are intent using laws, taxes, regulations and public school indoctrination to force all of society to follow their ideological agenda.
“Resisting the Green Dragon” is an education resource designed to equip Christians with the scientific and Biblical knowledge to resist the agenda of this rehashed Animistic Paganism.
Leftist pundits are freaking out about this book and DVD series, intent on discrediting it as “right wing” and “flat earther” propaganda. Whenever something pushes their buttons that much, you KNOW it’s good!
While environmentalists focus on Earth Day celebrations and public policy debates and initiatives, the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation is announcing a new initiative, “Resisting the Green Dragon,” that will sound the alarm about dangerous environmental extremism and bring a Biblical viewpoint on environmental issues and creation stewardship to evangelical churches, ministries, and schools.
The Cornwall Alliance asserts that one of the greatest threats to society and the church today is the multifaceted environmentalist movement. There isn’t an aspect of life that it doesn’t seek to force into its own mold.
“Environmentalism has become a new religion,” says Cornwall Alliance National Spokesman Dr. E. Calvin Beisner. “Its policies are devastating to the world’s poor. It threatens the sanctity of human life. It targets our youth. And its vision is global.”
“Today’s environmentalism isn’t just the conservationist belief that every generation should use the Earth wisely so that it benefits not only itself but also future generations,” Dr. Beisner said. “Environmentalism isn’t a neutral set of ideas that can be tacked onto the Christian faith without theological compromise. Instead, environmentalism promotes its own world view and its own doctrines of God, creation, humanity, sin, and salvation. And those doctrines aren’t Biblical.”
The Resisting the Green Dragon initiative includes a book by South African evangelical physicist Dr. James Wanliss; a 12-part DVD series with an impressive array of speakers who have expertise in science, theology, economics, and the environment and are respected by the evangelical community; and discussion guides, practical suggestions for small group projects, and other printed and broadcast resources.
The initiative takes its cue from James 4:7, “Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” Resisting the Green Dragon is a major, innovative education initiative that helps churches, schools, and other ministries to understand the difference between a Biblical definition of creation stewardship and both the secular environmental movement and its pagan religious counterpart. Both are making inroads into the evangelical community.
“It’s important that churches ‘test all things, hold fast what is good,’ as the Apostle Paul put it,” says Dr. Beisner. “Some of what goes under the name of ‘creation care,’ even in evangelical circles, is infected by the false world view and theology of secular and pagan religious environmentalism.”
Even when evangelical “creation care” is not theologically at fault, it often uncritically accepts claims of crisis that aren’t well supported by science, or offers solutions that out to be more harmful than beneficial.
Forest Service Refuses To Hire Professional Fire Fighting Planes To Supplement Short-handed Fleet While Wildfires Rage
Infuriating! Families across America are watching their homes go up in flames while these planes sit on the ground, because the Forest Service refuses to hire them!
Press Release: Evergreen Supertanker Ready to Fight Wildfires…
Evergreen has invested over $50M and 20,000 engineering hours to introduce and deploy this exciting technology during this fire season, with a strong focus on effectiveness, safety, and operational efficiency. A development effort from the family of Evergreen Companies, the Supertanker brings a massive payload of over 20,000 gallons of fire fighting agent (about 7 times the volume of the federal government’s largest air tanker), and a revolutionary pressurized system that allows fires to be fought from higher, safer altitudes. The Supertanker also brings an innovative capability – the ability to fight fires at night – “dormant” and most vulnerable. You can read more here.
H/T Lars Larson
How many people losing their homes and livelihoods because of this nonsense?
Michelle Malkin, whose house is in the fire’s path, writes on her blog:
Ten years ago, the feds had a fleet of 44 firefighting planes. Today, the number is down to nine for the entire country. Last summer, Obama’s U.S. Forest Service canceled a key federal contract with Sacramento-based Aero Union just as last season’s wildfires were raging. Aero Union had supplied eight vital air tankers to Washington’s dwindling aerial firefighting fleet. Two weeks later, the company closed down, and 60 employees lost their jobs. Aero Union had been a leader in the business for a half-century.
Why were they grounded? U.S. Forest Service bureaucrats and some media accounts cite “safety” concerns. But as California GOP Rep. Dan Lungren noted in a letter obtained by reporter Audrey Hudson of the conservative D.C. newspaper Human Events last year, a Federal Aviation Administration representative said it was a contractual/compliance matter, not safety, that doomed Aero Union’s fleet.
“I am deeply troubled by the Forest Service’s sudden action,” Lungren warned, “particularly as California enters into the fire season. Our aerial firefighting fleet is already seriously undercapitalized.” Both the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General have been critical of the Forest Service’s handling of the matter. All of this has been known to the Obama administration since it took the reins in 2009.
Nine months after Lungren’s warning, the deadly High Park fire in Larimer County, Colo., claimed a grandmother’s life, destroyed 189 homes and scorched nearly 60,000 acres. Arizona, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming also have battled infernos this summer.
After months of dire red flags from a diverse group of politicians ranging from Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry and Arizona GOP Sen. Jon Kyl to Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and New Mexico Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, President Obama finally signed emergency legislation last week to expedite the contracting process. Obama will borrow planes from Canada and provide $24 million for new aerial tanker contracts.
But the money won’t come until next year, and the dog-and-pony rescue moves will not result in any immediate relief. “It’s nice, but this problem isn’t fixed with a stroke of the pen,” former Forest Service official and bomber pilot Tony Kern told the Denver Post this week. “You need to have the airplanes available now.” Veteran wildland firefighter and blogger Bill Gabbert of WildfireToday.com adds: “The USFS should have awarded contracts for at least 20 additional air tankers, not 7.”
Former APA president says organization controlled by ‘gay rights’ movement, positions no longer science based
“Unbiased, Open Research [on Homosexuality] Was Never Done”
View on YouTube
At least he’s finally admitting it.
A Christian attorney says the American Psychological Association’s rejection of therapy designed to help homosexuals leave their lifestyle is “devoid of science, reality and the common practices of a counselor.”
On Wednesday, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued a strong condemnation of reparative therapy, declaring that mental health professionals should not tell homosexual clients they can change their sexual behavior through therapy or other treatments.
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, says the APA is a political organization that has chosen to leave science behind.
“When it declassified homosexuality in the 1970s, it did it against the background of a lot of science that continued to classify it as a mental disorder. It also ignored over 120 years of research, which by the way has recently been published showing that individuals who are same-sex attracted can change,” he notes.
“Consequently, the APA’s position that you’re born with it and that it would be detrimental to counsel someone to change or leave behind their same-sex attractions is simply ignoring the science.”
Staver says the APA typically recommends client-directed counseling — a counselor being sensitive to the request of a client — except when a client does not want to act on their same-sex attractions.
‘Jettison’ moral standards
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is pleased the APA recognizes the importance of client self-determination and appreciates any study on the subject. But spokesman David Pruden implies the study was one-sided. As he points out, there was no one on the study panel representing successful reparative therapy.
“There was absolutely no diversity whatsoever,” he notes. “Every one of the members of the committee were [sic] individuals who were very openly gay and gay activists.”