Friday, December 18, 2009

Human Sacrifice for Gaia:Environmentalism at Its Worst

A Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson

December 18, 2009

Regular BreakPoint listeners know about the inhumane lengths some environmentalists are prepared to go to "save the planet."

Some have proposed taxing the parents of newborns several thousand dollars to discourage child-bearing, and thereby reducing CO2 emissions. Others have spoken of "culling" the human herd.

What these proposals have in common, besides their cold-bloodedness, is that mainstream environmentalists keep insisting that they are "fringe" views. Well, recent statements from sources that couldn't be more "respectable" put the lie to those claims. And they should remind Christians why the sanctity of human life must be our highest priority.

During the recent U.N. global warming summit in Copenhagen, China came under fire for not doing enough to reduce its CO2 emissions. However, China had at least one defender: Canada's Financial Post.

According to Canada's equivalent to the Wall Street Journal, China is "the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation." Hold it a minute! How can the world's leading emitter of CO2, and home to 16 of the world's most polluted cities, be a "world leader"?

Simple: its one-child policy. According to theFinancial Post, the "inconvenient truth overhanging" the deliberations in Copenhagen is that "humans are overpopulating the world." What's needed is for the entire world to embrace China's one-child policy.

This "simple" and "dramatic" fix would reduce global population by 50 percent by 2075. According to the paper, the failure to even consider such a measure at Copenhagen is proof that world leaders aren't serious about global warming. I'm not making this up.

Advocating a global one-child policy doesn't make the Financial Post as bad as the Chinese government—it makes it worse. The Chinese policy was an inhumane, brutal, and totalitarian effort to address the historic problems posed by China's huge population.

In contrast, the Financial Post and others like it are motivated by a worldview that sees humans as a kind of virus infecting mother earth. For Gaia's sake, they want the human population brought under control—even at the cost of human freedom and life itself.

In the aftermath of the Manhattan Declaration, some people questioned our focus on life issues. They wondered why we didn't include other concerns, like the environment.

This is why. The sanctity of human life is under continuous assault. This assault isn't limited to abortion and euthanasia—contempt for human life itself has become respectable. For the sake of the planet, we are being asked to drastically reduce our numbers.

But radical environmentalists don't mean people like themselves—after all, their home countries, with the exception of the United States, are losing population. They mean the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet. It's no coincidence that a recent ad in a British newspaper about the link between CO2 emissions and population control featured 12African babies.

This is the "inconvenient truth overhanging" the debate about environmental issues.

And it's why the sanctity of human life is so important. If you haven't done so, go toManhattanDeclaration.org, sign the statement, and get your friends to do the same thing.



Saturday, December 12, 2009

New Moon

 clipped from www.informz.net

Flirting with Danger
New Moon

December 11, 2009

You may remember that last year, Mark Earley on BreakPoint reviewed the film Twilight, which was all the rage. Now there's a Twilight sequel, which is drawing millions to the box office.

I can't tell you to just go back and read that earlier review because New Moon, the second entry in the series, has a brand-new set of disturbing and possibly even dangerous messages for young girls.

If the story in Twilight was a textbook case of an unhealthy relationship, New Moon is a study in how not to break up. At the beginning, the vampire Edward leaves town with his family, leaving behind his teenage girlfriend, Bella, for her own protection.

Bella responds by going nearly catatonic for three months, withdrawing from family, friends, and classmates. From there, she goes steadily downhill.

Bella discovers that every time she does something dangerous, she has a vision of Edward scolding her. So she proceeds to go for a motorcycle ride with a biker she meets on the street. She tries driving a motorcycle herself with no instruction, thus resulting in a bad accident. And finally, she nearly drowns herself while cliff jumping in a lonely spot.

Do I even need to point out what's wrong with this picture?

In fact, both Bella and Edward show an appalling disregard for their own lives, not to mention for the way their actions might affect others. Edward romanticizes the idea of suicide, repeatedly stating his determination to kill himself if anything bad ever happens to Bella, and telling her, "You're my only reason to stay alive."

Bella herself has an abnormal fear of aging, longing to remain eternally young like Edward. She's so afraid of growing old that she panics on her 18th birthday. And she doesn't care that becoming a vampire might deprive her of her own soul; instead, she tells Edward, "Take it, I don't want it."

My colleague Molly Wyer has written an excellent study guide on Twilight, which you can find at BreakPoint.org. She writes that "even though Bella knows that Edward is...constantly tempted to drink her blood, she does not pull back from the danger. Instead, this terrifying possibility seems almost to add an edge of excitement and danger to their relationship. While Edward's vampiric attraction to blood is clearly wrong...Bella wants to become a vampire as well. She longs for what is forbidden."

Yet another troubling aspect of the story centers on Jacob, a rival for Bella's affections. New Moon reveals that Jacob is a werewolf, meaning that, just like Edward, he could seriously endanger Bella if he ever lost control of himself for a moment.

Essentially, this means Bella has to spend her life walking on eggshells around both of her romantic interests, not daring to make either one of them upset.

Do we really want to be presenting what looks like a classic abuse victim as a role model for young girls?

If your kids are at even remotely interested in the Twilight craze, or if they read about it or get involved with their friends, you need to sit them down and talk to them about some of these issues. Teenagers swept off their feet by New Moon need to know that in real life, danger isn't romantic or glamorous.

It's just plain dangerous.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.
Sent with Clipmarks

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Fwd: BREAKING NEWS: GAO ZHISHENG NEEDS YOUR HELP, FAMILY REPRESSED!

I encourage you all to take a few minutes to sign this petition on Gao Zhisheng's behalf.  This is day 308 since his disappearance.  
 
Travis Coleman
14090 FM 2920 
Ste G, Box 179
Tomball, TX  77377
Ph: 405-301-5846
Fax: 415-358-0421

Begin forwarded message:

From: ChinaAid <info@china-aid.org>
Date: December 9, 2009 11:11:09 PM CST
Subject: BREAKING NEWS: GAO ZHISHENG NEEDS YOUR HELP, FAMILY REPRESSED!

ChinaAid & VOM
 

DAY 308: GAO ZHISHENG TORTURED, FAMILY REPRESSED!

ChinaAid recently received another report from inside sources in China that Gao Zhisheng has been severely beaten by authorities. The report stated his current living condition is worse than death and that Gao is crying daily in pain and desperation.

The Chinese government has responded to the increased worldwide pressure for Gao Zhisheng's release by cutting off communication with two of Gao's siblings living in China and placing them under police surveillance.

In a November 26th interview with Radio Free Asia, Gao's brother, Gao Zhiyi, stated, "For every question, there are three unknowns. No one knows anything. They won't talk to us and they won't meet with us... Even if Gao Zhisheng had committed a terrible crime, his family would still have the right to know what had happened to him!"

On Saturday, December 5th, Gao's older brother (Zhiyi) and sister lost all communication contact when their phone lines were disabled, following the release of the RFA interview.

Now more than ever, Gao Zhisheng needs our help!

In a recent visit to Washington, D.C., ChinaAid met with several leading congressmen who have been moved by their constituents (those like you) telling Gao's story - and they have proposed a Congressional Resolution on Gao Zhisheng's behalf. Our American leaders have begun to listen, and with more voices, we can make that resolution a reality!

So far, 5,284 people have contacted their local U.S. Representative to speak out on behalf of Gao Zhisheng. Continue to add your voice! We have to keep the momentum going on behalf of this innocent man who himself was a defender of the persecuted.

Please take action now.

1) Encourage others to Sign the Petition to Free Gao Zhisheng. You can forward this email to all your friends.

2) Email your U.S. Representative. Even if you have already done this, you can do it again with the updated information. Encourage your friends to do likewise. Learn more about contacting your U.S. Representative

3) Join ChinaAid in fighting for prisoners of conscience like Gao Zhisheng throughout China with your financial support. Make a monthly or one time contribution now.

We thank you for your support of ChinaAid, and urge you to continue spreading the word. Gao's story is gathering force in Washington, DC. With your help, our leaders will know that we concerned American citizens will not rest until Gao Zhisheng and his family are free to enjoy their fundamental human rights.

For more ways to take action, visit www.FreeGao.com.

For more information on other cases of religious persecution, visit www.ChinaAid.org

 

This online offer is being presented by ChinaAid and The Voice of the Martyrs. For additional information, you may contact us by clicking here or calling at 888-889-7757. To view our privacy policy, click here.

If you do not wish to receive these occasional offers, simply indicate here to remove your name from this list.


Thursday, December 03, 2009

Do you recognize America?

Transcript of Glenn Beck Radio Show December 3, 2009 - 11:46 ET

Changes in America in one . . . only one. . . year.

 clipped from www.glennbeck.com
Now, hello, America. How are you? It is an interesting world we're living in. It's interesting that I started the broadcast with that today as one of the things I want to talk to you about is I said a year ago ‑‑ was it a year ago today or yesterday? When was it, Stu, that I said ‑‑ it was about a year ago. It just came up on ‑‑

PAT: I think it was a year ago today.

GLENN: Just came up on Stu's calendar. I said it was at this time that I said a year from now, by Christmas, you will not recognize this country. And we were talking about it this morning. And Stu said, I don't know. I mean, I don't know if that's right.

PAT: The buildings look about the same, the freeway on ramps are exactly where they used to be.

GLENN: That's exactly right.

PAT: They're still crowded on most of the major thoroughfares.

GLENN: I started making a list, just rattling off a list of the things that if I would have told you were happening in this country a year ago, there's no way you would have believed, no way. Not a chance. We'll give you that list, and I'd like you to help me add to that list. Do we have the list now? We're just printing it out because I ‑‑ I just rattled off the list. Oh, it's how many? One, one, two, three, four, five, six pages. That's it, though. It's only six pages, okay? And this is just off the top of our heads. You ready?

Won't recognize the country a year ago, you will not recognize America a year from now. Ready? If I would have told you last year at this time that the government would own General Motors, Chrysler, and many of the banks and financial institutions and AIG, that they would fire the CEOs, that they would threaten the banks, that they would shut them down unless they would take that money, that they would hire good people for places like AIG and pay them a dollar to fix the problem, a dollar a year, these people would volunteer; but they would also promise them, the government would, that they would promise them bonuses if they would just work for that dollar a year to fix the problem. When that year came up, they would not only give them that bonus, they would vilify them, send their minions out to protest in front of their homes for even wanting the bonus that they were asked, that they were promised by the government and then people in Washington would then set out to have a specific tax drawn up just for those people, would you have believed it?

PAT: I don't think so.

GLENN: Not only would they take over GM and fire the first guy, the president would fire a CEO but then the second individual that they put in place of the first guy, he would be fired and the guy they replaced, this is the third now person under Barack Obama's term, the third CEO of General Motors. No one in the media would report that that guy is the man who helped Rahm Emanuel make $16 million in one deal.

If I told you a year ago, which I did, you won't recognize the country, you will not recognize America a year from now, I said that a year ago; if I told you instead that there would be a 9/11 Truther, a guy who said the United States government blew up those buildings, a self‑avowed communist, a guy who, a guy who is speaking in prison anticop, who defended a guy who point blank shot a cop in the head, if I said he would be a high level advisor to the president of the United States, would you believe it? If I said the president would come out in a speech and say I have absolutely no information but the cops acted stupidly because they caught a friend of the president appearing to break into his own home, the cops didn't act stupidly, they just did their job and the president would never apologize, instead he would invite them all for a beer summit and use it as a learning experience about diversity, would you believe it? If I would have told you instead of saying you won't recognize this country a year from now, if I instead told you I'm going to be on the cover of Time magazine, would you have believed it? That I'm going to be one of the ten most fascinating people in 2009, you've got to ask yourself what the hell happened to this country. If I would have told you instead that the most frequent visitor of the White House, over the Secretary of State and everybody else, is a labor union president who has repeatedly said workers of the world unite; and we know we've got a lot of illegal members, illegal aliens in our membership, and who chief guy said, yeah, but we also represent American workers, end quote, that he would be the most frequent visitor at the White House, would you have believed it? That the president of the EU would say that 2009 was the year of establishing a global government through the EU and that the climate change treaty would be the next step in one world government, that there would be a call for the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency by several massive countries and that the leader of Russia would hold up a coin in front of the cameras and say here's a prototype of the new global currency, that in government‑structured bailouts, bondholders would lose their legal status and their investments in favor of labor union payoffs and the courts would say, "Hmmm, yeah, okay." That you could lose your home and property through eminent domain and eminent domain would expand in staggering ways. That California would decide to levy a 10% tax on its people and insist it's not a tax; it's just a forced loan. That they would issue IOUs instead of tax refunds. That New York would say by the end of the year they would be broke. That New York would issue retroactive taxes, that a tax fund for the poorest of Americans would not really be a tax refund. Instead those poorest of Americans would find out many months later that they had to pay income tax on that tax refund. If I told you that the symbol of capitalism, the Empire State building, would be lit in colors of communist China, would you have believed me? That the hockey stick chart would be discredited as would its founder along with another leader of the global climate change movement who manipulated data, that they deleted e‑mails and information to avoid Freedom of Information Act, that these same scientists would do everything they could to discredit the peer review process to make sure it remained pure for their ideological purposes, and yet the media wouldn't report on it and we'd still be headed to Copenhagen with a president the who was going to present a 17% reduction in carbon. For our country, that our science czar, John Holdren, our science czar would be someone who called for forced abortions and sterilization through the drinking water, who said that the redistribution of wealth would be necessary and it would happen through the environmental movement. That the diversity czar at the FCC, if I just told you a year ago there would be a diversity czar at the FCC, would you have believed me? That the diversity czar at the FCC would say Americans have to decide soon which Americans would have to step down from their positions in order to give others a chance, that this same man said the revolution in Venezuela was incredible and that we should model our FCC and our programs after Venezuela and the revolution. That the U.S. would have a two‑day summit to discuss the role of government in journalism and be discussing a government takeover of journalism and that no journalist would actually report on that. That they would hold a job summit and not invite the Chamber of Commerce, that two uninvited people could get into the White House state dinner, chat with the president, be near the prime minister of the largest democracy on the planet and that the response from the White House would be, yeah, we need to do a better job with security. That a U.S. congressman would tell the American people that it's unreasonable to expect people in congress to read bills, and he would say that because our congress would pass two bills over 1,000 pages, that no one in congress had read. One of them was over 2,000 pages. That a job creating stimulus bill would be written, not read by congress but not even written by congress. It would be co‑written by the Apollo Alliance, a special interest group whose New York chief was a co‑founder of the Weather Underground and no one would care! That people in congress would openly be praising Castro, Chavez, that the president would receive an ‑‑ if I said to you a year ago, "You know what's going to happen next year: The president is going to receive an anti‑American book and a photo op from Hugo Chavez and then he would have a one‑hour private meeting with Vladimir Putin where Vladimir Putin, quoting, would teach the president the history of the Cold War. That our president would give an iPod of his speeches to the queen of England. That he would send the bust of Winston Churchill, which was a gift from the people of England; when the prime minister came over that our president would say to him, hey, by the way attention thanks, but you can take this back to him now and the prime minister would say to him, no, no, no, that was a gift from the people of England to you and you can keep it in one of your museums; we gave it to you on September 11th. No, no, that's okay, and box it up and ship it back!

If I told you that there would be hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered in a true grassroots event in a National Mall in D.C. and the media would not only dismiss them but the government, the president and the media would deem them a danger to the United States, that healthcare would be at 36% approval rating, which is lower than Hillary Care but that those in congress and the White House would still be jamming it down your throats. That the chief of the treasury who oversees the IRS cheated on his taxes as would almost everyone else in the cabinet. If I told you a year ago when gold was about $800 an ounce that it would be at $1200 an ounce, would you have believed it? That Dubai which a year ago was bailing out our banks would be on the edge of bankruptcy. If I told you we're going to lose 4 million jobs and the media would report that the White House has created or saved a million jobs even though in their evidence you have to find their evidence on a $20 million redesigned website where it would show that a good portion of these jobs were in about 400 districts that don't even exist. If I told you that, would you have believed it? Looking at that list, do you recognize the country that you live in? Is this the same country that you lived in a year ago today? I don't think so. I don't recognize it. If I would have told you that there would be a Muslim terrorist and that he would shoot and killed soldiers at Fort Hood, would you have believed it? If I told you then that, yes, the president will make a statement but he will spend two minutes prior to giving a shoutout and talking about the conference he had with the American Indian, would you have believed it? If I then told you after that two minutes he would then say then, oh, and also there's been a shooting of our military but let's not jump to conclusions. And then his Homeland Security director would be over in the Middle East and she would say, don't worry, we're working on things to stop the violence against Muslims in America, would you have believed it?

I can be wrong on an awful lot of things and I have been wrong on an awful lot of things. But when will people in this country, when will the media at least say, gosh, it looks like the direction of our country and the one this guy keeps laying out, gee, some of those things seem to be happening. When will anyone in the media even notice how far we have come?
Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.
Sent with Clipmarks

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Our most basic freedom

 clipped from www.informz.net

Stand Up for Religious Freedom
Now Is the Hour

November 18, 2009

Allow me to make a very direct statement. I believe it is time for the Church in this country to stand up for religious freedom.

Especially over the course of the last few years, we have seen repeated efforts—in the courts, in state legislatures, in Congress, and on Pennsylvania Avenue—to erode what has been called the first freedom: religious liberty.

It isn't hard to cite numerous cases where Christian organizations and individuals have been singled out and punished for adhering to their faith.

In New Jersey, a Methodist camp lost its tax exempt status for refusing to hold a same-sex civil union ceremony. In California, Christian doctors were successfully sued for refusing to offer in-vitro fertilization procedures for a lesbian couple. Catholic Charities in Boston had to shut down its adoption services because it was being forced by the state to place children with same-sex couples.

The current health care bill has no protections for religious medical personnel or health care providers who, by reason of conscience, refuse to participate in abortions. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is gathering momentum in Congress. The bill would require even Christian-owned enterprises with more than 15 employees to hire those who do not share their faith.

The list could go on and on.

So why is religious freedom such a concern to us as Christians? Freedom of religion is called the first freedom for a reason. Our founding fathers recognized that without freedom of conscience, no other freedom can be guaranteed.

Christians, in fact, are the greatest defenders of religious freedom and human liberty—not just for Christians, but for all people. Compare religious freedom in those countries with a Christian heritage to the state of religious freedom in Islamic nations, communist countries, and Buddhist and Hindu nations, and you will see my point.

The reason that Christians place such a high value on human freedom is that freedom itself is part of the creation account in the Bible. God made humans in His image. He gave us a free will to choose to love, follow, and obey Him, or to follow our own way.

That free will, given us before the Fall, is part of human nature itself.

Perhaps more than anything else, it was this understanding of individual freedom that turned me into the kind of patriot who would willingly give his life for his country. It was the words of the Declaration of Independence that inspired me to join the Marines: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

So this question of human freedom goes to the very heart of who we are as Christians and as Americans.

So this Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, a statement signed 125 evangelical, Orthodox, and Catholic leaders will be released—an historic declaration on life, the family, and religious freedom.

And please, today, go to ColsonCenter.org to view my Two-Minute Warning video on religious freedom. We will have some great resources for you. Then Friday at noon, we will have for you the declaration itself—probably the most important document I've ever signed.

The Church needs to understand the urgency of the hour and do its duty.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.
Sent with Clipmarks

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Beijing and Heath Care

 clipped from www.informz.net

As the New York Times reported Sunday, Chinese officials are questioning American officials about health care reform in the U.S. As the Times wrote, "The Chinese were not particularly interested in the public option or universal health care....They wanted to know, in painstaking detail, how the health care plan would affect the [U.S.] deficit."

Why would the Chinese be so interested in our deficit? Well, for all intents and purposes, China is the official banker of the United States government. China is the number one foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities.

And, as the Times reports, "like any banker, they wanted evidence that the United States had a plan to pay them back."

Somehow, I doubt the President had any such evidence to give them in Beijing this week.

The Chinese are nothing if not clever. One investment banker told me that they had converted all of their debt from 30-year maturity to one year. The hard questions they are asking right now are about how much the health care bill will raise the deficit. And make no mistake, if the Chinese decide not to continue financing our debt, the dollar could drop through the floor. America could have a huge financial crisis.

Isn't it ironic that the communist Chinese are more concerned about the cost of socialized medicine than the President and the Congress? That the Chinese communists are more concerned about the U.S. government printing money like it's going out of style than we are?

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.
Sent with Clipmarks

Andy Stern

This is not a good thing. This is a very bad thing.

 clipped from www.glennbeck.com
Because workers of the world unite, it's not just a slogan anymore. It's the way we're going to have to do our work. We're trying to use the power of persuasion and if that doesn't work, we're going to use the persuasion of power, because there are governments and there are opportunities to change laws that effect these companies. I'm not naive. We're ready to strike. It started last summer with the so called big box. Unions in every Kmart, every Wal Mart labor wanted it; business didn't. We took names. We watched how they voted. We know where they live. There are opportunities in America to share better, to rebalance the power, and unions and governments are part of the solution.
Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.
Sent with Clipmarks

Thursday, November 12, 2009

We do not belong to the government.

 clipped from www.informz.net

Boondoggle or Worse?
The House's Health Care Reform Bill

November 12, 2009

Ronald Reagan once joked, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Well, the Gipper was wrong. I have 12 even more terrifying words: "I'm the government's health care choices commissioner. Let me see your insurance policy."

You see, the health care choices commissioner will be the head of just one of the 111 new government agencies created by the mammoth health care reform bill, which passed the House last Saturday by the narrowest of margins.

Unless you've read all of the nearly 2,000 pages of the bill, you might not have heard of the health care choices commissioner. But there is a lot more in this bill you've never heard about as well.

For example, as Bill Pear writes in the New York Times, supporters of gay rights included an amendment that would lower taxes for gay couples, ensuring tax-free health care benefits for an employee's same-sex partner. This was never debated on the floor, nor was it passed as a tax measure.It was just swept up into what has become the health care grab bag. So chalk one up for the gay lobby.

Then there's a provision requiring vending machines to post calorie counts for the goodies they offer. And fast food chains will have to provide a "calorie count for each standard menu item." Health care reform?

The bill also has new programs such as grants for home visitation programs, in which nurses and social workers can coach new mothers on parenting practices and teach them how to interact with their child "to enhance age-appropriate development."

Like most of the congressmen, I haven't read these provisions, so I'm not sure who gets to decide what "age-appropriate interaction with children" is. But I'm not sure I want the government making those kind of decisions—telling parents how to interact with their kids.

I'm all for health care reform. Adequate health care is too expensive for too many. If we could clean up Medicaid and Medicare and provide health care subsidies for the working poor, I and a lot of other people would be dancing in the streets.

Now, the House members deserve some credit. They fought for, and won, pro-life provisions in the House bill.

But it's all now up for grabs in the Senate. Hopefully, the Senate will come up with a more responsible bill, which does not add a trillion dollars to debt, and which does not put the government in absolute control of our health care. The biggest issue to me is whether the government ultimately makes life-and-death medical decisions.

We've seen glimpses of this already. Just look at Florida's plan to combat a potential swine flu emergency. The state's approach to treating patients will be "the greatest good for the greatest number." But this utilitarian approach is a potential death sentence for the elderly and those with disabilities.

I urge you to go to the ColsonCenter.org and view this week's installment of the Two-Minute Warning, where I talk about the dangers of utilitarianism—especially as it relates to health care. And you can download some very valuable free materials.

I wouldn't be so concerned if this health care reform bill were just another example of bad legislation. But I fear much more is at stake. A government that decides who lives and who dies is no longer a government of the people and by the people. And it's certainly not a government for the people.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.
Sent with Clipmarks

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Battlefield Triage vs. Indiscriminate Rationing

 clipped from www.informz.net

And now the Florida Department of Health has issued a set of guidelines that instructs hospitals on what to do "if the state is overwhelmed by [H1N1] cases."

The guidelines recommend that hospitals bar "patients with incurable cancer, end-stage multiple sclerosis and other conditions from being admitted to hospitals." Another "recommendation" is that doctors "remove patients with poor prognoses from ventilators to treat those who have better chances of surviving."

To facilitate this culling of the herd, the guidelines "suggest" that "intensive care unit patients and those using ventilators to be reassessed after 48 to 72 hours." Those who have gotten sicker "would be taken off the machines or discharged from critical care" and replaced by those "who may have a better chance of survival."

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.
Sent with Clipmarks

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

It Makes a Difference What We Believe because reality exists

 clipped from www.informz.net

You're Teaching My Kid What?
Exposing the Sex-Ed Biz

November 10, 2009

This commentary contains material that may not be suitable for children.

Dr. Miriam Grossman was lecturing at a Philadelphia college about sexual health. The students had invited her to talk about something they'd never encountered in all their years of sex education—the dangers of non-marital sex.

Grossman will never forget the girl who told her that everything she'd said about sexually transmitted diseases was correct. "I always used condoms, but I got HPV anyway, and it's one of the high-risk types," the girl said. If the infection did not go away, she had a 40 percent chance of developing cervical cancer.

In her new book, You're Teaching My Child What?, Grossman says she felt "a wave of sorrow" at the girl's words—but she was hardly surprised. The girl was yet another victim of a destructive philosophy that has been forced on America's youth under the guise of "sex education."

The sex-ed lobby has always claimed it was all about health—teaching kids how to stay safe. But in reality, their goal was not preventing disease, pregnancy, and emotional distress. It's about indoctrinating them into a radical ideology—sexual freedom. Kids are urged to consult websites that urge them to begin "exploring" their sexuality at a young age, insist that sex at any age is a right, and encourage them to engage in bizarre and dangerous activities.

The findings of science are not allowed to interfere with these radical teachings. If new research proves the dangers of the behaviors they advocate, the so-called "sexperts" simply ignore it.

For instance, sex educators urge kids to avoid pregnancy by engaging in oral sex. But two years ago, cancer specialists found that oral cancers were on the rise among young adults, who used to be at very low risk if they did not smoke or drink.

If kids interact with five or more partners, they increase their risk "a whopping 250 percent." And yet sex educators, Grossman writes, portray this activity as safe and normal.

What's the result of this teaching? One in four American girls now has a sexually transmitted disease.

What do the sex educators say about this? They shrug it off, telling kids that "most" people contract an STD in their lifetime—as if such a thing were normal and unavoidable.

This ought to make us really angry. The "comprehensive" sex educators have done enormous harm to our kids. They keep right on teaching kids that life is a sexual-free-for-all with no consequences as long as they use so-called "protection."

Read Dr. Miriam Grossman's book, You're Teaching My Child What? You can get a copy at BreakPoint.org. And then, share it with the teens in your life. They need to know the truth—that while STDs, cervical cancer, and heartbreak may be increasingly common, they are no more "normal" than swine flu.

Once again, science is backing up the truth of the Judeo-Christian worldview. That is, sex ought to occur exclusively within the context of marriage. And anybody who tells us otherwise is sacrificing truth, science, and the health of our children.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.
Sent with Clipmarks