It has always been a moving experience. I’ve been fortunate enough in my lifetime to see it firsthand on several different occasions. But for whatever reason, the last time I witnessed it, emotion took over and I couldn’t hold back the tears. What I’m referring to is the changing of the guard at The Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.
Watching these elite sentinels going about their duty, I was reminded of what a privilege it is to live in the United States of America. And I became overwhelmed as I thought of the supreme sacrifice that many have made so that I might live free. As I walked away that day, I voiced a prayer of thanksgiving, expressing my gratitude to God for giving me the blessing of being born an American.
Yesterday we celebrated Memorial Day in our country. I would be lying if I told you I spent the whole day honoring those who gave their lives for this country. But I did pause for a few moments yesterday to remember and reflect. To me, that’s what Memorial Day is all about. Not everybody, apparently, shares my feelings.
For presidential candidate and former senator John Edwards, Memorial Day is a time to protest an unpopular war in Iraq. He seems to think that a public demonstration against the war on Memorial Day is appropriate, but only after first “taking a moment of silence beforehand to honor the fallen” (as if that will make it ok). Mr. Edwards believes that an anti-war rally on this sacred holiday is the best way, in his words, “to honor the memory of those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and to honor the troops serving us today.”
How ironic that he wants to honor the troops serving today, when he has personally expressed his support for a bill that would cut the funding to those in harm’s way. That’s essentially what the Congress tried to do by sending a bill to the President linking money for the troops with a timetable to get out of Iraq. And isn’t that a great idea? Publish our plans on how we’re going to retreat for the whole world to see. I’m no expert on military strategy, but that doesn’t sound like a course of action that will support the troops. And by passing a war-spending bill that the President had no choice but to veto, the Congress was, indirectly, cutting off funding for our servicemen and women.
Yet John Edwards actually had the nerve to claim that President Bush was, and I quote, “vetoing Congress's bill that would support the troops.” He’s got to be joking. Let’s look at this thing logically. Imagine if every divorced father who pays child support in America accepted this reasoning: “I’m going to support my child by withdrawing all funding.” And you think we have a problem with dead-beat dads now, just wait until all the divorced fathers adopt the Edwards plan. Some may even use it as a defense in court:
Your honor, I’m supporting my children in the same way that John Edwards and the Democrats in Congress are supporting the troops. I’m giving them nothing!
It’s not hard to see the inherent problems with the ideas of John Edwards and other like-minded Democrats. I’m sure they have the best of intentions, but faulty plans usually lead to disaster despite the loftiest objectives.
And now that Memorial Day has come and gone, what was the result of Mr. Edwards' call for anti-war protests? Three of today's headlines immediately jump out at me:
-Vandals deface veterans’ graves with swastikas in Washington state.
-Teens arrested for tossing eggs at color guard in Massachusetts.
-Vandals in Philadelphia spray swastikas on American Legion building.
I’m not saying that these three incidents were directly related to John Edwards’ call for protests. In fact, they probably weren’t. But when Mr. Edwards suggests that Memorial Day is an appropriate time to demonstrate against public policy concerning American troops in harm’s way, he gives a certain legitimacy to those vandals (if only in their own minds) that they would not have had otherwise.
Mr. Edwards, you were wrong. You should apologize to our nation, to our soldiers in harm’s way, and to all the families who have lost loved ones that were fighting for our freedom.
There are 365 days in a year. Whether you’re for the war or against it, Memorial Day should be about those who’ve given their lives for this country. Pick out another day from the 364 remaining and protest on that date, but leave the last Monday in May alone.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
A Tale Of Two Funerals
It was a little over a year ago. The occasion was the funeral for Coretta Scott King, the first lady of the American civil rights movement. Some 10,000 mourners gathered to remember her life and pay tribute to her legacy. What our nation deserved and her memory demanded was a memorial service conducted with dignity and respect. What it turned into, disappointingly, was a political skewering of President George W. Bush.
As our forty-third President sat on the platform, Joseph Lowery, former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, took to the podium and said:
We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.
Isn’t it amazing how Rev. Lowery managed to work in a dig at the President while still invoking the name of the deceased? Somebody please explain to me why, when a venerable leader like Coretta Scott King passes away, the first thing that comes to mind is, “Where are the WMD?”
Now before I go any further, let me state for the record that I am not an apologist for President Bush. I’ve supported him on many of his decisions, and been quite disappointed by more than a few of his others. The point I’m trying to make is this: where was the outrage from the left when this funeral turned into a political rally for the Democratic National Committee?
Some on the left chose to simply remain quiet rather than risk speaking out publicly against this classless display. Others couldn’t wait to applaud Rev. Lowery for using the pulpit as a platform to attack Bush. Representative Jan Schakowsky took the opportunity to write in her blog:
Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, President Emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a long time soldier in the civil rights movement and colleague of Dr. King, did what the movement has always done - speak truth to power, and was rewarded with several standing ovations. His poetic tribute to Mrs. King spoke of "weapons of misdirection...millions without health insurance, poverty abounds. For war billions more, but no more for the poor."
I’m sorry congresswoman, but that wasn’t a poetic tribute. It was a deliberate politicizing of a memorial service that should have been handled with reverence. There should have been quick condemnation from the Democrats and left-leaning pundits, but it simply did not happen. And for that, they should be ashamed.
So why am I bringing this up now, some fifteen months later? Because today another funeral was held, this time for an icon of Christian conservatism: Dr. Jerry Falwell. If you can use your imagination for just a moment, let’s play the game of What If. What if Rev. Franklin Graham had walked to the pulpit today and said:
We know now that our former President lied about having relations with an intern. But Dr. Falwell knew, and we know that character counts when it comes to our political leaders.
Does anyone, conservative or liberal, believe that such a statement would be appropriate at a memorial service? I would be the first one to step forward and condemn a eulogy like that. And I’m sure my friends that lean to the left would shout their displeasure from the rooftops. I can hear it now:
These comments today by Rev. Graham are absolutely despicable. No funeral service should ever be turned into a political convention. Rev. Graham should apologize immediately for his outrageous actions.
Of course, we know that Franklin Graham would never stoop so low as to do what Rev. Lowery did at the King funeral. But we also know that for those on the left, there is no place off limits when it comes to spreading political propaganda. And depending on who’s doing the talking, there is a clear double standard.
As our forty-third President sat on the platform, Joseph Lowery, former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, took to the podium and said:
We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.
Isn’t it amazing how Rev. Lowery managed to work in a dig at the President while still invoking the name of the deceased? Somebody please explain to me why, when a venerable leader like Coretta Scott King passes away, the first thing that comes to mind is, “Where are the WMD?”
Now before I go any further, let me state for the record that I am not an apologist for President Bush. I’ve supported him on many of his decisions, and been quite disappointed by more than a few of his others. The point I’m trying to make is this: where was the outrage from the left when this funeral turned into a political rally for the Democratic National Committee?
Some on the left chose to simply remain quiet rather than risk speaking out publicly against this classless display. Others couldn’t wait to applaud Rev. Lowery for using the pulpit as a platform to attack Bush. Representative Jan Schakowsky took the opportunity to write in her blog:
Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, President Emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a long time soldier in the civil rights movement and colleague of Dr. King, did what the movement has always done - speak truth to power, and was rewarded with several standing ovations. His poetic tribute to Mrs. King spoke of "weapons of misdirection...millions without health insurance, poverty abounds. For war billions more, but no more for the poor."
I’m sorry congresswoman, but that wasn’t a poetic tribute. It was a deliberate politicizing of a memorial service that should have been handled with reverence. There should have been quick condemnation from the Democrats and left-leaning pundits, but it simply did not happen. And for that, they should be ashamed.
So why am I bringing this up now, some fifteen months later? Because today another funeral was held, this time for an icon of Christian conservatism: Dr. Jerry Falwell. If you can use your imagination for just a moment, let’s play the game of What If. What if Rev. Franklin Graham had walked to the pulpit today and said:
We know now that our former President lied about having relations with an intern. But Dr. Falwell knew, and we know that character counts when it comes to our political leaders.
Does anyone, conservative or liberal, believe that such a statement would be appropriate at a memorial service? I would be the first one to step forward and condemn a eulogy like that. And I’m sure my friends that lean to the left would shout their displeasure from the rooftops. I can hear it now:
These comments today by Rev. Graham are absolutely despicable. No funeral service should ever be turned into a political convention. Rev. Graham should apologize immediately for his outrageous actions.
Of course, we know that Franklin Graham would never stoop so low as to do what Rev. Lowery did at the King funeral. But we also know that for those on the left, there is no place off limits when it comes to spreading political propaganda. And depending on who’s doing the talking, there is a clear double standard.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Truth And Consequences
What happens when an unproven theory is mistaken for scientific fact? The unproven theory suddenly becomes dogma that all must accept or risk being called ignorant, ill-informed or just plain stupid. No, this isn’t another rant about man-made global warming, although the similarities are astounding. This is about Darwinism, which has become its own weird sort of religion in our world today.
Former Arkansas governor and Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has come under fire recently for acknowledging that he doesn’t believe in evolution. Apparently, there are those who think that anyone who believes in creationism should be disqualified for the office of President. One blogger I read this week, referring to Huckabee, said:
What does it say about someone that they’ve managed to get to be 52 years old and be nearly completely ignorant of the foundations of biology?
Well, let’s see. First of all, the foundations of biology have nothing to do with Darwin’s theory that man evolved from the primeval slime into amino acids, then proteins, then a prehistoric virus, then a single-celled amoeba, then a shelled fish, then an invertebrate fish, then a vertebrate fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a bird, then a mammal, and finally a man. To suggest that this line of succession has anything to do with biological fact is absurd. It makes for some pretty interesting diagrams, but it is far from scientific. Once again, the parallels with global warming are mind-boggling.
Secondly, since we’re discussing the foundations of science, let’s consider physics. The second law of thermodynamics says everything runs inexorably from a state of order to disorder. In other words, things left to random chance always become more scattered and disarrayed. If I had a brand new car that I could park in the wilderness for 50 years, do you think it would end up in better shape or worse after being left alone for half a century? Let's face it: that car's not going to be ready for the showroom floor and probably won't even crank. The point is that, left to natural processes, things don't magically improve on their own.
Third, let’s consider the argument from logic. One of the basic principles of logic is that intelligent design implies a designer. If you ever visit Stone Mountain in Georgia, you’ll see the world’s largest mass of exposed granite. It is an impressive sight to witness this gargantuan gray peak rising above the green forests that surround it. Even more impressive, however, is what you’ll find on one side of the mountain: the images of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson hewn into the rock. Now does anyone really believe for one moment that these three Confederate heroes wound up on that granite rock as a result of wind erosion and the forces of nature? You can’t look at that memorial without realizing that there had to be a designer, an artist who planned it all out and made it happen. If that is true of a carving on an oversized granite boulder, how much more is it true of you?
You see, I refuse to believe that my life appeared here on earth simply by chance. To believe in evolution would mean that we are all just accidents, biding our time until our bodies become food for worms. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has summarized human life in this way:
We are because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species . . . has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a higher answer - but none exists.
That is one of the saddest things you'll ever read. If that’s true, then there is no God. And if there is no God, then there is no right or wrong. No wonder we’ve accepted things like moral relativism and abortion in our country. We’ve replaced morality with a “survival of the fittest” mindset. And why shouldn’t we. After all, if there’s no God, there’s obviously no heaven or hell. And isn’t that what most people are searching for in the new millennium? An anything goes mentality and a lifestyle that is free from consequences.
But if that’s the way you choose to live your life, you’d better make sure that you are 100% right. Eternity is long; so don’t be wrong.
Former Arkansas governor and Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has come under fire recently for acknowledging that he doesn’t believe in evolution. Apparently, there are those who think that anyone who believes in creationism should be disqualified for the office of President. One blogger I read this week, referring to Huckabee, said:
What does it say about someone that they’ve managed to get to be 52 years old and be nearly completely ignorant of the foundations of biology?
Well, let’s see. First of all, the foundations of biology have nothing to do with Darwin’s theory that man evolved from the primeval slime into amino acids, then proteins, then a prehistoric virus, then a single-celled amoeba, then a shelled fish, then an invertebrate fish, then a vertebrate fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a bird, then a mammal, and finally a man. To suggest that this line of succession has anything to do with biological fact is absurd. It makes for some pretty interesting diagrams, but it is far from scientific. Once again, the parallels with global warming are mind-boggling.
Secondly, since we’re discussing the foundations of science, let’s consider physics. The second law of thermodynamics says everything runs inexorably from a state of order to disorder. In other words, things left to random chance always become more scattered and disarrayed. If I had a brand new car that I could park in the wilderness for 50 years, do you think it would end up in better shape or worse after being left alone for half a century? Let's face it: that car's not going to be ready for the showroom floor and probably won't even crank. The point is that, left to natural processes, things don't magically improve on their own.
Third, let’s consider the argument from logic. One of the basic principles of logic is that intelligent design implies a designer. If you ever visit Stone Mountain in Georgia, you’ll see the world’s largest mass of exposed granite. It is an impressive sight to witness this gargantuan gray peak rising above the green forests that surround it. Even more impressive, however, is what you’ll find on one side of the mountain: the images of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson hewn into the rock. Now does anyone really believe for one moment that these three Confederate heroes wound up on that granite rock as a result of wind erosion and the forces of nature? You can’t look at that memorial without realizing that there had to be a designer, an artist who planned it all out and made it happen. If that is true of a carving on an oversized granite boulder, how much more is it true of you?
You see, I refuse to believe that my life appeared here on earth simply by chance. To believe in evolution would mean that we are all just accidents, biding our time until our bodies become food for worms. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has summarized human life in this way:
We are because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species . . . has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a higher answer - but none exists.
That is one of the saddest things you'll ever read. If that’s true, then there is no God. And if there is no God, then there is no right or wrong. No wonder we’ve accepted things like moral relativism and abortion in our country. We’ve replaced morality with a “survival of the fittest” mindset. And why shouldn’t we. After all, if there’s no God, there’s obviously no heaven or hell. And isn’t that what most people are searching for in the new millennium? An anything goes mentality and a lifestyle that is free from consequences.
But if that’s the way you choose to live your life, you’d better make sure that you are 100% right. Eternity is long; so don’t be wrong.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Something Old, Something New
It was only a matter of time. For years we were told that over-population was going to spell disaster for this planet, and that we were all headed for doomsday. Well, those predictions turned out to be just a wee bit overblown and somehow the earth has managed to survive. Now, however, environmental extremists have figured out a way to take their latest pet cause, global warming, and marry it to their past obsession of over-population. In so doing, they are trying to resurrect the outdated idea that human beings should put serious limits on procreation. OK, so it’s not a defunct practice in China, but do we really want to pattern ourselves after that red country?
Their argument is this: having children is bad for the environment. John Guillebaud, co-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, was quoted as saying, “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.” And isn’t that what most couples do when they consider the pros and cons of having a baby?
Let’s see, on the one hand we’ve got the miracle of childbirth and the resulting precious gift from God. On the other hand, though, we’ve got to consider the carbon footprint left behind by that precious gift from God. Oh, I hate these tough decisions.
What this tells me is that the environmental extremists and those who are pro-abortion are, by and large, singing from the same hymnbook. Those calling for population control today will be working tirelessly tomorrow to loosen restrictions on abortion in this country. Democratic members in the House of Representatives are, in fact, already considering legislation that would do precisely that.
Just two weeks removed from the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion, there is already a concerted effort underway in this country to prevent any further erosion of a woman’s so-called “right to choose.” It’s called the Freedom of Choice Act, and you can read all about it at http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA2007HR1964.html. (Thanks to Angel from my comments page for this information. We may have disagreements in other areas, but we both believe in the sanctity of human life.)
One of the things that the pro-abortion crowd insists upon is that abortion be allowed to protect the health of the mother. But the way they define health allows for abortions to be performed simply because a child is going to add stress to the mother’s life. The Supreme Court has even said, “Mental & physical health may be taxed by caring for a child.” With all due respect to our past and present justices who helped write that brilliant opinion, all I can say in response is DUH!!! Of course it’s taxing caring for a child, but does that mean that if the stress gets too tough we can just kill them? Using that logic, if a woman’s husband becomes a quadriplegic and she doesn’t feel like taking care of him she should just put a bullet in his head.
I’ve also been told that, as a man, I can never understand how traumatic it is for a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy. That may be true, but by that logic we should kill every child who has ever traumatized its parents. If that were the case, I would have been dead a long, long time ago. Let me just take this moment and say thank you to my mom and dad for not killing me when I made your lives miserable. Unfortunately, many in our world today don’t feel that a baby in the womb should get the same protections that I had after I was born. Northeastern University professor Eileen McDonagh has said, “The fetus massively intrudes on a woman’s body and steals her liberty, justifying the use of deadly force to stop it.” When I read garbage like that, I feel that cold chill going down my spine again.
But let me get back to our subject. To me, it is the height of hypocrisy when those who work so hard to save the life of a tree have no problem snuffing out the life of an unborn child. I can respect the environmental extremists who stand up for life because at least their position is not inconsistent. But for someone to care more about reducing emissions than they do about reducing abortions seems like a case of misplaced priorities.
With the renewed concern today about over-population, this will be just one more excuse for the pro-abortion crowd to find new ways to devalue life in this country. Despite how they try to spin it, the truth remains that unborn babies in our country continue to be regularly discarded simply because they are an inconvenience. And that, my friends, is an inconvenient truth.
Their argument is this: having children is bad for the environment. John Guillebaud, co-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, was quoted as saying, “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.” And isn’t that what most couples do when they consider the pros and cons of having a baby?
Let’s see, on the one hand we’ve got the miracle of childbirth and the resulting precious gift from God. On the other hand, though, we’ve got to consider the carbon footprint left behind by that precious gift from God. Oh, I hate these tough decisions.
What this tells me is that the environmental extremists and those who are pro-abortion are, by and large, singing from the same hymnbook. Those calling for population control today will be working tirelessly tomorrow to loosen restrictions on abortion in this country. Democratic members in the House of Representatives are, in fact, already considering legislation that would do precisely that.
Just two weeks removed from the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion, there is already a concerted effort underway in this country to prevent any further erosion of a woman’s so-called “right to choose.” It’s called the Freedom of Choice Act, and you can read all about it at http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA2007HR1964.html. (Thanks to Angel from my comments page for this information. We may have disagreements in other areas, but we both believe in the sanctity of human life.)
One of the things that the pro-abortion crowd insists upon is that abortion be allowed to protect the health of the mother. But the way they define health allows for abortions to be performed simply because a child is going to add stress to the mother’s life. The Supreme Court has even said, “Mental & physical health may be taxed by caring for a child.” With all due respect to our past and present justices who helped write that brilliant opinion, all I can say in response is DUH!!! Of course it’s taxing caring for a child, but does that mean that if the stress gets too tough we can just kill them? Using that logic, if a woman’s husband becomes a quadriplegic and she doesn’t feel like taking care of him she should just put a bullet in his head.
I’ve also been told that, as a man, I can never understand how traumatic it is for a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy. That may be true, but by that logic we should kill every child who has ever traumatized its parents. If that were the case, I would have been dead a long, long time ago. Let me just take this moment and say thank you to my mom and dad for not killing me when I made your lives miserable. Unfortunately, many in our world today don’t feel that a baby in the womb should get the same protections that I had after I was born. Northeastern University professor Eileen McDonagh has said, “The fetus massively intrudes on a woman’s body and steals her liberty, justifying the use of deadly force to stop it.” When I read garbage like that, I feel that cold chill going down my spine again.
But let me get back to our subject. To me, it is the height of hypocrisy when those who work so hard to save the life of a tree have no problem snuffing out the life of an unborn child. I can respect the environmental extremists who stand up for life because at least their position is not inconsistent. But for someone to care more about reducing emissions than they do about reducing abortions seems like a case of misplaced priorities.
With the renewed concern today about over-population, this will be just one more excuse for the pro-abortion crowd to find new ways to devalue life in this country. Despite how they try to spin it, the truth remains that unborn babies in our country continue to be regularly discarded simply because they are an inconvenience. And that, my friends, is an inconvenient truth.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The Sky Is NOT Falling
I am not a scientist. I’m also not a climatologist or even a meteorologist. In fact, I’m not all that smart. My university years were spent at an institution with the initials J.S.U. The running joke on campus was that J.S.U. was short for “Just Show Up” (a reference to the perception that you didn’t have to be real smart or put forth much effort to receive a degree from this institution). Well, yours truly spent four years at “Just Show Up” University and I never graduated. Now in my defense, I blame this on a pesky requirement in the communications department that mandated four semesters of foreign language before one could wear the cap and gown. Unfortunately, I didn’t do so well in Spanish class. Muchas gracias Mrs. Suco!
So why do I list here, for the whole world to see, my less than stellar academic credentials? Because in spite of my obvious lack of intelligence and formal education, I am just as eminently qualified to speak on global warming as is our former Vice-President Al Gore. Mr. Gore, however, has been given a highly visible platform to spout his views on planetary climate change (as have those paragons of scientific truth Sheryl Crow and Laurie David). When a person like the former V.P. says the debate is over about the cause of global warming, it should be a clear indication that he is out in left field. Instead, Mr. Gore is rewarded with a fawning national media and an Academy Award.
The truth is that there is not a universal consensus in the scientific community concerning the cause of climate change. There does seem to be, however, near absolute agreement on this issue among the Hollywood elite and politicians that lean to the left. Forgive me if I don’t take it seriously when great scientific minds like Leonardo DeCaprio and Madonna wax eloquent on the dangers of global warming.
What really gets under my skin is the hypocrisy of those who would take away my internal combustion engine. Al Gore, for example, suggests that we should conserve energy in our homes and carpool to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Gore, however, has a Tennessee home where he uses more electricity in one month than the average American home uses in an entire year. Oh yeah, and he jet sets around the globe in a private plane to spread his politically correct message of conserving fossil fuels.
I will give props to one celebrity who has taken a clear-cut step to help solve this planetary crisis known as global warming. Sheryl Crow has decided to limit herself to one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit and she wants us all to do the same. She’s not just talking about saving the planet; she has figured out a way to stop climate change in its tracks (no pun intended). And why shouldn’t we take our cues on environmental solutions and bathroom etiquette from the one who brought us that ultra-intellectual song All I Wanna Do Is Have Some Fun? She’s obviously an expert on planetary climate patterns just like Al Gore. One word of caution though: if you meet Ms. Crow after one of her concerts, I would advise against a handshake. She seems to be more passionate about cleaning up the environment than she is about cleaning up herself.
One thing I’ve noticed about those sounding the alarm about global warming is that they are horrible planetists. Not a word you’re familiar with? Well, a planetist is to the planet what a racist is to race. While those who are against the Jews are known as anti-Semites, the environmental extremists are, for the most part, rabid anti-planetites. While the greenies are screaming about global warming here on earth, nobody’s trying to do anything to solve the problems on Mars. The polar ice caps on the red planet are melting at an alarming rate due to Martian warming. Why is no one on the environmental fringe trying to do away with the SUV’s on Mars? Does no one care that the Martians are destroying their planet just like we are destroying ours?
Oh, wait a minute. There are no Martians on Mars because there’s no life on Mars! But if there’s no life on Mars, who is it that is destroying the planet? They can’t even blame George W. Bush or Karl Rove for this one. Well, the left did blame Bush for Katrina, so that last statement may be a bit premature.
One article in Monday’s Times Online stated, “Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.” You think? And why do they use the words “could be” when it is obvious that this is not something that’s up for debate. When it comes to Mars, it has to be natural phenomena. But for the environmental extremists, there’s no possible way the Earth could be warming up without us mean old humans having a hand in it. Good science and reasonable logic have taken a back seat to the politics of fear.
Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not anti-environment. I love clean air and clean water just as much as the planetists do. But the answers to the planet’s problems are not going to be found by following Al Gore's advice or going to a Sheryl Crow concert. Actually, the problems our planet is facing are nothing new. The Bible tells us in Romans 8:22:
For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (NKJV)
See, the planetary problems didn't begin with the internal combustion engine; they began with the fall in the Garden of Eden. Since that time, all of creation has been out of kilter. The earth has been groaning, eagerly anticipating the day when it will be redeemed. We need to understand that we are not the ones who can or will save the planet. Romans 8:21 says:
Because the creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (NKJV)
Translation: the only hope of salvation for the planet is the same hope that we have as fallen mankind. That hope is found only in Jesus Christ; for us as sinners and for the world. Just as we believers will one day be given a new body, there will also be a new heavens and a new earth.
Until then, we need to take care of this old earth without thinking that we have the power to destroy it or to save it. That is the height of arrogance.
So why do I list here, for the whole world to see, my less than stellar academic credentials? Because in spite of my obvious lack of intelligence and formal education, I am just as eminently qualified to speak on global warming as is our former Vice-President Al Gore. Mr. Gore, however, has been given a highly visible platform to spout his views on planetary climate change (as have those paragons of scientific truth Sheryl Crow and Laurie David). When a person like the former V.P. says the debate is over about the cause of global warming, it should be a clear indication that he is out in left field. Instead, Mr. Gore is rewarded with a fawning national media and an Academy Award.
The truth is that there is not a universal consensus in the scientific community concerning the cause of climate change. There does seem to be, however, near absolute agreement on this issue among the Hollywood elite and politicians that lean to the left. Forgive me if I don’t take it seriously when great scientific minds like Leonardo DeCaprio and Madonna wax eloquent on the dangers of global warming.
What really gets under my skin is the hypocrisy of those who would take away my internal combustion engine. Al Gore, for example, suggests that we should conserve energy in our homes and carpool to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Gore, however, has a Tennessee home where he uses more electricity in one month than the average American home uses in an entire year. Oh yeah, and he jet sets around the globe in a private plane to spread his politically correct message of conserving fossil fuels.
I will give props to one celebrity who has taken a clear-cut step to help solve this planetary crisis known as global warming. Sheryl Crow has decided to limit herself to one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit and she wants us all to do the same. She’s not just talking about saving the planet; she has figured out a way to stop climate change in its tracks (no pun intended). And why shouldn’t we take our cues on environmental solutions and bathroom etiquette from the one who brought us that ultra-intellectual song All I Wanna Do Is Have Some Fun? She’s obviously an expert on planetary climate patterns just like Al Gore. One word of caution though: if you meet Ms. Crow after one of her concerts, I would advise against a handshake. She seems to be more passionate about cleaning up the environment than she is about cleaning up herself.
One thing I’ve noticed about those sounding the alarm about global warming is that they are horrible planetists. Not a word you’re familiar with? Well, a planetist is to the planet what a racist is to race. While those who are against the Jews are known as anti-Semites, the environmental extremists are, for the most part, rabid anti-planetites. While the greenies are screaming about global warming here on earth, nobody’s trying to do anything to solve the problems on Mars. The polar ice caps on the red planet are melting at an alarming rate due to Martian warming. Why is no one on the environmental fringe trying to do away with the SUV’s on Mars? Does no one care that the Martians are destroying their planet just like we are destroying ours?
Oh, wait a minute. There are no Martians on Mars because there’s no life on Mars! But if there’s no life on Mars, who is it that is destroying the planet? They can’t even blame George W. Bush or Karl Rove for this one. Well, the left did blame Bush for Katrina, so that last statement may be a bit premature.
One article in Monday’s Times Online stated, “Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.” You think? And why do they use the words “could be” when it is obvious that this is not something that’s up for debate. When it comes to Mars, it has to be natural phenomena. But for the environmental extremists, there’s no possible way the Earth could be warming up without us mean old humans having a hand in it. Good science and reasonable logic have taken a back seat to the politics of fear.
Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not anti-environment. I love clean air and clean water just as much as the planetists do. But the answers to the planet’s problems are not going to be found by following Al Gore's advice or going to a Sheryl Crow concert. Actually, the problems our planet is facing are nothing new. The Bible tells us in Romans 8:22:
For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (NKJV)
See, the planetary problems didn't begin with the internal combustion engine; they began with the fall in the Garden of Eden. Since that time, all of creation has been out of kilter. The earth has been groaning, eagerly anticipating the day when it will be redeemed. We need to understand that we are not the ones who can or will save the planet. Romans 8:21 says:
Because the creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (NKJV)
Translation: the only hope of salvation for the planet is the same hope that we have as fallen mankind. That hope is found only in Jesus Christ; for us as sinners and for the world. Just as we believers will one day be given a new body, there will also be a new heavens and a new earth.
Until then, we need to take care of this old earth without thinking that we have the power to destroy it or to save it. That is the height of arrogance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)