Category Archives: Environmentalism

Nazi book burning

Democrat Platform Committee Repudiates First Amendment

by ,

If the national Democrat Party platform committee has their way, companies who disagree with the Democrats’ global warming propaganda will soon be prosecuted by the Justice Department. This is apparently not a fringe position in the party, since the decision to add the provision to the platform was approved unanimously by committee members.

Would the Justice Department balk at enforcing this attack on Americans exercising their right of free speech? Not likely. Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch is on record threatening to prosecute people who engage in “anti-Muslim rhetoric.” In Idaho, several juvenile Muslim immigrants are reported to have sexually assaulted a five-year old girl. The response of Obama-appointed Federal Prosecutor Wendy J. Olson? She threatened to prosecute anyone who utters “false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself.”

It comes as no surprise to see the Democrat party moving more openly toward Nazi-style censorship. But Americans in general surely won’t allow this to go further, right? Not so fast! Young Americans who’ve been trained in the increasingly radical indoctrination centers known as public schools and state universities are the future of our electorate. And they are not such reliable defenders of our (and their) free speech or other rights. A recent survey found that 40% of “Millennials” believe the government should limit speech that is “offensive to minorities.” Thankfully, that represents a small fraction of our total electorate, but it also highlights a trend toward the communist/fascist view of free speech.

Republicans in Congress: where are the impeachment resolutions against federal appointees who threaten unconstitutional actions against free speech? If you tolerate these attempts to intimidate those who exercise their rights, you are no better than the Democrats who perpetrate them. Show some backbone and stand up for the Constitution.

Evangelical Environmentalists are Wrong

by ,

A group called the Evangelical Environmental Network hit the news recently when they came out strongly against reforming the Endangered Species Act. Positioning themselves opposite the “Christian right,” they plan to spend $1 million on advertising their views.

According to a recent AP story, their view is that man poses as great a danger to the various occupants of the earth as did the Flood in Noah’s time. God’s protection of creation from the Flood took the form of the ark built by Noah. The Evangelical Environmentalists believe that protection from man’s depredations comes in the form of the Endangered Species Act. Thus, they regard attempts to reform the Act as “Congress and special interests … trying to sink the Noah’s Ark of our day…”

There are some real problems with this view. First, the threat to life on earth is exaggerated. The Flood had the potential to extinguish all human and animal life on the earth. Noah’s ark really did save the animal kingdom from annihilation. After all, it was God, with the absolute power of creation and destruction in His hands, who brought on the Flood. Man’s “flood of pollution and habitat destruction,” on the other hand, has at the most a relatively subtle effect on the earth’s life forms. According to the fossil record, extinction of plant and animal species has been going on since the beginning of time. There is no reason to expect that man can or should try to stop it now.

The Evangelical Environmentalists urge conservative Christians to “re-examine what they said were the Bible’s teachings on the environment.” Presumably they are referring to God’s instructions to man to “go forth and multiply” and to “subdue the earth.” Environmentalists have ridiculed these Biblical teachings since the beginning of their movement. I remember that it was a big joke in environmental circles when I was at Purdue in the mid-1970s. What is new is to hear “conservative” Christians talking about “re-evaluating” Scripture.

No Christians that I know of have ever advocated subduing the earth by wanton destruction of the natural world. Christians have traditionally interpreted these passages as saying that God created the earth and its various species for man’s benefit. These gifts of God ought to be respected as such, and used wisely for the greater glory of God, and for the benefit of our fellow humans. They should not be set up on a pedestal as sacred and an end in themselves.

The Evangelical Environmentalists are ignoring the very real violations of God’s law that the Endangered Species Act has brought about. Every opponent of the Act cites primarily its attack on private property rights. “Takings” of property or of the right to use one’s property are the primary weapon that the Act puts in the hands of environmentalists. The right to own property is granted by God to each of us, and placed under His protection in the Seventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal,” and in the Ninth and Tenth Commandments prohibiting coveting. Property rights are rendered null and void when an owner is not permitted to use his property.

Any Christian who gets on the Endangered Species Act bandwagon will find himself in some strange company. The hard-core supporters of this Act are notorious for their low regard for humanity, and for their “end justifies the means” approach. Typical of their attitude toward human life is this comment from David M. Graber of the National Park Service: a particular species or a free-flowing river is of “more value — to me — than another human body, or a billion of them…Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

As for what they are willing to do to accomplish their ends, consider the spotted owl controversy. Andy Stahl of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund bragged in 1988 that the spotted owl was merely a pawn in the bigger game: “The northern spotted owl is the wildlife species of choice to act as a surrogate for old growth protection, and I’ve often thought that thank goodness the spotted owl evolved in the northwest, or we would have had to genetically engineer it.” Truth is of no consequence to these people. Christians have no business allying themselves with them.

I Pledge Allegiance to…One World?

by ,

Each spring, schools everywhere prepare for their annual observance of Earth Day. Naturally, such widespread, focused activity does not occur without careful coordination by someone. In this case, the guidance comes from an organization called Earth Day USA, along with a network of related groups. Earth Day USA is promoting two themes for Earth Day this year: energy conservation, and global unity. Parents should expect to hear about these themes from their children as April 22 approaches.

Leaving energy conservation aside, I would like to discuss the global unity theme. Among many activities planned around this theme, there will be an “International Earth Flag Campaign.” Children everywhere will be taught the Earth Day theme song, “The Time Has Come,” as well as The Earth Pledge:

The Earth Pledge
I pledge to protect the Earth,
And to respect the web of life upon it,
and to honor the dignity,
Of every member of our global family.
One planet, One people, One world, in harmony,
With peace, justice, and freedom for all.

That “One World” phrase has been around for a long time. It has had a particular meaning to those who have used it at least as far back as the days of Wendell Wilkie, who wrote a book of that title. That meaning is nothing less than the establishment of a worldwide super-government to rule over the formerly independent nation states. “Well,” you might protest, “that is just two words strung together. Different people could mean different things by that phrase. How is the Earth Pledge connected to the kooky ideas of Wendell Wilkie and his ilk?”

Good question. The answer is that many of the promoters of Earth Day, from the original observance in 1970 to the twenty fifth anniversary this year, have been part of the One World clique. Earth Day USA literature identifies an organization called One World Inc. as the originator of the Earth Pledge itself. One of the three founding board members of Earth Day USA, Claes Nobel, is chairman of something called United Earth. Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson was a signer of the infamous “Declaration of Interdependence,” which symbolized the globalists’ repudiation of national sovereignty.

Literature promoting the original Earth Day reveals a lot about the thinking of those who founded, nurtured, and in many cases still run the Earth Day organizations. One article by John Fischer, in The Environmental Handbook, encouraged people to ask the following questions: “Are nation-states actually feasible, now that they have power to destroy each other in a single afternoon?…What price would most people be willing to pay for a more durable kind of human organization (more taxes, giving up national flags, perhaps the sacrifice of some of our hard-won liberties)?” Saturday Review editor Norman Cousins’s 1970 Earth Day message said that “Humanity needs a world order. The fully sovereign nation is incapable of dealing with the poisoning of the environment,” and that “management of the planet…requires world government.”

Besides its world government orientation, the Earth Day literature of 1970 was chock full of ideas that would be repulsive to most of the people who innocently observe Earth Day each spring. For example, to control population, one petition in the Handbook demanded that “therefore, at least 10 percent of the defense budget must be allocated to birth control and abortion in the US and abroad.” Another suggestion was to “Outlaw the sale of reciprocating internal combustion engines by 1975.” Denis Hayes, still prominent in this year’s Earth Day movement, advocated “pulling the US off of oil, coal and nuclear energy in the course of the next 25 or 30 years.” Garrett Hardin stated in the Handbook that “We must admit that our legal system of private property plus inheritance is unjust…” Finally, we have Rennie Davis’s speech in the book Earth Day : The Beginning: “Earth Day is for the sons and daughters of the American Revolution who are going to tear this capitalism down and set us free.”

Many of our children’s teachers will be using in their classrooms materials provided by Earth Day USA and related globalist organizations. The Earth Pledge will be among the materials offered to teachers. Do parents and teachers really want our children and students exposed to anything that comes from such sources? Sure, the wording of the Earth Pledge is ambiguous compared to the sentiments expressed by Earth Day’s originators back in 1970 (no doubt intentionally so). Most of those who use it will do so entirely innocently. But why should we and our children get involved with a pledge of such scandalous heritage? As for me and my family, we will continue to pledge our allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands…