Family
CCP Dictator Daniel Andrews is playing the China virus for all he can. Now, ‘Pre-covid, a State of Emergency could only be declared for a maximum of six months. This extension will bring the total to one year and nine months.
Daniel Andrews won the vote after reaching backroom deals with Greens leader Samantha Ratnam, Reason Party MP Fiona Patten and Andy Meddick from the Animal Justice Party.
About 100 protesters gathered outside to voice their opposition to extending the declared State of Emergency.
The State of Emergency gives the government and police unprecedented powers to lock down the city, enter homes, detain citizens, enforce masks and much more.
During the rally outside parliament, police threatened to arrest protesters when the group reached more than 100.
Monica Smit from Reignite Democracy said she wasn’t afraid anymore and that no matter what, the group were not leaving.
Another organiser, Morgan C Jonas told Tom Elliot that the State of Emergency is “an extraordinary consolidation of power by the Victorian government”.
Member of Parliament, Dr Catherine Cumming joined the crowd outside, telling them that she voted against the extension.’https://www.rebelnews.com/this_is_what_happened_at_the_state_of_emergency_protest_in_melbourne?utm_campaign=ay_emergency_3_3_21&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
Jeremiah 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely…
‘The Washington Post turns loose its fact-checkers on John Kerry’s claim that we have just nine years to save the planet, which he arrived at by saying we had 12 years three years ago and doing the math. But um he’s not a climate scientist, and to their credit and our surprise, the Post gives him two Pinocchios (out of a possible four) for “Significant omissions and/or exaggerations.” Along with a dressing down for not realizing that in the IPCC’s 2018 Special Report, “the key date was 2050, when the gain in emissions needs to be halted” although contradictorily, “The report’s key finding was that action needed to be taken immediately — not in 12 years.” Thus “With the ‘12-year’ fixation, he [Kerry] somehow managed to both make the task seem less urgent and also more hyperbolic.” Sadly the fact checkers themselves deserve at least two Pinocchios because their finding is quite reasonable but their explanation interlaces sensible points with hyperbole about extreme weather, bad math about warming, and scare stories.
The piece starts fairly well, warning that “Kerry is using a figure that is frequently cited but often misused. It’s a good example of how scientists may write a long and complex report, and then it’s interpreted by the news media, pundits and politicians in ways that make the scientists frustrated that their nuanced conclusions have been twisted into a talking point.” But lest they should get cancelled, they immediately add “If anything, scientists say, Kerry’s phrasing understates the problem facing the planet.”
Oh, scientists say, do they? Which scientists? You know. Them. The scientists. “The question of whether humans have contributed to climate change may still be a subject of debate in the political sphere, but it has been a settled issue among climate scientists for years.” Which they bolster by citing Anderegg et al.’s infamous 2009 paper that looked at people who published a lot of papers saying there was a climate crisis and found that they said there was a climate crisis.
The fact-checkers also cite without fact-checking it that the 2018 IPCC report “said the planet — which has already warmed 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels (approximately 1850 to 1890) — would warm 1.5 degrees (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) between 2030 and 2052 unless significant steps were taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” As we’ve pointed out, the idea that we can determine to a decimal place the change in temperature between the Great Exhibition and the election of Donald Trump is silly, and the fact that it always comes out to a round number is highly suspicious.
Now speaking of round numbers, about which yes we told you so, in one of its stronger passages the fact-check quotes Drew Shindell of Duke University, a lead author of that IPCC’s “mitigation chapter”, that “To save computer time, the research community typically evaluates future climate scenarios every decade rather than every year, choosing multiples of 10. So when we wrote the IPCC report in 2018, we could examine possibilities for 2020, 2030, etc., going forward. There really wasn’t enough time to make changes in economic systems by 2020 starting from 2018, so the first time at which we could see major changes was 2030, and that’s why we could draw conclusions about how much our emissions needed to be cut by 2030 to have much chance of meeting our climate targets…. the point of all this is that there is nothing at all special about 12 years or 2030. If we cut emissions by 2029 or 2031, the necessary cuts would be similar, but we only had years that were even multiples of 10 to look at.”
So saying well, it was 12 years in 2018 so it’s now nine means you have no idea what the scientists were actually doing. It’s pseudo-precision along the lines of saying the planet has warmed by 0.8C since 1880 with 2/3 of it since 1975, which implies we know it warmed 0.26C in the century after 1880. Without having measured the temperature in about 99% of it in 1880 or, come to think of it, 1975 either. Or 2016.
Not to get themselves in trouble, the fact-checkers then cite the IPCC that “Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70-90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2°C (very high confidence).” Which they rightly say means there’s a continuum or, as Judith Curry bluntly put it in advocating more realism in both science and adaptation, “1.5C is a made up problem.” Not that the fact-checkers are taking her view.
Instead the piece warns that the continuum thing means “the damage would have already started before 1.5 degrees was breached.” Which also means that if it hasn’t, including the corals not dying, there’s a bit of an issue here with the whole scary picture. As with their subsequent claim that “the world is heating unevenly. A Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post series showed that, despite an average global increase of 1 degree Celsius, in several parts of the world the 2 degree threshold has already been reached. In those regions, this has resulted in major weather changes that have upended livelihoods and cultures. More than 1 in 10 Americans — 34 million people — are living in rapidly heating regions, including New York City and Los Angeles.”
Curious that the fastest-warming places are either (a) wherever the journalist lives or (b) a giant metropolitan agglomeration with a major Urban Heat Island effect. That one they did not fact check. Or the idea that weather has upended livelihoods and cultures in New York and LA.
Finally, they quote someone telling Kerry to stop talking about specifics and scare people with vagueness, recommending this formulation: “The scientists have been telling us for decades that we need to act as fast as possible to avert the worst consequences of climate change. Despite that, substantive action has been delayed so long that we’re now bearing witness to the harm caused by warming that has already occurred in communities around the world. It is still well within our power to turn the tide, slowing and eventually halting global warming by bringing our net carbon emissions to zero. But we have to act now to prevent ever greater societal harm and disruption in the coming years and decades.”
The trouble, of course, is that if you talk that way people might ask who the scientists are, what the worst consequences might be, what harm you have in mind and what you want us to do. And then you’ll be back to specifics some fool might fact-check. Like that one about the polar bears dying out, which Facebook may still slap your wrist for pointing out is untrue.
Man, there are a lot of Pinocchios out there.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/03/03/speaking-of-predictions-2/
‘When Nazi forces invaded Holland in 1940 and began rounding up Jews, Corrie ten Boom, her sister Betsie, and their elderly father risked their lives to save as many as possible. A hidden room was secretly built in their home where the oppressed Jews took refuge until a Gestapo raid put an end to their operation. Corrie ten Boom: a Faith Undefeated recounts this unforgettable story for a new generation. “When Nazi forces invaded Holland in 1940 and began rounding up Jews, Corrie ten Boom, her sister Betsie, and their elderly father risked their lives to save as many as possible. A hidden room was secretly built in their home where the oppressed Jews took refuge until a Gestapo raid put an end to their operation. For their “crimes,” Corrie and Betsie were sent to the notorious concentration camp at Ravensbruck, where they suffered relentless cruelty. Struggling to reconcile God’s goodness with the terrible realities of the camp, the sisters clung desperately to their Christian faith. Betsie died in the camp, but Corrie was miraculously released due to a clerical error. She spent the rest of her days caring for other death camp survivors and sharing her story with the world. Corrie’s 1971 best-selling book, The Hiding Place, provides her account of persevering faith and forgiveness in the face of terrible evil.’
If you perchance do not believe the UN and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are not committed communist, socialist Leftist’s working to destroy freedom loving capitalist’s this video should prove it to you! This video is the WEF’s favorite man, the CCP’s Xi Jinping speaking at the WEF’s most recent Davos love fest!
If you cannot stomach watching the whole thing I understand.
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Now, that’s what God’s Word has to say and yet so-called Christian organizations go ahead and put their stamp of approval on the Sodomite life style. For example, ‘Bethany Christian Services, the country’s largest Protestant adoption and foster care agency, will begin serving LGBTQ couples, a significant change for the evangelical outfit and a sign of the growing cultural shift.
Bethany, which is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with offices in 32 states, announced the change in an email to employees today. Its board of directors approved the policy change back in January after nearly a decade of internal discussion.
An agency spokesperson said it has already been working with LGBTQ families in about 12 states.
“This decision implements consistent, inclusive practices for LGBTQ families across our organizations,” said Nate Bult, Bethany’s senior vice president of public and government affairs. “We’ve had a patchwork approach for the last few years.”
The change is the latest in a hot culture-war topic pitting faith-based adoption and foster care agencies and civil liberties groups against one another. Many faith-based adoption and foster agencies have come under increasing pressure over the past decade as city, state and federal authorities have added LGBTQ non-discrimination policies. Bethany was among them.
In 2018, the city of Philadelphia suspended contracts with Bethany for a period of time. The agency then decided to change its policy in Philadelphia and serve LGBTQ couples.
The Trump administration briefly lifted an Obama-era rule that barred adoption agencies, foster care agencies, and other social service providers from receiving taxpayer funding from the Department of Health and Human Services if they declined to serve people based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
But those rules will likely revert back under the Biden administration.
And in Fulton v. Philadelphia, the Supreme Court is expected to rule later this year on whether religious child placement agencies can refuse to place children with LGBTQ couples. In that case, the city of Philadelphia demanded that Catholic Social Services comply with its requirements, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. When the agency refused to do so, the city opted not to renew its contract. Catholic Social Services then sued.
Bult said that while not all of Bethany’s 1,500 employees may agree with the inclusive approach, most have been supportive and have known that the agency is examining the issue.’
So, before we make a decision to do what God has told us is wrong let’s take a survey on what people think! So, ‘In making its decision, Bethany commissioned Barna Group, a Christian polling firm, to ferret out the views of Christians about LGBTQ adoptions. Barna found 55% of Christians said either that sexual preference should not determine who can foster or adopt, or that it was better for children to be in an LGBTQ home than in foster care.
The survey also found that 76% of self-identified Christians agree, at least somewhat, that it would be better for Christian agencies to comply with government requirements pertaining to the LGBTQ community rather than shut down. (The survey was taken last year among 667 self-identified Christians.)
Bethany also released a letter showing that its three past executive directors and CEOs — James Haveman, Glenn De Mots and William Blacquiere — agreed with the new inclusion policy.’ https://julieroys.com/bethany-christian-services-allow-lgbtq-adopt/?mc_cid=0f285f5ebc&mc_eid=b13d34ad49
There we have it! A survey and three former executive directors and CEOs AGREED with the policy! Therefore WE can disobey the Word of God! It doesn’t matter what God’s Word says but a survey and what three past directors think will determine what is RIGHT! What a sham. Bethany Christian services NEEDS to REMOVE the word CHRISTIAN!
The Court of Appeal has today ruled that it was lawful for a Christian non-executive NHS director and magistrate to be sacked for expressing in the media that children do best when raised by a mother and a father.
Mr Richard Page, 74, from Kent, was suspended from the magistracy and forced out of a role at an NHS Trust, after explaining on television that he had been discriminated against for his Christian beliefs on parenting while presiding over an adoption case.
After a six-year legal battle seeking justice against the decisions to remove him, today’s judgment has instead taken a significant step in developing further limitations on freedom of speech for Christians in the workplace.
Mr Page now intends to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
‘Views might cause offence’
In his judgment on Mr Page’s claim against NHS Improvement, Lord Justice Underhill stated that:
“The extent to which it is legitimate to expect a person holding a senior role in a public body to refrain from expressing views which may upset a section of the public is a delicate question.”
He recognised that Mr Page “had a particular interest in expressing publicly his views about same-sex adoption in the context of his removal as a magistrate, which was a legitimate matter of public debate” and that he expressed his views ‘temperately’ in the media.
However, he judged that Mr Page’s views on same sex-marriage and ‘homosexual activity’, might cause ‘offence’.
The ruling suggested, for example, that Mr Page should have “declined to answer” Piers Morgan’s questions on his beliefs during an interview on Good Morning Britain in 2016.
Mr Morgan’s treatment of Mr Page during the interview led to 70 complaints to Ofcom.
However, it was ruled that Mr Page’s responses to Piers Morgan’s questions justified his removal from his financial role in the NHS, as they might inadvertently “deter mentally ill gay people in the Trust’s catchment area from engaging with its services.”
Lawyers representing Mr Page had argued at the hearing in November 2020 that upholding his removal on these grounds would force Christians holding traditional views about sexual morality into silence, making it almost impossible for them to hold any kind of public office.
Concluding his judgment however, Lord Justice Underhill stated that, “the issue raised by this case is not about what beliefs such a person holds but about the limits on their public expression.”
He added that:
“the freedom to express religious or any other beliefs cannot be unlimited. In particular, so far as the present case is concerned, there are circumstances in which it is right to expect Christians (and others) who work for an institution, especially if they hold a high-profile position, to accept some limitations on how they express in public their beliefs on matters of particular sensitivity.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “This is the first time the Court of Appeal has endorsed the perverse distinction between unlawful discrimination for Christian beliefs and lawfully dismissing someone for offending an LGBT audience by expressing those beliefs.
“This is simply an artificial way to exclude Christian beliefs from the protection of the law. Nobody would get away with applying a similar distinction to any other protected characteristic. You would not get away with dismissing a homosexual for coming out as a homosexual, and then saying: “we duly respect your sexual orientation as long as you keep it to yourself”. This is an unfair and chilling decision, and the Supreme Court should put it right.
“The judgment sends a direct message to Christian public servants that if they allow their beliefs to influence their decision-making while in public office, they must self-censor and be silent, and are ultimately unfit for that office. If they express their beliefs in private to colleagues, they will be reprimanded, and if they then state those beliefs to the media, they will be sacked and will have their lives torn apart.
“The idea that you can remove a director from the NHS based on a perception that members of the LGBT community may be offended by something he said in the media, is extraordinary and should concern us all.
“This ruling provides a green light for employers to punish Christian employees who do not fall in line with and unquestionably support LGBT ideology. We will continue to stand with Richard Page as he seeks justice. We will not stop until this wrong is put right.”
Responding to the outcome, Mr Page said: “This is another deeply concerning ruling from the courts against Christian freedoms, and I intend to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.”‘https://christianconcern.com/news/court-upholds-richard-pages-sacking-for-sharing-christian-views-on-family/
When lawmakers debate whether there is more than two genders you know the country is in a bad way. The USA and the Western world has gone crazy. We elect politicians that have swallowed the PC culture of the day and will implement it no matter what the public may believe. Live with it! The politician loves to spout the ‘science is in’ even when true science goes against their lunatic beliefs. Now, ‘A debate on the House floor over the Equality Act, a bill that would extend civil rights protections to the LGBTQ community, spilled over into the halls of Congress on Wednesday.
Rep. Marie Newman, D-Ill., who has a transgender daughter, raised a transgender pride flag outside her office across the hall from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who responded to Newman by hanging a sign that read: “There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE. Trust The Science!”
During the floor debate on the Equality Act, Greene made a motion to adjourn in an effort to block consideration of the bill because she claimed it would put the rights of transgender Americans above those of women and children, particularly when it comes to sports. “Biological women cannot compete against biological men,” she said. “Biological little girls cannot compete against biological little boys, and they shouldn’t have to.”
Earlier in the week, the freshman congresswoman, who was stripped of her committee memberships for promoting false and extremist views, called the Equality Act “a direct attack on God’s creation” that would ensure “men who dress and think they are women will have rights over all real girls and women.”
Newman, who is also a freshman congresswoman, gave an impassioned speech on the House floor in support of transgender rights.
“I rise today on behalf of the millions of Americans who continue to be denied housing, education, public services and much, much more because they identify as members of the LGBTQ community,” Newman said. “Americans like my own daughter, who years ago bravely came out to her parents as transgender. I knew from that day on, my daughter would be living in a nation where [in] most of its states, she could be discriminated against, merely because of who she is.”
As video of Newman’s speech went viral, Greene responded with a tweet in which she refused to refer to the Illinois congresswoman’s daughter as a woman.
“As mothers, we all love and support our children,” Greene wrote. “But your biological son does NOT belong in my daughters’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams.”
Newman tweeted a video of herself hoisting the flag with a message for her GOP counterpart.
“Our neighbor, @RepMTG, tried to block the Equality Act because she believes prohibiting discrimination against trans Americans is ‘disgusting, immoral, and evil,’” Newman wrote. “Thought we’d put up our Transgender flag so she can look at it every time she opens her door.”
Greene then put up the poster outside her office.
“Our neighbor, @RepMarieNewman, wants to pass the so-called ‘Equality’ Act to destroy women’s rights and religious freedoms,” Greene tweeted. “Thought we’d put up ours so she can look at it every time she opens her door.”
The poster stunt was criticized by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., called Greene’s sign “sickening, pathetic, unimaginably cruel.”
“This hate is exactly why the #EqualityAct is necessary and what we must protect @RepMarieNewman’s daughter and all our LGBTQ+ loved ones against,” Casten tweeted.
“This is sad and I’m sorry this happened,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., tweeted Wednesday night. “Rep. Newmans daughter is transgender, and this video and tweet represents the hate and fame driven politics of self-promotion at all evil costs. This garbage must end.”
“Your sign is incorrect because it’s not what the science says,” Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., wrote on Twitter. “‘The science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.’”
At her weekly press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Greene’s stunt a “sad event” that illustrates the need for Congress to pass the Equality Act.
“It’s necessary,” Pelosi said. “I wish it weren’t. It breaks my heart that it is.”’https://www.aol.com/news/marjorie-taylor-greene-escalates-lgbtq-154934892.html
The only way for America to go when this kind of lunacy takes over is further into the camp called crazy!
Whether one lives in the USA or Australia politics is pretty much the same. The Left has taken ahold of most of the pollies and they seem to determined to continue the path of national destruction. Professor David Flint writes that ‘Pilate’s contemptuous dismissal of truth echoes down the ages. Those who, like Pilate, wash their hands while authoritarians try to gag anyone they insist must not speak, ignore what distinguishes civilisation from the evil alternatives.
The search for truth is dependent on freedom of speech. As Robert Menzies warned: ‘Today’s truth is frequently tomorrow’s error…. If truth is to emerge and in the long run be triumphant, the process of free debate – the untrammelled clash of opinion – must go on’.
Menzies practised what he preached. When novice backbencher and subsequently Democrat leader Don Chipp decided to give notice that he would cross the floor over some government bill, Menzies replied, ‘If you feel that way, my boy, you must follow your conscience.’ This freedom is at the very heart of representative democracy. As Burke explained, we choose our representatives for their judgment. Any restriction is contrary to the ‘whole order and tenor of our constitution’.
Craig Kelly has been ordered not to repeat scientifically endorsed views on medicines or vaccinations, a Sydney TV host even ordering him to ‘be quiet’.
Following the US mainstream media, no longer adhering to the adage that ‘Comment is free but facts are sacred’, journalists will too often insert some adjective like ‘baseless’ about something which a responsible media once reported with curiosity and without condemnation, such as the fact that banned medicines may still enjoy reputable scientific support or that allegations of electoral fraud are supported by mountains of evidence. Such journalists will also readily dismiss comment by reference to some non-existent standard such as ‘the’ science.
Rather than limiting themselves to desk-based reporting, such journalists could visit a court room. There they would often see expert witnesses called by both sides.
They would come to understand that scientific truth is determined neither by majority nor even consensus, as demonstrated when Australian scientists won the Nobel Prize for showing that some gastric ulcers can be caused by a virus, Helicobacter pylori.
In the case of Craig Kelly, where the mainstream media have smelt blood, the Prime Minister unwisely surrendered just as he did over the National Anthem. Unsurprisingly, Kelly’s pre-selection is now in issue. On that surely it is time that our normally manipulated preselections be replaced by primaries where registered Labor, Liberal, etc., supporters in the relevant electorate or state actually decide who their candidates shall be.
Probably the strongest reason why there is a bi-partisan move to replace Craig Kelly, as there was with Trump, is that he embarrasses the politicians and their elite allies over the litany of burdens they impose on the people for which they will never have to answer.
Central to this is their endorsement not only of the increasingly discredited theory of man-made global warming but also both the Paris solution and the claim that the successors to the assorted dictators, thugs and dissembling politicians will deliver on their promises decades hence. Independent research suggests that at best this will barely reduce the temperature in 2100, saving about 2 per cent GDP at a cost of between 16 to 32 per cent of GDP. I doubt whether most politicians believe all this. If they did, they would not have ‘carbon’ footprints many times those of ordinary people, unless of course they are outrageous hypocrites.
Why then have they, as Alan Jones and Terry McCrann warned years ago, signed a national suicide note? What they and other elites want is for Craig Kelly and a few colleagues to stop reminding Australians of this. But ordinary Australians are not stupid. Only ten per cent of airline travellers buy ‘carbon’ credits, probably those elites who don’t themselves pay for their tickets.
As with their refusal to harvest water, as with their immigration programme designed to satisfy the fiction that the GDP is rising while wages are stable or falling, as with an education programme delivering declining standards, the politicians are running our great country into the ground. Hence their determination to throw anyone who exposes this out of parliament.
Meanwhile in America, Speaker Pelosi followed the answer given by the high priests when Pilate invited them to explain their case, ‘If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee’. There was need neither for evidence nor due process. The voice of Pelosi was sufficient. The so-called Senate trial is undoubtedly unconstitutional for any one of several grounds most of which have been mentioned in prior columns.
One arises out of reliance on Trump’s free speech-protected assertion that the 2020 election was fraudulent.
On that Time magazine has now confirmed the existence of a ‘conspiracy’ among a ‘well-funded cabal’ of ‘powerful people’ working together behind the scenes to ‘influence perceptions’, ‘change rules and laws’, ‘steer media coverage’ and ‘control the flow of information’.
They even admit to using the eight months of violent looting, burning and torching by Black Lives Matter to advance their agenda.
The key moment on the day of the election was 11pm. Trump was winning with a solid lead in the battleground states. In a Zoom call at that time, cabal architect Mike Podhorzer calmed conspirators by ‘presenting data’ to show a Biden victory was in hand. As it was.
Voting was then suspended in battleground states on the ruse there was a drainage overflow in one polling station.
Counting soon secretly resumed in the absence of Republican scrutineers. And as anyone with the slightest experience knows, this was obviously done for one reason and one reason only – fraud.
Biden’s vote suddenly advanced exponentially, massively and as Patrick Basham has demonstrated here, implausibly.
Rather than answering the mountain of evidence Donald Trump’s lawyers subsequently assembled, its existence was denied by the mainstream media with social media punishing anyone who mentioned it. Despite that, Trump still strikes terror into the hearts of the elites. He and anyone considering following him must be silenced.‘ https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/02/kellyleo/
whatyareckon 