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/
Kent Brandenburg writes and I agree ‘My Christianity isn’t tethered to what other people are doing or have done. Christianity is the truth. If I were one of eight remaining believers on earth, it would still be true. I don’t doubt it when people don’t live it. I feel sorry for them, but they haven’t affected what I think about Christianity itself. My Christianity is tethered to the Bible, God’s Word.
I’m writing about this, because of an article in Newsweek that came out on Tuesday this week, written by Issac Bailey, “I’m Struggling with My Christianity After Trump.” Something with that title in a major publication would be a head scratcher, except that most “Christianity” today and probably for most of history isn’t and hasn’t been actual Christianity. No one should be surprised about counterfeit Christianity. Bailey says he got his doubts about Christianity itself from the reality that professing Christians voted for Trump. I’ve heard other people say this.
According to scripture, anyone who leaves actual Christianity was never saved in the first place. Nowhere says a true Christian can lose his salvation. He can’t leave it, because he’s kept by the power of God (1 Peter 1:5). A believer cooperates with what God does in saving him, but it is God who keeps him saved. Scripture is clear on this. Many passages teach the eternal security of a believer, but two verses are definitive on the point that, if a professing believer defects, he was never saved in the first place: first, 1 John 2:19.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Second, 1 John 3:6.
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Read both verses. The first one says that when someone does not continue, he never had salvation in the first place, that is, he was “not of us,” said twice in the verse. If he was “of us,” he would “no doubt have continued with us.” No doubt. The second verse says that a person who sins as a lifestyle, as seen in the present tense, “sinneth,” “hath not seen him, neither known him,” that is, a person who takes on a lifestyle of sin never saw or knew Christ in the first place. A true Christian can’t walk away from Christ. As Jesus said in John 10:28-29, no man, including himself, can pluck a true believer out of either Jesus’ or His Father’s hand.
If you read the Bailey article, you can see he doesn’t have biblical Christianity. I’m not saying that to be unnecessarily offensive or condemnatory. People call themselves Christians, who are not, because there are many various forms of popular “Christianity” in the world. That could be a whole separate article, all the different types, that aren’t Christianity. They are fraudulent perversions of the real thing. There is more false Christianity by far than there is true Christianity.
Most Christian denominations don’t even preach a true gospel. You should know that. They are preaching a false gospel. Most professing Christians to whom I talk don’t even know the gospel. I repeat, they don’t know it. Churches are not clear on the gospel. Even the ones who might believe a true gospel are more concerned about having a bigger congregation and so they do more to pander to people than tell them what they need to hear. There has been a cumulative and comprehensive erosion of the gospel in the United States for awhile and for a number of reasons.
In the first paragraph, Bailey says his “faith is in tatters.” Before I provide an assessment of what he says in his article, I have an opinion about what he’s doing. I don’t think he’s going to leave his spurious version of Christianity. He’s threatening to leave it like a child threatens to hold his breath until he dies if his parents don’t give him what he wants. True Christians are concerned that their testimony could result in defections from the faith. Jesus said at the beginning of Matthew 18 that it would be better to put a millstone around your neck and jump into deep water than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.
Bailey is saying that Christians are sending him into apostasy because of their vote for Trump. This is meant to strike fear into Christians, so that they at the least become non-political or disengaged from political action. Bailey will keep supporting actual murderers greater than any holocaust in the history of the world, the same people who booed God at their party convention, but a vote for Trump will send him off the deep end. He’s already off the deep end. His party is the party against divine design of the family, which is the most rudimentary and rebellious form of opposition to God in existence.
The people Bailey addresses specifically are the pro-life supporting Christians, implying that there are non-pro-life Christians. You can be a Christian, a true one, and not be pro-life. There is only pro-life Christianity. Everything else is an impostor. Sure, it might take a new Christian some time to get up to speed on this point, but he will get there, because he is indwelt by God the Holy Spirit, if he is really saved.
Many of the Trump voters, who claim to be Christians, are not. They do have a different Jesus. That includes some, if not all, of the people in the picture posted in Bailey’s article. As a matter of religious or theological comparison though, these pseudo Christians have a lot in common with the type of Christianity Bailey represents. They both have a novel fabrication or improvisation of Christianity, that is very loose with scripture. They put more authority in their own experience than the Bible, relying more on allegorization than exegesis.
For all of Trump’s many flaws, in a political way he represented to a lot of Americans and most true Christians, a last opportunity to save the federal government from a trajectory of progressive, oligarchical totalitarianism and globalism. Of course, that’s just a conspiracy theory, wink wink. There is no new world order planned for the future of the United States with no borders and the eradication of Americanism. Christians would like to keep their freedoms, freedom of religion and of speech. They would like to stop the present course of the elimination the nuclear family, something basic like a father and mother of opposite sex with the authority to raise their own children. The support of vouchers for education is about the freedom to educate their children in Christian values away from the humanistic, pseudo-science of gender fluidity.
It is not accident that today you hear the left use words like “cult” and “worship” as it relates to Trump. I’m sure they’re seen as effective propaganda. No Christian wants to be seen or known for being in a cult or worshiping a man. Bailey among many others uses this terminology. I don’t know anyone who follows Trump, let alone worships him. I understood why Christians would attend the rally on January 6. I know some people who were there and none of them knew anything about breaking into the capitol building to stop the counting of the electoral votes. I’ve explained this in previous posts, but they see both their voice and their vote being taken away. It’s obvious to them that a two tiered justice system already exists, where a true Christian can be prosecuted for not baking a cake for a same sex wedding and yet left wing anarchists can take over a large area of an American city without opposition. The mainstream of the media applauds it, likes it, has no problem with a Trump voter bleeding in the street.
Much of what Bailey wrote just isn’t true and other parts are misrepresentations, slanted in a dishonest way. He might just be deceived, but I believe he knows what he’s doing.
True Christians don’t pray to Jesus. They pray to God the Father like Jesus taught.
The group filmed “praying” in the front of the Senate chamber, it’s obvious, don’t represent biblical Christianity.
True Christianity isn’t white or black, as in “white church” or “black church,” as Bailey represents it.
All the things that Franklin Graham said about Trump are true. Graham doesn’t represent biblical Christianity, but I understand why a Christian would appreciate the list of accomplishments he mentions.
Bailey argues that Trump was not pro-life, because Trump oversaw a 200% increase in civilian deaths in Syria and Iraq in his first year. That is a very specific statistic that does not relate to the issue of being “pro-life” as defined. Pro-life means that you’re against murdering unborn children. How many civilians would die if ISIS continued on unfettered? That’s more difficult to measure, but that is why a very narrow, cherry-picked statistic was necessary for an opening statement. Trump oversaw a quick dismantling of ISIS his first year and then evacuation so that less future death would occur. Consider the following statistical chart of civilian deaths in the Iraq War between 2003 and 2021: Look at the Trump years, 2017-2020, compared to the previous ones. This belies what Bailey writes, his assuming, it seems, that no one would fact check him, if it even mattered. Despite Bailey’s twisting of the meaning of pro-life, nevertheless, more civilians were killed in Iraq in 2014 during the Obama presidency than during the entire four years of the Trump presidency.
Bailey blames Trump for the murders at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. No president has been more pro-Israel than Trump. Israel says this. There were fourteen mass shootings during the Obama years. It’s sheer political opportunism to blame mass shootings on a president. Was Trump also to blame for the 2017 Las Vegas shooting at a country western concert? Those were mainly Trump deplorables getting gunned down.
Another argument Bailey makes is that abortion rates go down during Democratic presidencies, because of government programs. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were higher unintended pregnancies when Democrats are president, because of greater support for contraception, most of which is abortifacient. Those aren’t called murders, but they are. Since 1965 over 11 million have been murdered by abortifacients, that don’t show up as abortions. That would be a good explanation for lower abortion rates too.
Pro-life people, of course, want to end all abortion, so the rate would decrease to nothing if they had their way. Instead, with the support of Bailey, almost 70 million have been murdered in the United States, which would be enough to cause a Christian to defect, except that’s impossible for a true Christian. True Christians are happy about slowing down the abortion rate. They don’t, however, support contraception as a way of getting there. A true Christian opposes fornication and all sexual sin that results in an unintended pregnancy. For a biblical Christian, an unintended pregnancy is by definition one outside of marriage. If Bailey is a Christian, he should support the biblical position, which is abstinence. That would also end the AIDS epidemic.
Insurrection occurred all summer with BLM and Antifa, doing far more damage and causing far more death than the capitol “riot.” Is that justified to Bailey, because he agrees with socialism and actual fascism? When you see the picture of unarmed crazies in costumes, a truly thinking person doesn’t see the comparison. One of the five “killed,” used as a statistic by the left, was an unarmed woman, who threatened no one with violence. Where is the outcry? Three Trump supporters died of natural causes. The one police death has hardly been covered. What happened there? Why isn’t there more coverage of his death? Not his funeral, not the way he’s been used politically, but what actually happened to him?
Bailey says that 60% of white Catholic voters voted for Trump, implying that Catholics are Christian. He lumps them with evangelicals who supported Trump. This is the most tell-tale evidence that he doesn’t understand biblical Christianity. He is pro-abortion. He is against the death penalty for murder. If you are a Christian, you support what God supports. You believe the Bible. Bailey does not.
The crucial aspect for a lasting faith, which is actually a saving faith, is the object of that faith. My faith doesn’t stand in men. The object of faith is Jesus Christ Himself, and He never fails. I believe the Bible. My faith comes by the Word of God. 1 John 5:4-5 say:
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
One reason true Christians won’t be swayed by what occurs in this world is because they aren’t living for this world. They are living for the next world, the kingdom of Jesus Christ and the eternal state. This reminds me of the hymn, My Faith Has Found a Resting Place, by E. E. Hewitt:My faith has found a resting place, Not in device nor creed;I trust the Ever-living One, His wounds for me shall plead. I need no other argument, I need no other plea;It is enough that Jesus died, And that He died for me.Enough for me that Jesus saves, This ends my fear and doubt;A sinful soul I come to Him, He’ll never cast me out.My heart is leaning on the Word, The written Word of God,Salvation by my Savior’s name, Salvation through His blood.My great Physician heals the sick, The lost He came to save;For me His precious blood He shed, For me His life He gave.’ https://kentbrandenburg.com/2021/02/10/questioning-christianity-because-of-what-one-sees-occurring-in-the-world-or-from-people-who-call-themselves-christians/
The following is part of an email from THE EPOCH TIMES.
‘Abraham Lincoln lost eight elections before becoming the 16th president of the United States. You can find the full record of his life in several historical sources; we’ve gathered these from the book Chicken Soup for the Soul by Jack Canfield. Here are some of Lincoln’s notable defeats.
In 1832, he ran for a seat in the Illinois State Legislature and lost. Two years later, he won and was re-elected three times.
In 1838, he aspired to become speaker of the state legislature and lost.
In 1840, he sought to become an elector in the Electoral College and lost.
In 1843, he ran for the House of Representatives and lost. When he ran again in 1846, he won.
In 1854, he ran for the U.S. Senate and lost.
In 1856, he sought the vice-presidential nomination at this party’s national convention and got fewer than 100 votes.
In 1858, he ran for the U.S. Senate again and lost again.
Finally, he ran for president in 1860, and things turned out far differently for him and for the nation. The rest, as they say, is history.
Abraham Lincoln kept loyal to his ideals, his beliefs, and his vision for America. What if he had stopped after his first defeat?’
This climate scam is out to destroy not only the economy but to eliminate people! In a Jan. 25 meeting of the Vermont Climate Council, Massachusetts Undersecretary for Climate Change David Ismay blurted out “let me say that again, 60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person across the street, the senior on fixed income, right… there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts to point the finger at, to turn the screws on, and you know, to break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will. Right, I can’t even say that publicly….” Except he just did. So don’t say you weren’t warned: These people are looking for a 60% reduction in ordinary-life emissions. And of the ordinary-life energy that causes them.
Beginning with cars, of course. The New York Times “Climate Fwd.” says various car companies bending to the wind blowing from Washington “may help the Biden administration move quickly to reinstate national fuel-efficiency standards that would control planet-warming auto pollution”. Meaning what exactly? The issue here isn’t the rhetorical inflation of “carbon pollution” and now “climate pollution” and the tendency of news outlets to beg the question of causality. It’s the question who thinks reducing American car emissions would “control” this “pollution” sufficiently to have an impact on “planet-warming”. And the surprising answer is: Nobody except very ill-informed journalists, politicians and other zealots.
No really. You might think with everyone gaga about the Paris Agreement and Joe Biden rejoining it without all that tedious mucking about with Senate approval of treaties, the scientists who say would be claiming Paris would stop the dreaded warming. But they’re not. They’re also not saying a minor increase in American automobile fuel efficiency would get the United States to Paris. Or that, if the United States went there, the world would.
So unless Biden intends by imperial fiat to require American-made, or -bought, cars to emit 60% less, the measure won’t “control” emissions in a meaningful way. Strike 1. Even if he did, and it worked, which are by no means the same thing, and if they were part of a package of measures that got the United States to its Paris targets and kept it there, it wouldn’t make other nations do it including whatever that big one with the coal plants and nuclear weapons is. Strike 2. And even if it did, according to the alarmists’ own models, everyone meeting their Paris targets would reduce warming in 2100 by about 0.1 degrees, a mere rounding error. Strike 3.
If “Climate Fwd.” is deliberately using language that makes an ineffective measure sound effective, Strike 4. Especially as if you believe there’s a climate crisis, the last thing you want is fake solutions. Strike 5. Of course “Climate Fwd.” like the IPCC depends for its livelihood on there being a crisis, and if they were being cynical it would be Strike 6. Instead they’re probably just as confused as they sound. Strike 7. Which seems like a lot but they’re not out.
Facebook has taken a back seat for me as far as social media is concerned. However, I do go to a few other’s Facebook pages just to see what they are saying. This morning I was going to Australian politician Craig Kelly’s Facebook when the image below appeared not allowing me to view his page. I don’t even remember posting this but was amused that Facebook has ‘Community Standards’ on the China virus and what I had put on in September last year was ‘misinformation’. So, Facebook know true INFORMATION and MISINFORMATION when it comes to the China virus!!! Well, thank you Facebook for letting me know as hopefully this information will be now published via this blog. PLEASSE SAHRE!
Facebook is a Leftist Marxist information stifling social media organization! As a conservative I am using Facebook and YouTube less and less due to their Marxist leanings! However, what is really scary is what will the next ten years bring? After a fraudulent 2020 election and the world seemingly asleep at the wheel what else can we expect? As Allum Bohari said in his November speech to Hillsdale College ‘…Big Tech doesn’t just mean control over online information. It means control over news. It means control over commerce. It means control over politics. And how are the corporate tech giants using their control? Judging by the three biggest moves they have made since I wrote my book—the censoring of the New York Post in October when it published its blockbuster stories on Biden family corruption, the censorship and eventual banning from the Web of President Trump, and the coordinated takedown of the upstart social media site Parler—it is obvious that Big Tech’s priority today is to support the political Left and the Washington establishment.’ He continued to say that ‘We know, for example, that Google reduced the visibility of Breitbart News links in search results by 99 percent in 2020 compared to the same period in 2016. We know that after Google introduced an update last summer, clicks on Breitbart News stories from Google searches for “Joe Biden” went to zero and stayed at zero through the election. This didn’t happen gradually, but in one fell swoop—as if Google flipped a switch. And this was discoverable through the use of Google’s own traffic analysis tools, so it isn’t as if Google cared that we knew about it.’
My blog is a SMALL cog in the scheme of things but I wonder how long my blog will be allowed any visitors AT ALL!
‘More than two-thirds of Republicans would join or consider joining a new political party if former President Donald Trump were to start one, a CBS News poll suggests.
Thirty-three percent of Republicans participating in the survey, conducted between Feb. 5 and Feb. 8, said they would join a Trump-led breakaway party. Another 37 percent said “maybe” they would join the new party, while the remaining 30 percent said they would stay with the Republican Party.
The poll was conducted among 2,508 adults living in the United States by YouGov, a London-based online polling company, with a plus/minus 2.3 point error margin. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race and education based on the U.S. Bureau of the Census’ American Community Survey, as well as the 2020 presidential vote and registration status.
Victoria, Australia is probably the most Left leaning of all the Australian states. Victoria’s leader, comrade Dan Andrews, is probably the most boastful God hating leader that Victoria has seen in the last fifty years. The Opposition party is silent and seems to go along with most of Andrew’s progressive leftist agenda. Now, ‘The parliament of Victoria (Australia) is about to conclude the process of the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill.
The law has been approved by both the Lower House and the Legislative Council of the Victorian parliament and could be soon ready to be implemented.
Any practice that aims to “change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity” will now be illegal.
According to Australian evangelical magazine Eternity News, this ban includes “prayer conversations suggesting change, and counselling when targeted at an individual”.
Melbourne, the State’s capital, is known for being Australia’s region with a strongest support for LGBT movements – as seen in the Pride Marches and other demonstrations in the last years.
The law becomes a real challenge to churches that hold to a traditional and biblical view of sexuality. Jail sentences up to ten years and large fines can be imposed by courts if there is a perception that a ‘conversion’ practice has caused injuries to a LGBT person.
According to the analysis of Eternity News, the law distinguishes between general teaching and personal counselling. “Sermons and general discussion of same-sex and gender issues which might take a conservative line” would not be prosecuted but “activities which are directed at an individual, on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and have the aim to change or supress that person’s identity” would.
How in the world did we get to the place where one set of scoundrels wreck entire cities but one instance at the WH and an unlimited amount of security, time and money is spent to see that it does not occur again?
How is it that today there can be more than two sexes or genders?
How is it we have come to a place where those in power decide men can be women and women can be men?
How is that we have come from a fanatical religious belief that the world was going to be destroyed by the hole in the ozone layer, then global cooling, then global warming and now climate change and the only remedy is to tax more and create products such as wind turbines and solar panels that are costly and do not produce sufficient reliable power?
How did we get to a place where certain groups of people are led to believe whites have privileges they never had?
Well, there are a lot more areas of concern in this day but they all lead to the fact that man HATES God! It all began in the Garden of Eden. In the very first Book of the Bible we read Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Even since then man has been seeking to get rid of God and His rules. Not long after God put man outside the Garden the first child born into this world murdered the second born child. Genesis 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Cain wasn’t an atheist or an agnostic but he rather knew God in a very personal way. God talked to him personally but Cain hated God so much that Cain wanted to get back at God. Cain couldn’t kill God BUT he could his brother and he did.
We have arrived at the place where we are because man is saying there is no God. Rather we are god and we are in control. We can save the earth from catastrophes such as climate change. There aren’t only two genders but there are numerous genders because we say there are. This anti-God attitude goes on into every realm of life. So, what does the Creator God, the God of the Bible say on these issues.
Gender: Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Homosexuality: 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.
Climate: Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
The leaders of nations and their minions may make their rules that go against nature and believe they are in control of all things here on earth including the climate but they will someday find out the truth. The Psalmist said it well in the second Psalm.
Psalm 2:1 ¶ Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. 6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. 10 ¶ Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
‘For most commentators in Australia’s mainstream media, the prime minister of New Zealand should always be referred to as Saint Jacinda. She is the embodiment of progressive wokeness, including looking appropriately sorrowful when required.
Her positions on social and climate policy make her a standout leader and are in stark contrast to our pitiful prime minister whose commitment to Christianity makes him immediately suspect.
The fact that Ardern only first became prime minister after doing a pact with the devil in the form of Winston Peters – that dodgy, nationalistic political manipulator – is a fact overlooked by her many media admirers.
To be sure, she now governs in her own right after winning a Covid election in 2020. And while New Zealand, a small island nation, has controlled the virus well, it has done so at massive economic and fiscal cost.
She has also faced the ignominy of completely failing to achieve anything in terms of boosting affordable housing, a key pledge of her first term in government. There was a fanciful plan to build 100,000 additional homes under the KiwiBuild program. When the actual number came in at 258, she decided to scrap the whole program.
Super embarrassing, you might think. Actually, unremarked is more accurate.
The recent decision by the Ardern government to allow the city council of the People’s Republic of Auckland to continue to impose a hard border on any new housing developments means that house prices in New Zealand’s largest city will continue to rise from their stratospheric levels.
But if you are a saint, none of this stuff matters. She has committed New Zealand to net zero emissions by 2050. She has declared a climate emergency. She is listening to the science. She is a leader we should admire. Why can’t we have one like her?
Indeed, Laura Tingle recently wrote in the Quarterly Essay that New Zealand has taken the ‘high road’ and we should learn from it. New Zealand ‘has repeatedly jumped out of its comfort zone and changed direction harder, faster and for longer than Australia has done in the past half-century’.
Er, the fact that there is no upper house in the New Zealand parliament in combination with its crazy voting system might just explain the vast oscillations in policies that have occurred from time to time.
But here’s the key fact: per capita income in New Zealand is a mere three-quarters of the level in Australia. And over a very long time, there has been no significant narrowing of this gap.
Judged by the number of New Zealanders who live in Australia – there are close to 600,000 or 12 per cent of New Zealand’s population – the ‘high road’ is not a description that would ring true to these émigrés.
Let’s get back to New Zealand’s outstanding approach to climate change. The country makes up less than 0.2 per cent of world emissions. We could easily just denote this as an asterix and be done.
But as all progressives know, it’s the vibe that really matters. And just think how many countries around the world are trying to emulate New Zealand’s example. (Yep, none, but it’s a good try.)
Talking about asterixes, one should also be used in relation to the Ardern’s pledge to net zero emissions by 2050 because methane is excluded. That’s right: all those emissions from burping and farting cows and sheep are not counted.
It is was one reason why Saint Jacinda was denied a speaking part at the international climate talkfest organised by wallowing UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, the French and the UN last year.
Mind you, a number of media commentators in Australia moaned loudly about our exclusion from the same event while forgetting to mention New Zealand also failed to make the team.
In an act of seeming political misjudgment by the Ardern government, a Climate Change Commission has been appointed to provide advice on appropriate measures that should be adopted by the government. (We had a similar arrangement once – the one chaired by mammologist Tim Flannery – but Tony Abbott had the good sense to get rid of it.)
Now the zealots who make up this commission are not of a mind to give those belching animals a free pass. Indeed, the commission’s chair likened farmers to whalers and we all know what happened to whalers, even the good one. That’s right: New Zealand agriculture is the past, not the future.
And giving Saint Jacinda a further touch of heartburn, the other recommendations of the commission include: a massive increase in walking, cycling and public transport; cities that are smaller in terms of their footprint than now (anyone for living in a high-rise dog box?); and 50 per cent of all vehicles being electric by 2027, just 6 years away. (Two per cent of vehicles in New Zealand are currently electric.)
And this one will be popular: a complete ban on the importation of petrol/diesel powered vehicles from 2032. Did I also mention that coal and gas consumption must drop by three-quarters by 2035 with herd sizes for all farm animals to be reduced as well?
Of course, these are only recommendations to the government, but given the Ardern government’s missteps in other policy areas, it’s unclear which ones from this climate lucky dip she won’t implement.
In the past, New Zealand governments have had very bad records in terms of meeting any climate change targets made, including its pledge under the Kyoto treaty.
Were it not for its overinvestment in forests, which are now encroaching on valuable arable land, the Ardern government would be a very long way from meeting its commitments under the Paris agreement. It’s also trying to fudge the figures by using an absolute figure for 2005 and a net figure for 2030, hoping no one notices.
But let’s face it, four-fifths of two-thirds of nothing is nothing. And that’s the level of interest the world is generally taking in New Zealand’s self-destructive climate actions.
But Saint Jacinda can be guaranteed extravagant and unalloyed adulation from the green-left media in Australia, with unfavourable comparisons made with our knuckle-dragging, close-to-climate denying prime minister thrown in for good measure. I’m pretty sure Scott Morrison isn’t too worried.’https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/02/saint-jacindas-climate-change-lucky-dip/
