Psalm 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Psalm 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
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.
Most of us want clean air, clean drinkable water and a rubbish free environment. However, what the climate scammers are pushing really has nothing to do with any of the three. The climate scammers want to restrict our living standards and tax us for the privilege of living a lifestyle technology has provided so far. The climate scammers want to replace God the Creator.
Drought and famines have occurred on this earth for millenniums. Here are some Scriptures showing such.
Genesis 12:10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.
Genesis 26:1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
Genesis 41:56, 57 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. 57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.
1Kings 17:7 And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land.
Famine is usually caused by the lack of rain so one should get the point by now that God is in control! This Climate Scam is all about doing away with God, more taxes, and more government intervention into the lives of the people. In the following video John MacKay speaks to that point. Even though this was a talk he gave in Scotland back in 2007 it is as relevant today as it was then.
The following is an old but very relevant article from the Front Page Magazine August, 2016.
‘When a pair of black separatists recently murdered five police officers in Dallas and three others in Baton Rouge, they were aiming, by their own proclamation, to carry out righteous retribution against an American society which they deplored because of its deep-seated “white skin privilege,” a concept first popularized by Bill Ayers and his fellow Weatherman radicals who, in the early ‘70s, aimed to foment a violent race war against a supposedly Klan-like “Amerikkka.” Although their terrorist tactics and aspirations made the Weathermen a fringe group, their views on race proved, over time, to have legs. The notion of white skin privilege became an article of faith among progressives, accounting for everything that was racially wrong in America, beginning with its constitutional framework.
Even those liberals who initially resisted the concept of white skin privilege as a slander against a noble country that had just gone through an unprecedented civil-rights revolution, eventually embraced it to explain why racial disparities persisted even as overt racists vanished from public life and institutional barriers were toppled. Civil-rights professionals, meanwhile, were faced with yet another problem: how to remain relevant and prominent in an era when white racism was being dismantled and delegitimized in a manner never before seen in human history.
The common solution to these dilemmas was to depict the nebulous concept of “white skin privilege” as a thread woven so deeply into the fabric of American culture, that it could never be fully extracted; to claim that whites, no matter how earnest or well-intentioned, would never be able to truly shed the racism that infected their hearts. In other words, to claim that real racial healing could never occur, even in a thousand years, because whites, by definition and DNA, would remain racists, even if unwittingly, until the end of time.
Out of this mindset grew the academic field of Whiteness Studies—a.k.a. Critical Whiteness Studies—which first made its way onto college campuses in the early 1990s. And from its inception, this discipline bore no resemblance whatsoever to other group-identity-based curricula like Black Studies, Chicano Studies, and Women’s Studies. Whereas those fields steadfastly celebrated their respective groups and emphasized their status as innocent victims of societal oppression, Whiteness Studies depicted whites uniformly as malevolent oppressors of people with darker complexions. They weren’t Italians, or Brits, or Poles, or Germans—they were just depraved white miscreants, best known for their many crimes against humanity. As Jeff Hitchcock, the co-founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture, said in 1998 at the Third National Conference on Whiteness: “There is plenty to blame whiteness for. There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of color. There is no crime that we have not committed even against ourselves…. We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today that deny the rights of those outside of whiteness and which damage and pervert the humanity of those of us within it.”
And absolutely nothing has changed in the field of Whiteness Studies in the years since then. Last fall, for instance, University of Colorado associate professor Amy Wilkins candidly explained that her Whiteness Studies class was in essence “an advanced course on racial inequality.”
The_ Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education_ describes Whiteness Studies as “a growing body of scholarship whose aim is to reveal the invisible structures that produce and reproduce white supremacy and privilege.” Central to this definition is the notion that the average white person is largely unaware of his own racism, and that he must be helped to overcome the dreaded “ignorance of one’s ignorance” which prevents him from even recognizing “racism as a system of privilege” that benefits him at the expense of others.
The writings of feminist Peggy McIntosh are renowned in the field of Whiteness Studies, where professors and course readings often make reference to her famous metaphor of white skin privilege as an “invisible knapsack of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious.”
Whiteness Studies professor Lee Bebout of Arizona State University, for his part, says that “white supremacy makes it so that white people can’t see the world they have created.”
Not long ago, the University of Wisconsin–Superior sponsored an “Unfair Campaign” whose slogan—“It’s hard to see racism when you’re White”—was promoted aggressively via billboards, online videos, and posters. One poster showed a group of white students with the words “Is white skin really a fair skin?” written on their faces.
University of Wisconsin English professor Dr. Gregory Jay informs us that “Whiteness Studies is an attempt to think critically about how white skin preference has operated systematically, structurally, and sometimes unconsciously as a dominant force in American—and indeed in global—society and culture.” Moreover, he contends that telling white people that they’re racists whether or not they realize it, will ultimately foster interracial harmony: “I believe that Whiteness Studies must be part of the general effort to eradicate prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, and racism.”
With similar detachment from reality, Portland Community College claims that its annual “White History Month” initiative condemning the many evils of “whiteness” will help to “change our campus climate” for the better.
At Scripps College in Claremont, California, all incoming students receive a “survival guide” designed to alert the newcomers to the racism lurking quietly in the dark corners of white people’s hearts. One entry in this manual, titled “Dear White Students,” declares that “we as white students, must identify the ways that we are engaging in the perpetuation of white supremacy and work to unlearn our racism”; that racism is often manifested in “subtle ways through language” and “the perpetuation of white supremacist values like perfectionism [and] individualism”; that “reverse racism does not exist because there are no institutions that were founded with the intention of discriminating against white people on the basis of their skin”; that the “anger” of nonwhites “is a legitimate response to oppression, as is … a general distaste or hatred of white people”; that “we [whites] do not get to dictate how people of color respond to racism, nor do we get to delegitimize reactions that make us uncomfortable”; and that “our comfort is not more important than the safety of our peers of color.”
In other words, white students are advised to metaphorically lie down, belly-up, in contrite supplication, and to hold that pose for the remainder of their lives.
The common themes that run through all of the aforementioned programs and courses are Universal White Guilt on the one hand, and Universal Black Innocence on the other—flip sides of the same racialist coin. More than that, they are the twin centerpieces of the leftist mindset which aims to pit various groups of people against one another by dividing them neatly into oppressors and oppressed, victimizers and victims, evil and good. This tribal mentality, which sees human beings as members of mutually hostile groups rather than as individuals, is as contrary to the American ideal of individual rights and liberty as any mentality that has ever existed.
Moreover, it’s precisely this same tribalism which is promoted endlessly by the grievance mongers who constitute the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement that inspired the gunmen who recently murdered those eight police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. And the college classroom—the very place where young people are routinely indoctrinated with the type of racist rhetoric that pervades the field of Whiteness Studies (as well as Black Studies, for that matter)—is where this tribalism is most likely to find minds that are receptive to it. As the _Washington Post_ puts it, BLM’s “strongest foothold may now be … the American university.” Given these sobering facts, a legitimate case can be made for the idea that much of the trillion-plus dollars in student-loan debt that young people have racked up, has been money that was entirely wasted.’ https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/ugly-racism-whiteness-studies-programs-john-perazzo/
Can a person choose to whom they are born? Can a person choose where they are born? Can a person choose what color of skin they are born with? Of course, the answer to all three of these questions is, No! We must as individuals accept somethings in life just because they cannot be changed and skin colour is one.
If it is of any interest to the reader I have pretty much white skin, Caucasian. Recently, a gentleman has been in correspondence with me concerning an article I wrote

Charles Darwin is the man who promoted much of today’s racism through his evolutionary teaching.
some months ago. I thought I would share with you a couple of statements he made. He wrote ‘It is about your white privilege, your white privilege. If your life is valued more than mine because you are white, is that consistent with the TRUTH? Yet, in America that is the truth. You don’t have to hate me in order to oppress me. Your whiteness does this and the system that privileges your whiteness does this.’
The following article is the Biblical view of today’s controversial race issue!
‘Waiting in airports and long airplane rides have become a way of life for the ICR staff scientist. Imagine my appreciation when two black servicemen engaged me in a delightful conversation about creation the other day.
As it turned out, both men were dedicated Christians, but had no previous teaching on creation, although both knew evolution had to be wrong, based on the clear statements of Scripture.
Finally, they asked the question which they had always wanted to ask, but had never dared to: Where did the races come from?
Perhaps I was reading too much into their comments, but I felt like weeping (and still feel like weeping) as I recognized what generations of racial prejudice had done to these two men. From Darwin on down, evolutionists have preached that the Negro race was lower on the evolutionary scale, much closer to the apes than the Caucasian. As a matter of fact the whole concept of race is evolutionary, not Biblical, for”God hath made of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26). All of mankind springs from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and then through Noah’s family. The Biblical distinction is between national groups, and especially languages, not skin color or other physical characteristics. These two men, and probably many blacks, had been bludgeoned by evolutionary dogma into questioning their own self-worth, wondering if their standing before God was equal to that of other ethnic groups.
Actually, the Biblical model regarding the origin of physical characteristics is easily the best historical and scientific explanation. Starting with Noah’s family, the creation model postulates a “racially mixed” population, with much biological potential for variation. As family groups were isolated by language barriers, environmental factors allowed particular traits already present to be expressed more frequently, while genes coded for other characteristics were not favored and were eventually suppressed.
Genetically speaking, the differences between the various races are extremely small. All are of the same species, are interfertile, and produce fertile offspring. The most noticeable difference is in skin color, but the fact is, we are all the same color; some people just have a little more of that color than others. Skin shade is due to the amount of a substance called melanin in the skin; the more melanin, the darker the skin. Racially mixed individuals can parent children who are all the way from quite dark to quite light, or anywhere in between. The predominant shade for freely interbreeding individuals would be brown.
While prejudice, persecution, and racial hatred follow directly from the application of evolutionary teaching, some have even proposed racism in the name of Christianity. The Christian must not allow himself or herself to think this way. The Lord Jesus certainly didn’t. He was likely neither white nor black, but somewhere in between. He died to provide all men the opportunity for eternal life (II Peter 3:9, for example). Indeed, heaven will be populated by “a great multitude . . .of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues (who will) stand before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes” (Revelation 7:9), all redeemed by His blood. In the end, all racism, as well as racial distinctions, will be abolished.’ https://www.icr.org/article/where-did-races-come-from
Deuteronomy 33:15
“And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills,”
‘There is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding what carbon dating actually is and does. For example, we mentioned in a previous Creation Moment that, contrary to popular opinion, carbon dating is not used to find a date for fossils because such fossils do not usually contain the original material of the organism.
Carbon dating relies on an isotope of carbon with a mass of 14, whereas normal carbon atoms have a mass of 12. About one in every trillion carbon atoms is carbon-14. It is just as well that the amount of carbon-14 is so small because it is radioactive, having a half-life of 5,730 years. Carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere by bombardment by cosmic rays. These rays produce thermal neutrons which crash into atoms of nitrogen (mass 14), dislodging a proton in a microscopic game of pool, thus producing a carbon-14 atom. As carbon-14 acts chemically the same as carbon-12, it gets into carbon compounds and enters the food chain. Both plants and animals are constantly both taking in and emitting carbon-14, so its quantity is assumed to remain constant. On death, however, the existing carbon-14 will simply decay, so the amount of carbon-14 left can be used to calculate how long ago it died.
Used correctly, carbon dating is actually a useful technique, but it relies on the assumption that atmospheric bombardment has been constant. This is an unsupported conjecture, and the devastating effects and aftermath of the biblical Flood would have greatly affected calculated carbon-dates.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/what-is-carbon-dating/?mc_cid=5ef30aa0f2&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
https://www.icr.org/article/11696/
Evolution like climate change, are only a fact to those who wish them to be.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
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.
This is another excellent short video from Creation Moments. I continue to be amazed how people believe the religion of evolution.
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
‘According to secular scientists, the Moon is roughly 4.5 billion years old. It supposedly formed right after the Solar System did. But there’s a growing body of evidence that this old-age assessment is incorrect.
(Of course, this isn’t the only problem for secular ideas of the Moon’s formation. The “giant impact” model is known to be wrong. It is still being taught today anyway, but only because secular scientists don’t have any better ideas.)
The Moon’s supposed age of billions of years was never correct, of course. But it was easier for secular scientists to make that claim a few decades ago—back when we didn’t know as much about the Moon as we do now.
The challenges arise from simple, well-understood physics:
The Moon is a small object. According to secular theories, it should have cooled from its formation long ago. A small, cold body would have no source of energy for geological activity. (Although there are tidal interactions between the Moon and Earth, these don’t supply significant amounts of energy.)
Therefore, the Moon’s geological activity also should have ceased long ago.
But apparently it didn’t. Here are three indicators of recent tectonic activity within the Moon:
Here’s why these discoveries are interesting.
If the Moon is (or recently was) geologically active, this activity indicates that it’s still hot inside. And if it’s still hot inside, it hasn’t cooled off yet.
And if it hasn’t cooled off yet, then it isn’t billions of years old.’ https://www.creationastronomy.com/articles/
This video is from Creation, Evolution and Science Ministries. Their website is https://creationministries.org/ .
Evolution is taught as a fact in all public schools supported by the tax payer whether the taxpayer believes evolution is true or not. If it isn’t true it is a LIE foisted upon the students. Christians therefore must look for other sources that teach what the Bible teaches and that is there was a Creator.
This documentary shows the result of a worldwide flood known as Noah’s flood. This flood was the result of man’s sinfulness. Genesis 6:5 tells us And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
That flood of Noah’s time resulted in the formation of the Grand Canyon. If you do not know the Lord Jesus as your personal Saviour from your sins there is a judgement waiting for you. As the preacher’s told the jailer the same is true of you Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
It seems that the world (whatever that word might mean to you) has pretty much taken over every possible area of thinking. For instance, many people today accept evolution as a fact and that we must be told quite often that it is true. Well here is an article that just might dispel that.
‘Take the word “evolutionary” out of most science articles. It serves no purpose but to twist data and mislead readers.
What has Darwin done for you lately? Probably very little, and possibly a lot of harm. Science writers and researchers have a bad habit of inserting “evolutionary” into their writing. It’s not history; it’s evolutionary history. She’s not a biologist; she’s an evolutionary biologist. It’s not paleontology, it’s evolutionary paleontology. Enough already! Show some actual value that evolution has contributed to the writing, or else delete the word.
New evolutionary insights into the early development of songbirds (Science Daily). People want insights, but why “evolutionary insights”? The sophoxymoronic phrase is a contradiction in terms. If it’s evolutionary, it’s not insight. If it’s insight, it’s not evolutionary, otherwise it would be blind and unguided insight, which is not insight at all. The work was done by “evolutionary biologists.” Why not just biologists? They talked about germline restricted chromosomes (GRCs) in birds, which are important for preventing “somatic cells from possible negative effects.” So why must they desire to speculate about the “evolutionary history” of GRCs? The moment they insert the useless word, the perhapsimaybecouldness index rises as the scientific value falls.
Divers of the past: Plesiosaur research reveals rapid increase of blood cell size (Phys.org). Plesiosaurs appear in the fossil record as capable swimmers and hunters in a variety of forms, without ancestors. Looking for an evolutionary tale to spin, German researchers from Duisburg-Essen University analyzed thin sections of bone from plesiosaurs and think they found slight increases in blood cell size over time. They say,
From an evolutionary perspective, this change is obviously still useful. Today`s whales, seals and penguins also have unusually large red blood cells, but their close relatives on land and in freshwater do not. “This supports our assumption that this is a significant adaption of warm-blooded marine life,” says Kai Caspar.
From a “biological perspective” is adequate. Better, “from a design perspective.” Evolution had nothing to do with it. The data are too ambiguous, for one thing, and Caspar did not rule out other, more plausible reasons for the inferred cell diameters than the Stuff Happens Law. He certainly did not trace chance mutations that might have gotten selected blindly. That would clearly be difficult or impossible. The word “evolutionary,” therefore, serves no purpose. It’s distracting and misleading.’ https://crev.info/2019/12/evolutionary-a-useless-adjective/