God's Wake Up Call in the Gulf of Mexico
What is our Creator telling us?
6-13-2010 Mark Siffer
As the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico enters it's seventh week with no end in sight, It has struck me to ask "What is REALLY happening? What is God telling us?" BP’s spill, caused by an April 20 explosion that killed 11 crew members, is about 300 miles (482 kilometers) off Mexico’s Yucatan coast. The leak is similar to one in 1979 by state-oil producer Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, which took nine months to plug its Ixtoc 1 well following an explosion and fire. Estimates in the broad-way media vary wildly as to how much oil is flowing per day. But recently the numbers are climbing to over 40,000 barrels per day and the pundits and professors are admitting their guesses were way off target. Funny thing though, they never have an oil industry professional, certainly not someone from BP, disclose the flow rate! BP said Saturday that it continues to collect crude at a rate of 15,000 barrels a day from its gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, as the worst oil spill in U.S. history continues to pummel the Gulf Coast. Just how BAD is this disaster? Most people want to know!
It is a common saying; "God only knows." Yes he does. And He is calling us to wake up! When this disaster began many were looking for someone to blame. Even the President of the United States of America, Barry Soetoro aka Barak Hussein Obama stated he wanted to know "who's ass to kick". But in times of colossal tragedy, trying to affix blame can distract from the task at hand; RESCUE.
After 9-11-2001, the first responders had no time to waste on the blame game. They knew lives were at stake. Hundreds risked their lives, banded together with brothers from all over the country, and got to work. As the days turned into weeks and the pile of rubble still smoldered, Americans began to pour over the volumes of video evidence to try to find out what really happened. To this day most Americans polled do not accept the conspiracy theory known as the 9-11 commission report. Six of the ten commissioners who wrote the 9-11 commission report, have stated it is a whitewash and inaccurate. Investigative journalists have produced volumes of credible scientific evidence that continues to be squashed by the broad-way media. The victims families and first responders are demanding truth and a new investigation.
What does this have to do with the BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster? Plenty. As this event was breaking in the news speculations emerged. Some feared terrorism. Others suspected sabotage. The most common evil, greed, was also bantered about. But today, as the oil festoons from the high pressure gusher 5000 feet below the waters in the Gulf of Mexico, Americans need to do what they do best. Put on their creative solutions hats and treat this as a RESCUE. The environmentalist who loves sea creatures needs to gird up next to the engineer who is fascinated by a challenge. The evolutionary biologists needs to join with creation scientists to focus their skills on cleaning this mess. And the BP executives need to join with the local governments to put aside their board room secrecy tactics and release REAL data so we ALL can pitch in to help. There will be plenty of time to sort through the evidence and prosecute if neccessary. But from all the investigating I have done on this story, I believe this is nothing more than a HUGE ACCIDENT. Whether it was fueled by greed or neglect I do not know, and in this writers opinion, there is NO TIME to deal with that now. Families in Louisiana and along the Gulf coast are running out of time. They are out of work. Their way of life is at risk. Soon all of America will be at risk.
God's word says "Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right." Proverbs 20:11.
Next year, 2011, will we be able to look back and see we did right? God is telling us the ball is in our court!
On the latest From The Ark podcast we will examine the latest information from deep inside the oil industry about the BP Deepwater Horizon disater as Lindsey Williams returns.
_______________________________________________________________
Election 2010: Nevada Senate
The Evolution of a Lie
Mark Siffer December 15, 2009
From Charles Darwin to Al Gore the lies are whoppers. But what are the similarities in their agendas? Did Darwin blaze the trail for Gore? Today we will explore the connection between Darwin's evolution, social Darwinism, the birth of the eugenics movement, and how that all ties into the current scare about climate change. Find out the real motives behind carbon taxes, population control and global warming. We will show how it is simply the evolution of one big lie on the latest From The Ark podcast!
As the Copenhagen Climate Summit continues this week, BBC news reports: Three days of action from ministers are needed to "seal a deal" at the climate talks in Copenhagen, according to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
Speaking at the opening of the high-level segment, he told delegates they had the chance to change history.
But governments remain deadlocked on many key issues, including the size of emission targets, finance, and verification of emission curbs.
Demonstrations are expected on Wednesday as ministers convene.
Campaign groups are talking of mounting actions inside and outside the conference centre.
There is anger about the glacial progress of some segments of the talks and about logistical problems that have seen most people from NGOs unable to enter the venue.
UK Climate Secretary Ed Miliband acknowledged that talks "could still fail".
Mr Ban told delegates there was still an "enormous amount of work to be done" if a deal was to be achieved.
With Climategate still raging on the alternative news, the broad-way media white washes over the story with their usual bias and neglect. Glenn Beck on Fox has reported on Climategate only to appear on Bill O'Reily and call for a 2% VAT tax just like the climate crooks in Copenhagen are suggesting. See Benedict Beck here.
Lord Christopher Monckton was in Copenhagen and attended several meetings. He was also shouted down by an angry mob when it was his turn to speak at the podium. After the incident Lord Monkton called the shouting group "Hitler Youth" in reference to how the Hitler youth acted when the Nazis occupied Copenhagen. The remark was met with obvious disdain but Lord Monkton defends his position quite elequently on video that can be seen on youtube. (see video here) also (see video here). Upon his return from Copenhagen, Lord Monkton was on the Alex Jones program and gave first hand breaking news of the events. An excerpt from that broadcast is included in the latest From The Ark podcast.
So, what do current global warming minions have in common with Charles Darwin? First we must look at the REAL motives behind the Climategate crowd. Let me preface my position by saying no one I know believes it is a good thing to pollute our planet. After all, from a Christian perspective, the bible says we are to be good stewards and that includes the planet He created for us. I have met many well meaning people who have bought the lies of Al Gore and others who would have you believe CO2 is a pollutant. I remember as a young child seeing Lake Erie in Ohio and Michigan so polluted there were dead fish all over the beach and the beaches were closed. It was a mess but we cleaned it up! Today Lake Erie and all the Great Lakes are beautiful. Do we still have issues? Of course. But we can address them with sound science and most importantly TRUTH. Scare tactics for the purpose of filling the coffers of globalist bankers is a fraud and need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The big lie that connects all this mess is the lie that man is his own god. Charles Darwin used evolution to support his own atheism. He was not alone. Today we have a religion called humanism which means virtually the same thing.
Whether we like to acknowledge it or not, man has a built-in propensity to worship some being greater than himself. Evidence from the most primitive tribes to the medieval cathedrals of Europe and the evangelical movement beginning in the 1960s and extending into the present day attest to this. And atheism is a religion. It was declared a religion by the United States Supreme Court in 1961. Thus, atheism was formally declared to be a religion by the United States Supreme Court in 1961, together with Buddhism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others that do not teach a belief in the existence of God . The Atheist Church of America and the American Ethical Union, for example, are both bona fide tax-exempt religious organizations.
Humanism:… . It’s where you get an “intelligent” and “superior” person to run your life instead of God. By denying an intelligent Creator, or even denying that he is vitally interested in the affairs of man, then men must look to man as the intelligence necessary to run the affairs of the world. This is humanism.
From Dr. Ian Taylor and his book "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order"
Charles Darwin: His grandfather was Erasmus Darwin. Erasmus was a physician, something of a poet, an instrument of the Industrial Revolution, and author of a massive two-volume work Zoönomia (1794-96); this work contained within it the essence of the theory that his grandson would announce to the world half a century later. The founder of the Lunar Society, Erasmus Darwin, had in 1794 written a book called Zoönomia in which he outlined his theory of evolution, anticipating not only [Jean Baptiste] Lamarck’s ideas but even the theory of natural selection; this book had the distinction of being placed on the Catholic Index; its popularity among independent thinkers was thus assured.
The Lunar Society was active between 1764 and 1800. It didn’t have more than fourteen members and it was the most influential group of men in England. Three members in the group were Josiah Wedgwood, founder of the famous pottery business, Erasmus Darwin and Benjamin Franklin.
These men recognized that knowledge was power, and by pooling information from various activities and investigations, they were responsible for a number of scientific discoveries that served as the driving force for the Industrial Revolution.
The Darwins and the Wedgwoods believed that they were “superior” stock, so they bred with one another.
.
. . the Darwins and the Wedgwoods who recognized in each other all the qualities of “superior” people.
Charles Darwin’s dad, Dr. Robert Darwin, married the daughter of Josiah Wedgwood. Charles Darwin married the youngest daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, Emma Wedgwood, which means Charles married his mother’s sister.
Darwin’s idea of inbreeding to produce superior stock can be seen to be a complete disaster in the case of his own ten children. Of the ten, one girl died shortly after birth; another died in childhood; his youngest son, Charles, was mentally retarded and lived only two years; Henrietta had a serious and prolonged breakdown at fifteen; and three sons suffered such frequent illness that Darwin regarded them as semiinvalids. Darwin’s last son, Charles Jr., was born mentally retarded and died nineteen months after birth.
Shortly after Charlie published “The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” (A racist, eugenics laden title if there ever was one!) his cousin Francis Galton took the baton and ran the eugenics path in his book ‘Hereditary Genius’
Francis Galton, wrote extensively on this principle and openly advocated selective breeding programs for the creation of tomorrow’s elite ruling class (Galton 1869, 24).
Here is video from James Corbett from The Corbett report titled Carbon Eugenics: Genocide in the name of the environment is still genocide.
To the palpably class-conscious Francis Galton, only the breeding successes of the eugenics movement could prevent the superior hereditary qualities of the “race” from being overwhelmed by the rising tides of equally white, equally Anglo-Saxon, equally Protestant Englishmen of inferior hereditary and bank balances. As the high priest and theologian of this Victorian racist cult, Galton even established its very “scientific” scale of racial values.
. . . the Darwins and the Wedgwoods who recognized in each other all the qualities of “superior” people.
The passing of the flame from the Old World to the New was effected as early as 1912, at the First International Congress of Eugenics, held at the University of London a year after Galton’s death.
The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin . . . The English vice-presidents of the Congress of Eugenics included a future Prime Minister, First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill; the Bishop of Oxford; the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone; and the president of the College of Physicians, Sir Thomas Barlow. The German vice-presidents included M. von Gruber, professor of hygiene at Munich, and Dr. Alfred Ploetz, president of the International Society for Race Hygiene. The American vice-presidents included Gifford Pinchot, a future governor of Pennsylvania; Charles W. Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard University; Alexander Graham Bell; David Starr-Jordan, president of Stanford University; and Charles B. Davenport, listed on the program as secretary of the American Breeders’ Association.
By 1921, when the Second International Congress of Eugenics was convened at New York’s American Museum of Natural History under President Henry Fairfield Osborn, time had provided no new scientific or moral justifications for such a congress. Nevertheless, the concepts aired at this world congress of scientific racism were to become the conventional opinions of a majority of America’s academic, editorial, and political leaders for generations. Since we are still paying vast human and fiscal costs—in such preventable conditions as having one of the industrialized world’s highest infant death rates—for the wholesale application of these eugenics ideas to public policies, the modern reader has much to gain by a quick review of what was said, and by whom, at this congress.
Major Leonard Darwin, son of the great Charles Darwin, president of the First Congress of Eugenics in 1912 . . . was a vice-president and honored guest of the second world convocation.
If the future Prime Minister of England, Winston Churchill—a vice-president of the 1912 Congress—was not among the members of the 1921 Congress’s General Committee, the soon-to-be President of the United Sates, Herbert Hoover, was. As were, among many other notables, college and foundation presidents and intellectuals: the future governor of Pennsylvania, Gifford Pinchot; the chief psychologist of the U.S. Army, Robert M. Yerkes; and the chairman of the Psychology Department of Columbia University’s Teachers College, Edward L. Thorndike. The principal benefactress of the American eugenics movement, Mrs. E. H. Harriman, contributed generously to help met the dollar costs of the Congress. She delivered her checks to the chairman of its Finance Committee, Madison Grant.
. . . I had the distinct feeling that little had changed relative to man and his cultural environment since the days when President Teddy Roosevelt was issuing ukases against the fecundity of unworthy breeding stocks. And when President Coolidge, after Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924, proclaimed, “American must be kept American,” as he signed the bill to make us Judenrein. And when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted the judgments of John B. Trevor and Charles B. Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin in the matter of relaxing or not relaxing the barriers the very same 1924 Immigration Act had raised against sanctuary in America for Jews, Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, Slavs and other holocaust-threatened species.
The power of truly bad ideas survives their originators for lifetimes without end.
When Hitler’s Thousand-Year Reich fell in 1945, it was revealed by the German Central Association of Sterilized Persons that at least two million human beings had had been ruled in the Eugenics Courts to be eugenically unfit (dysgenic) and sterilized against their will during the twelve years of the Nazi version of [Harry H.] Laughlin’s Eugenical Sterilization Law. Under the voluntary sterilization law of the Weimar Republic overthrown by Hitler, between 1927 and 1933 a total of less than 500 Germans—about 85 people a year, most of them women whose health would have been jeopardized by pregnancy—had been voluntarily sterilized. Under the Nazis, an average of 165,000 Germans of both sexes were sterilized annually against their will—at the rate of 450 forced sterilizations per day.
So now onto Charles Galton Darwin and excerpts from his book The Next Million Years.
He called this book The Next Million Years because “. . . in the evolution of life, how long does it take to make a new species? The answer is a million years. That is the reason for the title I have chosen for this essay—for a million years to come we have got to put up with all the defects in man’s nature as it is now.”
Charles Galton Darwin says on page 46 what this book is about. He says, “I am trying to imagine what an historian of a million years hence, engaged in preparing a universal history of the human race, would select from our own past history as worthy of notice.”
He considers man to be an animal. He says that “. . . man is and will always continue to be essentially a wild and not a tame animal.”
Man is an animal, but a social animal . . . I shall regard man as a biological specimen like any wild animal . . .
There is no prospect of man’s nature imitating an insect’s, but it is much more nearly imaginable that his development should go, like that of the dogs, into a set of breeds each specialized for a particular purpose. We all of us know of whole human families which possess gifts specialized in some particular direction, and if the specialization were narrowed and the gifts improved till all competitors were surpassed, such a family would have turned itself into a breed. But all past history contradicts this tendency, for it suggests that wherever there have been such groups they have not increased further in their specialized skills, but that after a very few generations they have tended to merge back into the general population. I will give some examples, though my knowledge of history is hardly deep enough to cite them with any confidence.
A first example may be drawn from the sanctity of royal blood, which has been a prevalent idea in many countries, and which would give opportunity for the in-breeding that is essential for the production of a specialized breed. The most extreme case is that of the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt whose blood was counted as so sacred that the reigning house had to be perpetuated by brother-and-sister marriages. Biologists no longer now regard close in-breeding as necessarily deleterious, but still the possibility of its evil effects might throw doubt on any positive conclusions we could draw from the Ptolemies. But the only conclusions that can be drawn are entirely negative; the record of the dynasty is not very impressive, it is neither much better nor much worse than that of other dynasties that had not been in-bred, and in the end it collapsed, as did the other dynasties, under the irresistible might of the Romans. Neither in this extreme case, nor in other more modern ones, is there any sign of a tendency for a breed to arise that is specialized for kingship.
Charles Galton Darwin wrote about his predictions for the world. . .
He writes about globalism, “If the fuel problem is solved completely, so that mechanical power and transportation is available in the future to a greater extent even than at present, then the provinces will be large; for example, the whole of Europe may well be one, and the whole of North America another.”
He also writes about world government. “If then there is ever to be a world government, it will have to function as governments do now, in the sense that it will have to coerce a minority—and indeed it may often be a majority—into doing things they do not want to do.” He goes on to say, “If transportation is easy, world conquest will be easier both for military reasons and because the more uniform culture should make the world government more acceptable.”