Author: Papa Giorgio

Who Said It? (Find the Radical)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Pictured above to the left, thanks to Big Peace, is the Discovery Network hostage taker/environmental extremist, James Lee. To the right we have Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren. And I want to play a bit of a game, and it is – WHO SAID THAT. It is straight forward and simple, for instance, who said this:

Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is.  That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed.  Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down!  This is your obligation. (source)

If you guessed James Lee, you would be correct. It should be, after that quote, pretty obvious who said this then:

Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable…not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes…The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade…The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits…the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (source)

If you guessed James Lee… you would be WRONG. You see, Holdren believes a world government might play a moderate role in the future: setting and enforcing appropriate population levels, taxing and redistributing the world’s wealth, controlling the world’s resources, and operating a standing World Army. He went on to say on page 917 of the book he wrote that “security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force…The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

Who’s the radical? One can hold a few hostages in a Discovery Channel building, thet other can hold the entire country hostage through Cap n’ Trade and other eco-fascist legislation that sneaks by the purview of the American public via the Obama admin EPA. Have you always wondered how to pray about a President… I mean we are always told we should pray for the leaders. You can pray by petitioning our Lord that these radical ideas stemming from flawed worldviews that wish to replace Him on high and put man in the center of the universe [rather than God] not stand in His wake. And if they do stand, that it is His will working towards a just end… and that you worry for the souls not only in leadership but you pray that these rebellious persons hear the clarion call and submit to God in ways never before realized in their lives. That what I pray when I pray for my leaders.

Unfortunately, Obama’s Czars are pretty much all like the above example. If you do not realize how Marxist values are being promulgated (at least in legislative attempts so far) against us/the world, you can see it in Holder’s recent actions:

He detailed the mechanism for global socialism just two years ago. In a February 2007 report of which he was a coordinating lead author, urges the United Nations to undertake “a global framework” that is “more comprehensive and ambitious” than the Kyoto Protocol. Holdren states the UN must mandate “A requirement for the early establishment of a substantial price on carbon emissions in all countries, whether by a carbon tax or a tradable permit approach.” Although he prefers a global carbon tax presided over by a United Nations-strength IRS, he is open to a stringent global cap-and-trade program. However, that program must contain: “A means for transferring some of the revenue produced by carbon taxes upon, or permits purchased by, countries and consumers with high incomes and high per capita emissions to countries and consumers with low incomes and low per capita emissions” (source)

This is one of the most foundational positions in Marxism. Redistribution of wealth. Again, Who Is the Radical?

Some older posts on Holdren:

Subject/Object Distinction-Most of America Can Do It-Why Not the Media?

Published by Papa Giorgio

NewsBusters has a great post about percentages, and it shows that 67% of New Yorkers would prefer the Mega-Mosque (Ground Zero Mosque) built a bit further away. Maybe to a place where body parts and plane [art were not found on and in from the first plane hitting the first Tower? Just maybe? Noel Sheppard rightly pooints out this “subject” “object” distinction that New Yorkers and 72% of the nation can get, but the general media cannot: “Most people outside the liberal press are intelligent enough to understand that developers have the right to build this mosque if its zoning is approved. They just question the wisdom of doing so.  If an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers can understand the difference between having the right to do something and whether or not it would be appropriate, why can’t media members?” Indeed, why can’t they. Maybe because a majority of them are very progressive in their views, no thanks to institutions like Columbia University. Here is the poll:

Over all, 50 percent of those surveyed oppose building the project two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, even though a majority believe that the developers have the right to do so. Thirty-five percent favor it.

[…]

The poll, however, reveals a more complicated portrait of the opposition in New York: 67 percent said that while Muslims had a right to construct the center near ground zero, they should find a different site.

Most strikingly, 38 percent of those who expressed support for the plan to build it in Lower Manhattan said later in a follow-up question that they would prefer it be moved farther away, suggesting that even those who defend the plan question the wisdom of the location.

…(read more)…

I wonder if this poll would even be higher if some of the terror financing connections were more widely known and quotes by this “bridge building” Imam?

I Dont Believe In God-I Came from Monkeys~Atheist

Published by Papa Giorgio

SecularStupidest h/t:

  • “I shall always be convinced that a watch proves a watch-maker, and that a universe proves God.”

~ Voltaire


Excerpt from an old debate:

…Instead of thinking of Christianity as a collection of theological bits and pieces to be believed or debated, we should approach our faith as a conceptual system, as a total world-and-life view.  Once people understand that both Christianity and its adversaries in the world of ideas are worldviews, they will be in a better position to judge the relative merits of the total Christian system.  William Abraham has written:

“Religious belief should be assessed as a rounded whole rather than taken in stark isolation, Christianity, for example, like other world faiths, is a complex, large-scale system of belief which must be seen as a whole before it is assessed.  To break it up into disconnected parts is to mutilate and distort its true character.  We can, of course, distinguish certain elements in the Christian faith, but we must still stand back and see it as a complex interaction of these elements.  We need to see it as a metaphysical system, as a worldview, that is total in its scope and range” (An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, p. 104).

The case for or against Christian theism should be made and evaluated in terms of total systems.   Christianity is not simply a religion that tells human beings how they may be forgiven, however important this information is.  Christianity is also a total world-and-life view.  Our faith has important things to say about the whole of human life.  Once Christians understand in a systematic way how the options to Christianity are also worldviews, they will be in a better position to justify their choice of Christianity rationally.  The reason many people reject our faith is not due to their problems with one or two isolated issues; it is the result of their anti-Christian conceptual scheme, which leads them to reject information and arguments that for believers provide support for the Christian worldview…

Consider their beliefs in light of these: