Month: February 2019

Snopes Says That Abortion is Not the Leading Cause of Death Because Babies Don’t Die in Abortions

On By Geri UngureanIn Say NOPE to SNOPES19 Comments

Sometimes I feel like my head will explode………..you too?

I have written about Snopes in the past, and was quickly put in FB jail. Evidently, FB hired Snopes as their fact checker.   OY.

There are still Christians using these Leftists to fact check for them.  You may as well write to the NY Times and ask them if something is true or not!  Seriously – it’s the same thing.

Abortion was the leading cause of death in 2018.  Most of us read this and it is true.

Lifenews.com came out with an article about Snopes and how they said that abortion was NOT the leading cause of death last year.  Wait till you see their rationale.

From lifenews.com

Snopes Claims Abortion Isn’t the Leading Cause of Death Because Babies Don’t Die in Abortions

Snopes has become more of a left-wing ideology proponent than a fact checker.

The site recently ran a piece attacking the assertion that abortion is the leading cause of death in the world, a statistic reported by LifeNews.com, Breitbart and other conservative outlets.

The statistic came by comparing data from Worldometers, an independent site that collects and reports data from governments and other reputable organizations. Breitbart contrasted the abortion numbers to other causes of death, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, traffic accidents and suicide, and found that abortions far outnumbered every other cause.

The site estimated there were 41.9 million abortions in the world in 2018.

But Snopes argued that abortions are a “medical procedure,” not a cause of death.

According to its report:

“Stating that abortion is the “leading cause of death” worldwide (as opposed to a medical procedure) is a problematic pronouncement, because that stance takes a political position, one which is at odds with the scientific/medical world. The medical community does not confer personhood upon fetuses that are not viable outside the womb, so counting abortion as a “cause of death” does not align with the practices of health organizations such as WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) …”

This is when I was sure my head would explode!  

The “Life” or “Death” of a baby is NOT a political issue!!  It is a moral issue – but the Left have no morals, and they have NO regard for human life (unless of course it’s their own).

It’s a “medical procedure?” I wonder how the baby likes the medical procedure which burns him/her……tears them apart; and if they are born alive, they are left in a cold dark room to scream themselves to death. I wonder how the baby feels about the “medical procedure” when they feel that sharp object crushing their skulls right before they are pulled from their mother?   They  take the dead child to the lab to see which “parts” of the child will bring in the most money.

ABSOLUTELY SATANIC.

Now that we’ve established that Snopes are heartless Leftwing idiots, I will show the reader an article I did on them months ago….actually years ago, but I’ve reposted it a few times.

Still Using Snopes to Fact Check? PLEASE Just say NOPE to SNOPES

****This is a reprint of an article I wrote over a year ago.  I will probably be put in FB jail again – the first time I shared this I was in jail after just 3 shares!  

It horrifies me when Conservative Christians come to me and say “I fact checked this on SNOPES and they said it’s not true.”

Just say NOPE to SNOPES!

This left leaning outfit, run by an ultra liberal couple is definitely not the place for Conservatives to go for verification of facts. May I just say that if you want to be lied to, then Snopes is for you!  Talk about Fake News – Snopes is the place where left wing fake news is verified and news stories from Conservative sites are vilified.

Where is the discernment?

Actually, it is just as shocking to me when Conservatives are duped by rag websites like Snopes.  Many years ago, before I knew what this outfit was about, it only took me a few times before it was clear to me that I was dealing with lefties.  At that point I began to research Snopes. My suspicions were confirmed when I read that the couple who ran this cesspool of misinformation were died in the wool Liberal Democrats.

From dailycaller.com

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger

Popular myth-busting website Snopes originally gained recognition for being the go-to site for disproving outlandish urban legends -such as the presence of UFOs in Haiti or the existence of human-animal hybrids in the Amazon jungle.

Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxesas much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship (RELATED: Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention)

She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”

She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)

Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being “at least guilty of criminal negligience” in the September 11 attacks. (The future “fact-checker” offered no evidence to support her accusation.)

Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares.

After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for her fellow liberals.

She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.

Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.

After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”

Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.”

In that “fact check” article, Lacapria argued that “Facebook Trending’s blacklisting of ‘junk topics’ was not only not a scandalous development, but to be expected following the social network’s crackdown on fake news sites.” The opinion-heavy article was mockingly titled: The Algorithm Is Gonna Get You.

Lacapria again played defense for Clinton in a fact check article when she claimed: “Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton was peppered with inaccurate details.”

One of the “inaccurate details” cited by Lacapria was that, “The cost of men’s suits worn by fellow politicians didn’t appear in the article for contrast.” She also argued the speech Clinton gave while wearing the $12,495 jacket, which discussed “raising wages and reducing inequality,” wasn’t actually about income inequality. – source

Research to Vet Stories

As a writer, I must vet any major story before I publish it on my Word Press.  It’s not that difficult. You find credible Conservative websites and do a word search using your search engine on the topic of which you are researching. After your word search, place a coma and then type in one of your trustworthy Conservative sites.

Have you noticed that since Obama gave away the internet, when you use a search engine, it immediately takes you to liberal rag websites?

This will help you:

Go to 4conservative.com    <(click here for the best Conservative site online!  The have ALL of the Conservative websites listed for you!  Search for TRUTH there!

Fake news is everywhere. There are even websites which are known to be satirical. I can’t tell how many times I see people posting articles from “The Onion” and I have to tell them that it’s political satire.  At least these websites are up front about their tongue in cheek phony articles!

Brethren, we are not battling flesh and blood.  The left wing liberals are serving their master, Satan.  We must be as wise as serpents, yet as harmless as doves. Learn the devil’s traps and snares and more importantly, learn how to avoid them!

Share the Gospel of Jesus Christ!  That is why we are still here!

And don’t forget:  JUST SAY NOPE TO SNOPES!

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!

DONATE

]

Cortez’ GREEN NEW DEAL Straight from the UNITED NATIONS

On By Geri UngureanIn Uncategorized10 Comments

I’m sure that many of you have watched Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) as the press have interviewed her.  It is actually painful to watch and listen.  She is, as they say, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  She struggles to make a complete thought in a sentence.

So I ask you – Did Cortez co-write the GREEN NEW DEAL?   That’s rhetorical.

The Green New Deal originated at the United Nations during the reign of Obama in the U.S.  Obama got the ball rolling on this U.N. initiative.  He even lost Billions of dollars from our “Stimulus Package.”  Do you remember that? Well, keep reading because you will see clearly where that money went.

Brethren, Cortez is a U.N. Globalist puppet.  But those who are pulling her strings should have done their homework. They would have seen that this woman does not know how to articulate her thoughts……..actually the thoughts of her handlers.

From the U.N. 

A Global GREEN NEW DEAL for Sustainable Development   (Emphasis added)

Financial support for stimulus packages in Developing Countries

In his letter to the leaders of the G-20, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has proposed to mobilize $1 trillion of financial support for developing countries to help them engage in an adequate response to the economic crisis. During 2009 and 2010, $500 billion should be provided in the form of enhanced international liquidity for compensatory financing to allow developing countries to refinance their sovereign debts as well as existing bank and corporate debts of their private sectors and accordingly unlock their domestic credit markets and regain access to trade credits and international capital markets. Another $500 billion would be needed in the form of enhanced long-term official development financing and development assistance to cover fiscal revenue gaps and provide developing countries the required space to protect social spending and finance fiscal stimulus packages.

So, did you catch that, brethren?  The U.N. wrote a letter to the G-20 Summit, stressing that the U.N. needed $1 trillion of financial support to help the under-developed countries “go green” along with the richer “developed” countries.  It is crystal clear that the Billions of Dollars which was “lost” by the Obama Administration (part of our “Stimulus Package” ) was sent to the U.N. in support of their GREEN NEW DEAL. 

Currently, most developing countries lack the capacity to undertake public works programs through deficit spending as are being envisaged by the developed countries as well as a few emerging economies that have such capacity. Therefore, substantial increases in compensatory financing, official development lending and assistance are needed for developing countries to increase their fiscal space, enhance their scope for countercyclical responses and avoid having to cut into necessary public expenditures.

Even though the resources are needed to overcome immediate balance-of-payments problems and to provide stimulus for economic recovery, they can be simultaneously used to address long-term development challenges. This would include continued investing in education, health, and job creation to meet the millennium development goals (MDGs). In the short-run, resources would also need to be allocated to strengthen social protection systems. This will be critical to prevent millions of people in developing countries who are directly affected by rising unemployment, volatile agricultural prices and declining export demand, and other consequences of the crisis from falling deeper into poverty and thus prevent major setbacks in the progress made towards the MDGs.

What a deal!  The under-developed countries get a big wad of cash, but there ARE strings attached. Part of the money MUST go to “Green” initiatives for the country to be onboard with the U.N. goals.  Sounds a bit mafioso, no?

The crisis and the required fiscal response should also provide an opportunity to make long-term investments in agricultural development to address the problem of food insecurity  and in the “greening” of the economies of developed and developing countries in order to combat climate change.

Oh, there are those words – “Greening” and of course “Climate Change!”

 See UN-DESA Policy Brief No. 13 for further detail of the $1 trillion dollar plan.

So, let’s go there……..

The UN-DESA Policy Brief No. 13 

The Trillion Dollar Plan       <click here to read about the $$$

Back to the U.N.’s  GREEN NEW DEAL 

Making national stimulus packages ‘green’ and equitable

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has demanded that one-quarter of the three trillion dollars envisaged to be allocated to national stimulus packages by major economies be channeled into environmentally beneficial investments. Those include sustainable transport, energy efficiency, renewable energy, afforestation and reforestation, sustainable agriculture, and biodiversity protection.

*** U.N. is moving the money around – not good. And they are “demanding” – sounds like strong-arming to me.

This is a timely suggestion. As mentioned, one of the goals of the New Deal was to restore ecological health in the Midwest of the United States, thus addressing social security as well as food security and conservation objectives. Given the multiple environmental challenges faced by the world today, it would be most desirable to attract investment into areas that can help put the global economy on a more sustainable pathway.

Sneaky sneaky.  Wasn’t it Obama who hurt the midwest farmers during his reign?   Read this article on the plight of the farmers under Obama from the Daily Signal.   NOTHING is coincidental!

However, the UNEP proposal needs to be enhanced through attention to two additional dimensions.

First, as argued above, it is critical that developing countries can, as developed countries have done, develop fiscal stimulus packages to prevent their economies from contracting. These stimulus packages can also provide the opportunity to lay the foundation for a new period of sustainable growth. Given the unmet needs for basic infrastructure, additional investment in such sectors is very likely to have a significant positive effect on growth.

Second, it also needs to be ensured that such investment is targeted especially at poor and vulnerable groups and regions within these countries. In other words, the investment should lead to the revival of growth that is both ecologically and socially sustainable.

For example, the demand for transport is growing dramatically in developing countries. Much of this is in the form of automobiles, which are environmentally harmful, contributive towards urban congestion, and beyond the means of a majority of people in developing countries. A shift to clean public transport is desirable from economic, environmental, and social viewpoints.

NOW we seeing Cortez’ Green New Deal more clearly.  Get rid of cars, trucks, airplanes – any mode of transportation which is not in compliance with the “Sustainable Goals” of the U.N.   Oh, but never mind that our stores will not be stocked with food because the carriers of this food will be GONE.  This is beyond belief.  This will begin a domino effect on the economy, and communities will begin to starve.

But you can believe that the “elite” will be able to continue flying in their private planes, and they will NEVER be hungry!  Do you see it now?  This is diabolical!

Support for agricultural productivity and the creation of markets could be an important feature of national stimulus packages in developing countries, many of which are still highly dependent on agriculture such that shocks on agricultural markets can quickly put high proportions of the population into poverty. Re-invigorating extensions services will be a key component. Special attention would be needed for investments that promote a shift towards ecologically sustainable agriculture. Measures to shield small farmers from price volatility on global markets can also act as important safety nets.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs March 2009

Examples of socially useful public works activities in developing countries include:

  • Projects could address water storage and drainage, contributing to agricultural productivity as well as climate adaptation, e.g. in many developing countries simple earthen storage dams could be constructed and existing drainage and canal networks rehabilitated. Digging of wells and basic flood barriers/levees are other options.
  • Access to basic sanitation remains a major challenge in developing countries. Improvements could make a major contribution to the achievement of MDG 4, reducing child mortality. Public works programs could target the construction of basic sanitation infrastructure, as well as the regeneration of wetland ecosystems that act as “filters” for watercourses.

A recent study of HSBC Global Research has ranked various governmental initiatives on the basis of their “greenness”. This ranking could be adapted to include the social dimension and used to guide national policy making in all countries towards greater environmental and social sustainability.

Policy Coordination, Collaborative Programs and Initiatives

The third component of the Global Green New Deal would be collaborative initiatives of governments of rich and poor countries simultaneously to create jobs in developed countries while generating strong developmental impacts in developing countries. Such initiatives could be pursued in part by using the resources mobilized by developed countries’ stimulus packages. But over the longer term, the reforms of the international financial and multilateral trading systems will need to support the investments required to manage the shift to low carbon economies in both rich and poor countries alike.

***Does the reader remember back in 2009 when billions of dollars (part of our Stimulus package, was unaccounted for?  Obama’s administration never did find out what happened to that money. But now we know, don’t we? It went straight to the Green New Deal as part of Agenda 21 which became the Sustainable Development Goals of 2015.

Read the rest of the U.N.’s GREEN NEW DEAL here

We know that all of this has to happen to fulfill Bible Prophecy.  I feel led to research and educate the readers.  This information could be used when sharing the Gospel with a person.  All of this is leading to a One World Government (NWO) and a person who does not believe the Word of God, just might change their mind once they see what is happening globally.

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!

 

GREEN NEW DEAL is ‘Recipe for Killing Almost Everyone on Planet Earth’ Says Former Co-Founder of Greenpeace

On By Geri UngureanIn Green New Deal7 Comments

Since 2015, I have been writing articles on the Georgia Guide Stones and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

What do these have in common?  The Georgia Guide Stones (GGS), an eerie monument of sorts, clearly spells out the Globalist’s agenda for our planet. There are ten commandments on GGS, which has been called the  “Stonehenge”  of America.

Here are the ten commandments engraved on the stones:

  • Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
  • Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
  • Unite humanity with a living new language.
  • Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
  • Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  • Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  • Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  • Balance personal rights with social duties.
  • Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
  • Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature

I want the reader to focus on the first commandment about maintaining humanity under 500 million people.  Since the earth now has approximately 7.7 BILLION people, if you do the math, you will see that the globalists want to kill off around 95% of human population!  YES – you read that correctly.

Here is the article if you have not read it:

The Georgia Guide Stones, Population Control and the Coming Antichrist    <click here to read

Sustainable Development Goals of the U.N. 

Here is the article I wrote on the 2015 meeting of the U.N. regarding “Sustainable Development Goals”

Preparing the World for Antichrist: The U.N. Sustainable Development Goals   < click to read

Alex Newman of “The New American” wrote a startling piece recently.  It seems that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (the new Socialist representative in Congress)  co-authored what is being called  “The Green New Deal.”  Alex attended an event in Calgary, Alberta Canada, where he met the former Co-Founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore.  Mr. Moore had MUCH to say about the dangerous legislation which is being pushed by the Dems in the House.

From thenewamerican.com

Green New Deal Would Kill Almost Everyone, Warns Greenpeace Co-Founder

CALGARY, Canada — The “Green New Deal” proposed by congressional Democrats is a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore (shown) warned in an exclusive interview with The New American. In fact, Dr. Moore warned that if the “completely preposterous” prescriptions in the scheme were actually implemented, Americans could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation — and they still would not survive. Other experts such as Craig Rucker, the executive director of the environmental group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), also sounded the alarm about the “green” proposal in Congress, comparing it to Soviet five-year plans and calling it a “prescription for disaster.”

The so-called Green New Deal is a massive scheme to, among other goals, restructure the U.S. economy. It is being advanced by a coalition of radical communist and socialist Democrats in Congress led by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). A resolution (H. Res. 109) “recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal (GND)” already has 67 co-sponsors in the House. If the scheme outlined in the resolution expressing the “sense of the House” is implemented, it would seek to eliminate air travel, the eating of steaks, the use of hydrocarbons, and more. It would aim to completely end all emissions of CO2 — an essential gas exhaled by every living person and required by plants — over the coming decade.

Moore, who was one of six international directors of Greenpeace, was flabbergasted that something so ludicrous could even be proposed, much less be advanced in the U.S. government. “It is quite amazing that someone that is in government — actually elected to the government of the United States of America — would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years,” he said in an on-camera interview with The New American from Canada. “This would basically result, if we did it on a global level, it would result in the decimation of the human population from 7-odd billion down to who knows how few people.” It would end up killing almost everyone on the planet, he added.

Worse than mass death would be the way people reacted. “It would basically begin a process of cannibalization among the human species, because the food could not be delivered to the stores in the middle of the cities anymore,” Moore continued. “The point that bothers me the most is that if you eliminated fossil fuels, every tree in the world would be cut for fuel. There is no other source for heating and cooking once you eliminate fossil fuels. You could use animal dung, if there were any animals left, but the animals would all die too because they would all get eaten.”

Moore also slammed the “social aspects” of the Green New Deal proposals such as “paying people who are unwilling to work,” according to a FAQ released by Ocasio-Cortez’ office. “I can’t believe that anyone would write that in a proposal for law in the United States of America,” he said, calling it “just unbelievable.” Indeed, that language and other half-baked ideas caused nationwide ridicule of Ocasio-Cortez and others involved in pushing the “New Deal.” The ridicule got so intense that one of its propoents eventually lied, claiming that mischievous Republicans might have put out a fake Green New Deal document to make Democrats look ridiculous. But then the truth came out, depsite the FAQ being removed from Cortez’s congressional website.

But the absurdity of it all may be a boost to Republicans and President Donald Trump. “We have a situation where something completely preposterous is being backed by a large number of Democratic congressional elected representatives in the United States of America,” Moore said. “This is actually going to put Trump right over the top. I cannot see how this can possibly be negative for him. It can only be positive, because people recognize when something is preposterous. And I think that is the best word for it.”

“The best term for it is actually mass-suicidal,” Moore added. “Why would anyone vote for something that was going to result in the death of nearly all humans on Earth?” As far as what Americans could do who support the environment but not mass suicide, Moore urged people not to vote for anyone who would support the “Green New Deal.”

Speaking at a conference put on by the Economic Education Association of Alberta over the weekend, Moore also explained that so much of what climate alarmists were pushing was pseudo-science and easily discredited lies. For instance, carbon dioxide is actually doing great things in terms of greening the planet — after all, it is plant food, Moore said. He also lambasted those who say coral reefs are dying due to alleged man-made global warming, something he said was not true. Noting that trucks need hydrocarbon fuels to bring produce to market in cities, Dr. Moore explained that just that one problem alone would be absolutely catastrophic if CO2 emissions were ended.

Moore has since left the Greenpeace he helped found, because it left him. When the group was founded, “we wanted to save civilization, we didn’t want to destroy it,” he told The New American. “By the time I left Greenpeace, it had drifted into a situation in which all they had left was the green. They kind of dropped the peace, which was the human side of the situation. And now they were characterizing people as the enemies of the Earth — the human species as the enemies of nature, as if we were the only evil species.”

One of the most outrageous campaigns by Greenpeace, Moore said, was when the leadership — which had no formal science education — decided to try to ban chlorine use worldwide. “Yes, chlorine can be toxic, it was used as a weapon in World War I,” he said. “But the fact that it is toxic is why it is the most important element in public health and medicine. Adding it to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health … that has saved hundreds of millions of lives through the time that we learned to use chlorine as an anti-bacterial agent.” Nature, he added, is full of toxic materials.

In his own keynote address at the conference, CFACT’s Rucker — who famously boarded Greenpeace ships to “punk” them with propaganda banners reading “ship of lies” and “propaganda warrior” — explained that much of the environmentalist movement has it backwards. The real key to preserving the environment, he said, is free markets, private property, and prosperity. Poor nations do not have the resources to protect the environment. And socialist-ruled nations have the worst environmental track-records of all. Meanwhile, freer and wealthier nations such as the United States, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe have remarkably clean environments.

In an interview with The New American, Rucker celebrated freedom. “What’s good for people is good for nature,” he said, calling for pro-growth policies that benefit people rather than government-enforced scarcity. “It’s like the old Chinese proverb: When there is food on the table, there are many problems; when there is no food on the table, there is one problem. Societies that do not take care of their people don’t have the resources to take care of the planet.”

Rucker, a top leader of the non-totalitarian environmental movement, also slammed the “Green New Deal” being advanced in Congress. “It is a horrible idea,” he said, blasting the original New Deal as well. “But I actually think it is more like the Soviet 5-year plan…. They want to be off fossil fuels within 10 years. That is insane. It is not that we are embracing fossil fuels, but this is a government-driven objective much like the old Soviet plans were government-driven objectives. It is going to fail. And the problem is, it is going to take a lot of people down with it… This is going to really hurt people. It is a prescription for disaster.”

Citing University of Maryland business Professor Julian Simon, Rucker used a hillarious example to illustrate the point. If the ideology of the sustainable-development movement were used 100 years ago, there would be great concern about where humanity was going to get enough whale oil to use as lighting. But of course, since then, electricity and light bulbs have taken the place of whale oil, thereby eliminating the alleged prospect of resources running out. The same concept applies to other resources, too, he said. When the price goes up due to scarcity, people will find substitutes and new ways of getting what they need — at least they will if markets are allowed to operate. “People are not just mouths, they are also hands and a brain,” he said.

He also drew a distinction between the “conservation” ethic, in which man is included in how to protect the planet, and the “preservation” ethic and the “Deep Green ecology” that views man as a “virus on the planet” that needs to be removed. Obviously, efforts to conserve nature should have the well-being of man in mind, he said.

Rucker and Moore both served at keynote speakers at the annual “FreedomTalk” conference Economic Education Association of Alberta. This writer gave a speech focusing on the indoctrination of children taking place in public schools — and particularly the implications of it for freedom. Other speakers highlighted the problems with the man-made global-warming hypothesis, the looming public pension disaster, and much more. – source

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.

Alex also co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators” which is a “must” read.

Brethren, we have been seeing the year 2030 cited over and over in the news. Please understand that this year was part of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals in 2015.  This year is projected by the U.N. to be the year when ALL countries (including the U.S.) comply with regulations set forth by the U.N. regarding “Saving the Planet” which is the TOTAL opposite of what these regulations will do!

I believe that this projection of the U.N. is in direct correlation to the first commandment of the Georgia Guide Stones.

We can pray that this monstrous legislation coming from the Dems will die a quick death.  But no matter what happens, we must focus on the fact that God is in Control of history.

2030?  Who knows what that year will bring?  Our God knows…….

Everything that happens, God has allowed because every event further fulfills Bible Prophecy!

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!