Before the House Committee in the U.S. Congress, Rev. Matthew Harrison, President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, defends the right of the unborn–he’s calm, cool, and collected but firm in his convictions. There are not many people these days, including pastors, who openly defend the rights of the unborn. Thank and praise the Lord for men of God like him. As Christians, we must pray for leaders like him who are standing up for righteousness and justice in our world. [Video quality isn’t great but it’s current and relevant: “Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Conscience?” ]
Planned Parenthood are professionals at circumventing the law in order to get underaged girls abortions using public tax dollars, and all without parental consent. Who would have thought that they also help pimps get their prostitutes abortions too. The last I heard, prostitution was illegal and so was pimping. Where has our society come to today? Everyone should be informed about planned parenthood and about how abortion does harm to women and young girls. I was shocked at what I saw in the video (link is below). This is an excerpt from the Focus blog.
Everybody knows Planned Parenthood promotes and encourages abortion. But sex trafficking?
Amy Woodruff, the clinic manager of a New Jersey Planned Parenthood office has been fired for aiding and abetting two people who posed as sex trafficking workers.
The undercover operation was organized by Lila Rose of Live Action, a youth-led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending abortion. Ms. Rose, a student at UCLA, founded Live Action in 2006.
When the news of the sting operation broke, Planned Parenthood dismissed it as a hoax. The video of the incident had been edited, they claimed, and didn’t properly reflect the full context of the discussion.
Yet, as the news began to spread and spiral downward, Woodruff’s employment was terminated.
What did the hidden camera reveal?
On the video, Ms. Woodruff coaches the man posing as a “pimp” to underage girls to not disclose the age of his “workers” when they come into Planned Parenthood for treatment. “If they’re minors, put down that they’re students,” she advises. “Yeah, just kind of play along that they’re students–we want to make it look as legit as possible.”
At one point, Woodruff suggests the best place in the area for minors to obtain abortions. The implication in the suggestion was that her clinic in Perth Amboy, NJ, was too regulated, although that didn’t seem to stop her from helping the “pimp” in other ways. She offered tips on the best way to utilize young prostitutes unable to have sex even as they recovered from abortions. “[Use them from the] waist up,” she advises, “or just [have them] be that extra action walking by.”
A Christian view of environmentalism and climate change does not have to be anti-green; nor do we need to have unhealthy fear of big brother and government control. The environment is not about us. It is about God’s earth and God’s creation. Therefore, as Christians, we should approach environmentalism from a theo-centric and biblical perspective. From a biblical perspective of environmental stewardship, it is difficult not to be anthropocentric but the responsibility does rest on humankind because we are stewards, and not owners of God’s green earth. Scripture says:
“I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals.” (Gen. 1:28, GNT).
“You appointed them rulers over everything you made; you placed them over all creation: sheep and cattle, and the wild animals too; the birds and the fish and the creatures in the seas.” (Psalm 8:6-8, GNT)
If we reject human stewardship over the earth, we are rejecting God’s charge of humans over God’s creation. We are not owners but merely inhabitants and are allowed to share in God’s goodness of creation.
The Copenhagen U.N. Climate Change Conference 2009 is where climate change is now being discussed. Some conservative environmental policy organizations claim that greenhouse gases are not having a negative effect on global warming. Scientists say it does, while critics say it is unfounded. I have some reservations about the effects of greenhouse gases on global warming. At the same time, I also think that it could be a real possibility; however, like many people, I have reservations about the validity of scientific data. The criticism from environmental groups are not all unfounded, though some are based on data that’s cooked-up (e.g., Al Gore). So what we need is some real honesty and integrity of data from scientists.
President Barack Obama may have committed the United States to cut emissions beyond what realistically possible for U.S. industry. It will undoubtedly hurt businesses and their ability to compete in the world. But I wish all the best to American businesses. This may look good for Obama’s political reputation abroad but it will hurt him at home.
Canada is America’s largest source of crude oil and it’s main source today is Canada’s Alberta Oil Sands Project. An oil pipeline is currently being built half-hour from where I live, which will run all the way to Chicago. Alberta’s oil sands only produces 5% of Canada’s current greenhouse gas emissions, and only emitted 1.7% of the world’s greenhouse gases (in 2005), but it bears the brunt of lashes from environmentalists. I would agree that the effects of greenhouse gases is difficult to measure because some of the indicators of greenhouse emissions are not all scientifically proven, but there are other environmental factors that can be measured so it doesn’t have to be tied to greenhouse gases. We should also look at the air pollution and toxic emissions of cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic compounds (or PACs), emitted downstream into the Athabasca River near the oil sands (research paper released by the National Academy of Sciences-USA). There is a noticable difference upstream vs downstream. We can also pay attention to rising sea-levels, dying animals, sea creatures and plants. We still need to solve the problem of the receding Arctic icecap, the shrinking Rockies Glaciers, the disappearing salmon on the westcoast and the almost extinct cod in the eastern Maritime provinces.
Canada has a good reputation as a source of cleaner energy and has surged ahead of a lot of developed nations in some areas. However, the oil sands project has put Canada in the doghouse at Copenhagen. Businesses are doing the hard work of building solar arrays and wind farms and exporting clean energy to energy-hungry nations like the U.S. Canada the “true north strong and free” is clearly an energy superpower, and it’s energy and environmental policies are quite different from the “land of the free and the brave” in many ways. Canada’s energy consumption is probably no different from that of the U.S., but it’s clean-energy generation and energy efficiency has, and still is, improving against many industrialized nations like the China, and even the U.S.
It’s time to deal the facts and realities of what’s really happening around the world. China should not be let off the hook and should pay for the environmental degradation committed against its own land and against its own people. China should also pay full price for new environmental technology now being developed. Hey, they’re not poor and undeveloped anymore.
I don’t know if we can do much about the warming temperatures in Canada because that’s a worldwide problem that is not all of Canada’s responsibility so let’s not make Canada the scapegoat. Canada is already trying to do a decent job in greening the environment in comparison to other developed nations. I’m encouraged by Canada’s realistic effort to cut emissions by 20 percent from 2006 levels by 2020 — a modest and more realistic target.