http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/07/congress-infringes-on-due-process-votes-to-allow-obama-to-strip-you-of-right-to-travel-without-trial/#GCKptQXHDZiqK3Kr.01

Congress Infringes on Due Process: Votes to Allow Obama to Strip You of Right to Travel Without Trial

Another day, another right lost to the political corruption in Washington. In a move that has garnered almost "no" media attention, the House of Representatives passed HR 237, known as the "FTO (foreign terrorist organization) Passport Revocation Act, which allows the "Obama administration the unilateral power to strip you of your passport and right to travel without a trial or even criminal charges." This piece of legislation did not receive a "recorded vote" due to the "uncontroversial" support and passed after only 15 minutes of "supposed" debate. For anyone caught up in this "web" wrongly, there is no recourse contained in the legislation to "challenge the status as a non-person involuntarily trapped inside US borders by order of the secretary of state."

According to Infowars.com, "Lawmakers, some of whom could themselves be caught in the dragnet along with myriad administration officials, praised the effort as a way to stop alleged terrorists from travelling."

Congress wants to prevent "alleged terrorists" from travelling. Moreover, who does the federal government consider as terrorists? Documents obtained by Judicial Watch indicates the government considers approximately 72 types of US citizens as potential terrorists are while any reference to Islam is conspicuously missing. The White House, aka Ayatollah Obama, declares the unilateral authority to murder by drone or detain American citizens indefinitely without due process, charging them with a crime, or on "alleged" criminal activity.

The federal government wants to prevent "alleged terrorists" from leaving the country; however, this same government allows American citizens who fought with ISIS to return with impunity while claiming to "monitor" these traitors. So, just who is the government trying to keep from leaving? It's not Islamic jihadis.

Americans can thank Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) for his sponsorship of the bill, which was "adopted under 'suspension of the rules' typically used for trivialities such as renaming post offices." In looking at the bill, it clearly states, "to authorize the revocation or denial of passports and passport cards to individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, and for other purposes." [Emphasis mine.]

Some who read this bill will say, "Now, Suzanne, you are going off the deep end here with this as it only applies to individuals who aid, abet, assist or help 'an organization the Secretary of State has designated as a foreign terrorist organization'. There's nothing to worry about if we're not helping terrorist organizations."

Well, under any other circumstances with any other Congress, president, Secretary of State prior to say 1990, there might not be cause for worry. However, with the liberal usurpation of unilateral authority to murder with drones and hold US citizens indefinitely without any due process, the stretch to false accusations for nefarious purposes by this administration or anyone in it isn't far. There are no set criteria in this "new" attack on liberty. The terms are undefined and there remains no appeals process. It creates an avenue for widespread abuse by the current Secretary of State, John Kerry, along with future occupants of that office.

Did anything in that document declare that actual evidence had to exist to invoke a passport revocation? The only criteria the document indicated were "whom the Secretary of State has determined ...." Basically, the new legislation, should it pass the Senate and be signed by Ayatollah Obama, could leave citizens stranded outside the United States as well as prevent citizens from leaving based on "secret" evidence or the whim of "one" individual. As a reminder, the NSA maintains a vast database of unlawfully, unconstitutionally gathered communications data on every US citizen that could be "sliced and diced" against targeted individuals to produce an appearance of "criminality" where none exists.

Naturally, Rep. Poe spins his "tapestry" like this. "Daily, deadly attacks around the world remind us that radical Islamic terrorists are spreading their murderous rampage worldwide. The threat to America from these groups has never been greater. But some of our own citizens have traveled to the terrorists hotbeds in Syria and beyond to fight for the other side. These Benedict Arnold traitors who have turned against America and joined the ranks of foreign radical terrorist armies should lose all rights afforded to our citizens."

No one would argue that traitors should lose their rights, but only after following due process, a trial by jury and a finding of guilt for treason or being guilty of being a traitor. However, the determination of revocation of rights by one individual, instead of the due process guaranteed every US citizen in the Constitution, reeks of unilateral, dictatorial power.

Poe continued by saying, "This will help law enforcement locate these individuals by making it easier to flag the individuals who are trying to travel internationally. Most importantly, this legislation will help prevent Americans from coming back to the United States undetected."

Anyone else want to call "BS?" With an open southern border allowing who knows who to cross and be welcomed with open arms and our Ayatollah importing unvetted Muslims daily from every terrorist nation in the Middle East into our communities, these "charlatans" are more concerned about Americans re-entering "undetected." The FBI knows who these individuals are and the FBI allows them to re-enter the US with impunity. Granted, these individuals should not be allowed to return; however, US citizens should be afforded due process in order to establish their guilt or innocence. Guilty individuals should receive a traitor's punishment. Poe certainly does not want to address the policy of illegal, unconstitutional "amnesty" or the lack of enforcement of immigration laws as it relates to this "passport revocation."

Could anyone answer the question of how many non-Muslim US citizens actually travel to terrorist nations to fight with terrorists? Let's be honest here. All terrorists are Muslims, while not all Muslims are terrorists -- yet.

Poe, like a good little RINO, continues digging a pothole. He states, "The House has now acted to locate and contain these traitors. It's time for the Senate to quickly do the same. These people are not returning to America to open up coffee shops; they're coming back to kill. Let's stop them from coming back at all."

It sounds good and something on which everyone could agree. In fact, known terrorists should be barred entry or re-entry into this nation; however, it's moot when the administration imports terrorists freely daily. To clarify, the United States should bar the immigration of Muslims and the re-entry of Muslims into this nation. The "Americans" who are leaving to fight with terrorists have a connection to Islam. Still, the Constitution affords every US citizen due process. A better idea would be to stop importing terrorists by denying Islam-practicing individuals entry into this nation. Instead of identifying the problem as Islam and acting accordingly, this lame government blindly barrels forward with inept legislation filled with "unintended consequences;" or, is it?

And, what about "containing" the traitors sitting in this administration, Congress and the biggest one of all, Ayatollah Obama? Funny, nothing mentioned about that. Treason is treason and traitors are traitors whether they aid and abet the enemy or violate their oath of office to support, protect, defend and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America. Maybe Poe should start looking in both chambers of Congress and the White House first.

According to Infowars.com, "Critics said it was yet another attack on the fundamental rights of Americans, such as due process protections, and that it must be resisted."

But, this is the crux of the issue - attacking the fundamental rights of Americans - not a crackdown on those who participate in treasonous and terrorist activities. Poe called individuals who joined to fight with foreign Islamic terror groups as "Benedict Arnold traitors." Would that not also include those who "aid and abet" those groups? The legislation declares it so, which means the dragnet would net Senator John McCain should he desire to travel and pose with known terrorists, again. Not only would McCain be caught, but so would Kerry, Obama, Jarrett and a host of other officials. Oh wait, they exempt themselves; however, these individuals are some of the biggest supporters of terrorist and terrorist organizations in the united States.

Another surprise Americans face is the denial of travel for "alleged tax debts." As the New American reports, "... just this week, the Senate included a provision in the 'transportation' bill it introduced that would strip the passports of anyone the IRS claims owes over $50,000." Section 52102 of the Senate bill calls for revocation or denial of passports based on unpaid taxes. The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service only has to submit "certification" to the Secretary of State stating an individual "has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, ...." Considering the honesty of the IRS, Americans need not be concerned, or so some would contend. At the rate Obama uses the IRS as his "strong arm" against political opposition with impunity, every American should be concerned.

All of this is nothing more than bypassing US citizens' rights to due process.

Anyone who studies the history of the rise of Nazi Germany knows that on October 5, 1938, a passport revocation decree resulted in the confiscation of passports held by Jewish German citizens. While the House has not specifically targeted a "certain" group or groups of citizens, the "unintended consequences" are enormous for that to happen considering the propensity for this administration to target opposition groups. If this administration continues its criminal course to unilaterally deny individual God-given rights guaranteed by the Constitution, our nation's government will follow the path of Hitler's regime. They will succeed as long as citizens continue their "head down" to get by plan of inaction and liberal "traitors" continue their support of a corrupt government and administration.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. 

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Comments

comments

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2015/07/planned-parenthood-vp-says-fetuses-may-come-out-intact-agrees-payments-specific-to-the-specimen/

Planned Parenthood VP Says Fetuses May Come Out Intact, Agrees Payments Specific to the Specimen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

#PPSellsBabyParts PLANNED PARENTHOOD VP SAYS FETUSES MAY COME OUT INTACT, AGREES PAYMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE SPECIMEN
Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains VP & Medical Director Savita Ginde Discusses Contract Details, Aborted Body Parts Pricing, and How to Not “Get Caught”

Contact: David Daleiden, media@centerformedicalprogress.org, 949.734.0859

DENVER, July 30–New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) is a wealthy, multi-state Planned Parenthood affiliate that does over 10,000 abortions per year. PPRM has a contract to supply aborted fetal tissue to Colorado State University in Fort Collins.

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

Since PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in its 2nd trimester procedures, any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law (1 USC 8).

“We’d have to do a little bit of training with the providers or something to make sure that they don’t crush” fetal organs during 2nd trimester abortions, says Ginde, brainstorming ways to ensure the abortion doctors at PPRM provide usable fetal organs.

When the buyers ask Ginde if “compensation could be specific to the specimen?” Ginde agrees, “Okay.” Later on in the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing,” Ginde remarks. “If you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”

Ginde implies that PPRM’s lawyer, Kevin Paul, is helping the affiliate skirt under the fetal tissue law: “He’s got it figured out that he knows that even if, because we talked to him in the beginning, you know, we were like, ‘We don’t want to get called on,’ you know, ‘selling fetal parts across states.’” The buyers ask, “And you feel confident that they’re building those layers?” to which Ginde replies, “I’m confident that our Legal will make sure we’re not put in that situation.”

As the buyers and Planned Parenthood workers identify body parts from last fetus in the path lab, a Planned Parenthood medical assistant announces: “Another boy!”

The video is the latest by The Center for Medical Progress documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Elected officials need to listen to the public outcry for an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while the 10 state investigations and 3 Congressional committees determine the full extent of Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby parts.” Daleiden continues, “Planned Parenthood’s recent call for the NIH to convene an expert panel to ‘study’ fetal experimentation is absurd after suggestions from Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Ginde that ‘research’ can be used as a catch-all to cover-up baby parts sales. The biggest problem is bad actors like Planned Parenthood who hold themselves above the law in order to harvest and make money off of aborted fetal brains, hearts, and livers.”

###

See the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8

Tweet: #PPSellsBabyParts

For more information on the Human Capital project, visit centerformedicalprogress.org.

The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.wsj.com/articles/schoolroom-climate-change-indoctrination-1432767611

Schoolroom Climate Change Indoctrination

By

Paul H. Tice

May 27, 2015 7:00 p.m. ET

While many American parents are angry about the Common Core educational standards and related student assessments in math and English, less attention is being paid to the federally driven green Common Core that is now being rolled out across the country. Under the guise of the first new K-12 science curriculum to be introduced in 15 years, the real goal seems to be to expose students to politically correct climate-change orthodoxy during their formative learning years.

The Next Generation of Science Standards were...

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2569190

Feds: 664,607 illegals granted amnesty, some linked to terrorism, gangs

The administration's program to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program has given the green light to 664,607 since 2012, including several linked to fraud, terrorism and gangs, according to the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services agency.

What's more, applications for permanent residence have surged from 3,000 to 7,500 a month, far above projections, according to agency answers provided to Senate Judiciary Immigration and the National Interest Subcommittee Republicans and obtained by Secrets.

 

AP Photo

USCIS said it is also producing 144,275 "employment authorization documents" each month, and has the capability to approve 400,000 work permits a month.

President Obama proposed DACA in 2012. It allows younger illegals who entered prior to June 2007 to get a renewable work permit and exemption from deportation. Since then, 243,872 renewals have been granted.

More from the Washington Examiner

As of March, 664,607 of applications derided by critics as "amnesty" were approved. Of those granted amnesty, at least 49 had gang ties, six had a possible link to terrorism and 3,959 had indicators of fraud. Just 43,375 have been denied.

The answers to some 49 questions following a recent hearing also revealed that the administration employs 331 workers just to handle DACA applications, which the administration said was paid for by the series of documents filled out by illegals.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

Top Story

Sent from my iPhone

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/liberty-still-has-a-fighting-chance

Liberty Still Has a Fighting Chance

This speech was delivered at FreedomFest in Las Vegas, Nevada, on July 8, 2015.

 

Over a nine-month period beginning in 1831, a 26-year-old Frenchman visited nearly every corner of what were then the 24 states of the American Republic. He traveled from New England to the upper Midwest to the Gulf Coast in the Deep South to the mid-Atlantic. Then he wrote a great book full of amazing insights. It made its appearance 180 years ago, in 1835. Perhaps nobody before or since has defined the essence of America better than he did; but then, no other nation in history offered an essence so profoundly exceptional.

Less than half a century after the ratification of the Constitution, America was still an infant nation, but Alexis de Tocqueville sensed the stirrings of greatness. He praised our entrepreneurial drive and initiative, our self-reliance and personal independence, and our vibrant civil society institutions and voluntary associations. He felt that our ideals would eventually lead us to lead the world. He believed that America had placed two sacred principles — freedom and equality — on a higher pedestal than any previous civilization had. They were, he said, our most defining characteristics, the sources of our strength. But he also feared that we would carry one to an extreme that would undermine the other. Milton Friedman was echoing Tocqueville when he said in the 20th century, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

Tocqueville’s appreciation of freedom knew few bounds. Here is perhaps his most eloquent endorsement of it:

Even despots accept the excellence of liberty. The simple truth is that they wish to keep it for themselves and promote the idea that no one else is at all worthy of it. Thus, our opinion of liberty does not reveal our differences but the relative value which we place on our fellow man. We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man’s support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country.

He masterfully described how the growth of government could smother our freedoms:

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

Tocqueville’s view of equality is more nuanced. He had no issue with the ideal of equality before the law or even equality of opportunity. He hated slavery and any unwarranted discrimination. He agreed with the words of our Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” But he had no illusions that individuals were thereafter equal in their energies, their talents, their ambitions, their intellect or their character. He was afraid that our egalitarian impulses might someday get the better of us.

Here we are now, decades into the very egalitarian welfare state Tocqueville warned would be the death of American exceptionalism.

“I have a passionate love for liberty, law, and respect for rights,” he wrote. “Liberty is my foremost passion. But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom.”

This issue is so critical to our freedoms and our future that I want to dwell on it for a moment.

Remember this: Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.

Put another way, in terms of economics, think of it this way: Free people will earn different incomes. Where people have the same income, they cannot be free.

Economic equality in a free society is a snare and a delusion that redistributionists envision. But free people are different people, not programmable robots, so it should not come as a surprise that they earn different incomes. Our talents and abilities are not identical. We don’t all work as hard. And even if we all were magically made equal in wealth tonight, we’d be unequal in the morning because some of us would spend our newfound wealth, and some of us would save it.

To produce even a rough measure of economic equality, governments must issue the following orders and back them up with punishment and prisons: Don’t excel or work harder than the next guy, don’t come up with any new ideas, don’t take any risks, and don’t do anything different from what you did yesterday. 

In other words, don’t be human.

Economic inequality, when it derives from the voluntary interaction of creative individuals and not from political power or connections, testifies to the fact that people are being themselves, putting their unique skills to work in ways that are fulfilling to themselves and of value to others. As Tocqueville himself might say, Vive la différence!

People obsessed with economic equality do strange things. They become envious of others. They covet. They divide society into two groups: villains and victims. They spend far more time dragging somebody down than they do pulling anybody up. They’re not fun to be around.

And if they make it to a legislature, they can do real harm. Then they not only call the cops — they are the cops.

If economic inequality is an ailment, punishing effort and success is no cure in any event. Coercive, envy-based measures that aim to redistribute wealth prompt the smart or politically well-connected “haves” to seek refuge in havens here or abroad, while the hapless “have-nots” bear the full brunt of economic decline. A more productive expenditure of time would be to work to erase the mass of intrusive government that ensures that the “have-nots” are also the “cannots.”

People obsessed with economic equality do strange things. They spend far more time dragging somebody down than they do pulling anybody up.

Another superb alternative to coercive redistribution would be to work on our character — each of us, one at a time — so that we’re not only good enough for liberty, but good enough to earn a living instead of voting for one.

This economic-equality thing is not compassionate. When it’s just an idea, it’s bunk. When it’s public policy, it’s compulsory insanity. To those who can’t understand how different or unequal we are as individuals, I say, “Get over it!”

Tocqueville warned that this unhealthy obsession with economic equality, combined with an erosion in the respect for liberty and property, would produce what we today would call the welfare state. Let me offer you a description of the welfare state. Somebody once said that it got its name because in it, the politicians get well and the rest of us pay the fare. Just picture people in a giant circle with each having one hand in the next person’s pocket.

The whole notion of the welfare state rests on this really dumb proposition: since people are not decent and compassionate enough to assist their deserving fellows in distress, we must expect them to elect politicians who are more decent and compassionate than they are. How ridiculous! Those politicians then take money from us under threat of imprisonment, launder it through an expensive bureaucracy, and spend what’s left not to actually solve the problem but to manage it into perpetuity for endless dependency, demagoguery, and political gain. And then the advocates of the welfare state compliment themselves for possessing a monopoly on compassion and totally ignore the destructive results of their own handiwork.

So here we are now, decades into the very egalitarian welfare state Tocqueville warned would be the death of American exceptionalism. It threatens to make us like all the other forgettable welfare states that languish in history’s dustbins, Greece included. Should we just assume it’s inevitable and go along for the ride? Or should we muster the character that built a nation and that Tocqueville identified as quintessentially American?

If you’re pessimistic, then you’re no longer part of the solution. You’ve become part of the problem. What chance does liberty have if its supposed friends desert it in its hour of need or speak ill of its prospects?

Ask yourselves, What good purpose could a defeatist attitude possibly promote? Will it make me work harder for the causes I know are right? Is there anything about liberty that an election or events in Congress disprove? If I exude a pessimistic demeanor, will it help attract newcomers to the ideas I believe in? Is this the first time in history that believers in liberty have lost some battles? If we simply throw in the towel, will that enhance the prospects for future victories? Do we turn back just because the hill we have to climb got a little steeper?

This is not the time to abandon time-honored principles. I can’t speak for you, but someday, I want to go to my reward and be able to look back and say, “I never gave up. I never became part of the problem I tried to solve. I never gave the other side the luxury of winning anything without a rigorous, intellectual contest. I never missed an opportunity to do my best for what I believed in, and it never mattered what the odds or the obstacles were. I did my part.”

Remember that we stand on the shoulders of many people who came before us and who persevered through far darker times. The American patriots who shed their blood and suffered through unspeakable hardships as they took on the world’s most powerful nation in 1776 are certainly among them. But I am also thinking of the brave men and women behind the Iron Curtain who resisted the greatest tyranny of the modern age and won. I think of those like Hayek and Mises who kept the flame of liberty flickering in the 1940s. I think of the heroes like William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson who fought to end slavery and literally changed the conscience and character of Britain in the face of the most daunting of disadvantages. And I think of the Scots who, 456 years before the Declaration of Independence, put their lives on the line to repel English invaders with these thrilling words: “It is not for honor or glory or wealth that we fight, but for freedom alone, which no good man gives up except with his life.”

As I think about what some of those great men and women faced, the obstacles before us today seem rather puny.

This is a moment when our true character, the stuff we’re really made of, will show itself. If we retreat, that would tell me we were never really worthy of the battle in the first place. But if we resolve to let these challenging times build our character and rally our dispirited friends to new levels of dedication, we will look back on this occasion someday with pride at how we handled it. Have you called a friend yet today to explain to him or her why liberty should be a top priority?

Nobody ever promised that liberty would be easy to attain or simple to keep. The world has always been full of greedy thieves and thugs, narcissistic power seekers, snake-oil charlatans, unprincipled ne’er-do-wells, and arrogant busybodies. No true friend of liberty should just roll over and play dead for any of them.

Take an inventory every day of what you’re doing for liberty. Get more involved in the fight. There are plenty of things you can do. If your state isn’t a right-to-work state, work to make it so. Support people and organizations like the Foundation for Economic Education that are teaching young people about the importance of liberty and character. Get behind the Compact for America and its plan for a balanced federal budget and an end to reckless spending and debt. Work for school choice in your state to help break the government monopoly on education. And be the very best example for liberty and character that you can possibly be in everything you do.

Whatever you do, don’t give up no matter what. Remember these words of the great US Supreme Court justice George Sutherland: “The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.”

Can Tocqueville’s American exceptionalism be restored? Can it last? You bet it can. The American Dream still lives, in the hearts of those who love liberty and refuse to meekly surrender it. So let’s wipe the frowns off our faces and get to work. Our future, our children’s future — liberty’s future — all depend on us. 

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/28/greenpeace-co-founder-reveals-the-rigid-backwards-thinking-that-caused-him-to-leave-group/

Greenpeace Co-Founder Reveals the ‘Rigid, Backwards Thinking’ That Caused Him to Leave Group

A Greenpeace co-founder explained in a new video published online Tuesday why he decided to leave the organization he once helped start.

Speaking as part of a Prager University series, Patrick Moore explained the history of Greenpeace, noting how it started in protest of nuclear war.

Patrick Moore. (Image source: YouTube)

However, as the group tackled other issues in the 1980s, Moore said he grew uncomfortable.

“I began to feel uncomfortable with the course my fellow directors were taking,” he said. “I found myself the only one of six international directors with a formal science background.”

Moore, who holds a PhD in ecology from the University of British Columbia, explained that he felt a science background was required to understand certain environmental issues the organization was becoming involved in.

“We were now tackling subjects that involved complex issues of toxicology, chemistry and human health. You don’t need a PhD in marine biology to know it’s a good thing to save whales from extinction. But, when you’re analyzing which chemicals to ban, you need to know some science,” he said.

Moore contended that the human race has the “moral obligation” to eliminate our natural “enemies” and that “biodiversity is now always our friend.”

Instead, Moore said that in Greenpeace’s eyes “humans had become the enemies of the Earth.” The scientist assailed the group’s “rigid, backwards thinking” that he said resulted in Greenpeace protesting certain “useful” technologies and chemicals.

“Science and logic no longer held sway. Sensationalism, misinformation and fear is what we used to promote our campaigns,” he alleged.

Moore said the “final straw” came when the group decided to work to ban the element chlorine worldwide and name it “The Devil’s Element.”

“This was absurd. Adding chlorine in drinking water was one of the biggest advances in public health,” he said, adding that those in developing countries would suffer the most.

At the time of publication, Moore’s testimony had amassed more than 56,000 views on YouTube.

—

Follow the author of this story on Twitter and Facebook:

Sent from my iPhone

AUDACITY: CHRISTIAN HOMOSEXUALS' PLOT CHURCH'S TRANSFORMATION

http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/christian-homosexuals-plot-churchs-transformation/

'CHRISTIAN HOMOSEXUALS' PLOT CHURCH'S TRANSFORMATION

Ray Comfort

Christians considering  how to respond to the Supreme Court’s creation of “same-sex marriage” face a challenge from within – those who call themselves “gay Christians” and contend the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior.

One of the most conspicuous figures in the movement is Matthew Vines, who has written a book arguing Scripture does not condemn same-sex sexual relationships. Vines has also produced a video presenting his evidence, “The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships,” which has accumulated 750,000 views.

Vines’ organization, The Reformation Project, explains it “exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.”

And he recently boasted in Politico of the “embrace” he is finding at some churches.

Vines believes the next step for Christian churches is determining the “kind of peace conservative Christians can make with the LGBT community” with the help of self-defined homosexual and transgender Christians.

Vines’ assertion that Scripture does not condemn homosexual behavior is also being championed by other individuals, media outlets and even church leaders.

Prominent liberal publication the Huffington Post hosted an article by pastor Adam Phillips of Christ Church in Portland, Oregon, attacking Franklin Graham for defending traditional marriage. After presenting his interpretation of Scripture, Phillips told Graham to “read your Bible better” and focus more on “addressing America’s original sin of racism” instead of sexual sin.

But evangelist and filmmaker Ray Comfort share’s Graham’s view that self-described Christians who accept homosexual behavior are ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture.

Comfort is producer of the pro-life sensation “180″and author of many books, including the “God and the Bible” series, which explored the impact of Christianity on several world-changing historical figures.

In his new movie “Audacity,” Comfort argues for a traditional view of human sexuality.

He noted Vines, who he found to be a “gentle and likable person,” inspired some of the material in “Audacity.”

While doing research for the movie, he watched a video of Vines teaching at a church about homosexuality.

He recalled Vines arguing eating shellfish and homosexual acts were both called an “abomination” in Scripture, concluding the bans are not relevant today.

“He said that Sodom was judged because it was inhospitable rather than guilty of the sin of sodomy,” Comfort said. “It was because of Matthew’s influence that our movie contains one of the most powerful discourses in the movie, where some of these questions were addressed.”

Comfort accuses Vines of not telling the full story of what Scripture says about homosexuality.

“Matthew was recently featured on the Religious News Service where he listed ’40 questions for Christians who oppose marriage equality.’ However, he showed his hand when he asked, ‘Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s verses on the topic before you felt comfortable believing that the earth revolves around the sun?’ The Bible often speaks of the sun moving across the sky and rising and setting. That is supposedly a mistake, because we now know that the earth revolves around the sun,” Comfort said.

“Even though we know that the sun stands still, the whole world still says that it moves across the sky and rises and sets each day. It’s a ridiculous argument that atheists often use to try and discredit Scripture.”

Comfort said that when Vines argues for homosexual marriage, he uses emotional arguments rather than pointing to the authority of the Bible.

“Any time he does quote Scripture, it’s Paul’s rather than God’s Word – as Scripture claims it to be: ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.’ (2 Timothy 3:16).”

Other Christians are also confronting Vines.

Michael Brown, a Messianic Jewish scholar and talk-show host who has written books on homosexuality, including “Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding With Love and Truth To Questions About Homosexuality,” has directly addressed Vines’ challenge by answering his “40 questions for Christians” at the invitation of the Christian Post.

Brown, who has debated Vines, noticed in their confrontation “he did not quote a single Scripture in clear support of homosexual relationships.”

Comfort noted 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says: “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

He points out that the word “idolaters” is “strangely sitting among the sexual sins of fornication, adultery and homosexuality.”

“‘Idolatry’ is the sin of making up your own god, and it’s a violation of the First and the Second of the Ten Commandments,” he said. “We gravitate toward idolatry like moths to a flame, because it means we can snuggle up to a god who doesn’t mind the sins of fornication, adultery or homosexuality.

“Matthew Vines would do well to take notice that the verses begin with ‘Do not be deceived.’ There’s a reason for that. We mustn’t be deceived of the fact that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals and thieves will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Or to put it more soberly, they will end up in a terrible place called ‘hell.’ That’s something I wouldn’t want to happen to my worst enemy,” he said.

“So let’s summarize. There is no such thing as a fornicator Christian, an adulterer Christian, a homosexual Christian or a thieving Christian. Those who call themselves Christians but continue to cling to their beloved sins will see their great deception on Judgment Day.”

Comfort hopes homosexuals and those who consider themselves supporters of homosexuality will see “Audacity.”

“We think that they will be pleasantly surprised,” he said. “There’s not an ounce of hatred or stereotyping in it.”

However, the film is already being targeted by LGBT activists who are down-voting it on film-ranking sites such as IMDB. As the film does not formally premiere until Aug. 19 and paid downloads are currently the only way to watch it, Comfort believes many of the negative reviews are by people haven’t actually seen it.

Comfort believes many who watch the film will find it enjoyable as well as instructive. Yet he says any treatment of homosexuality must remain true to biblical principles.

“Two homosexuals cannot enter into the covenant marriage relationship before God – which the Bible defines as being between one man and one woman,” he said.

“Homosexuals have a legalized union between two people of the same sex, but they are not married,” said Comfort. “Redefining the word is like redefining my VW Beetle as a Lamborghini. It may be a pleasant thought, but I’m only deceiving myself.”

Sent from my iPhone