Other news in December

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200712/CUL20071213a.html

http://lifenews.com/state2700.html

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5267679&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.2.1


_____________


"Part of the problem that we're seeing now with Social Security has to do with the fact that 40 to 50 million people who have been killed through abortions have not taken their role as productive citizens," Church of God in Christ Bishop George McKinney said, as reported by the AP. "http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=34722This is not conjecture or some wild-eyed pro-life fantasy but basic common sense. The economy will collapse unless we do something to raise the birth rate. The decrease in childbearing and the increase in contraception and abortion over the last thirty years has brought us to the point that we are today. The economy can't sustain itself with the limited number of people that are working. The UN has said that the population is aging and living longer than in the past, and if something is not done within the next 50 years there will be a depopulation problem. Russians are literally running out of people. Industrialized nations will be in the same boat if "family planning" policies are not rethought.When Social Security was originally devised most people did not make it to see sixty-five which is why the age was chosen. This way they could collect the money and pay out very few dividends. However, life expectancy has increased to about eighty years for women and about seventy eight for men. Therefore the government has to pay for at least fifteen years. The growing number of elderly and the decreased number of replacement workers has left Social Security in dire straits. One that won't be fixed solely by privatization (which I am for) or any other financial maneuvers. It must be fixed by promoting fertility, marriage, family. The only way to create a better economy is to create more workers. The only way to create workers is by ending the disincentives to having children and getting married.Pro-life groups seem adamant in these assertion. From STOPP (Which is Stop Planned Parenthood) and American Life League reasonable people are beginning to take notice that in order to have an economy you must have people, no people, no economy. It is pretty simple. You don't need a degree from Harvard in Economics to know that. Yet we continue to fight over this fictitious right of a woman when in fact that one decision is affecting society as a whole. Your rights can't supercede my right to not be adversely affected. We have put people in jail because of insider trading. Because their right to make money can't come at the expense of others. Therefore a woman's right to her livelihood (which why most women have abortions, the ol' I can't afford it excuse) can't exceed society's need to have future workers. Am I suggesting, forcing women to get pregnant and have children? No! I am only advocating once the pregnancy has been initiated of her own free will that she not have the power to terminate it simply for her own financial benefit.The more we try to fool ourselves that we can have our cake and eat it too then the more deeper in debt we will become. Social Security themselves will tell you that you money you give to them today does not go into an account for you. It is used to pay workers, disabled people, survivors benefits, etc today.

Therefore since it is not just elderly receiving benefits and the workers must pay for all the programs including SSI (Supplemental Security Income) it becomes harder to pay all the benefits people are entitled to. An influx of workers would greatly ease the burden.Not only would Social Security be saved by ending abortion in this country (Hmmmm Social Security was around for about 40 years prior to Roe v. Wade and there was never any such "crisis" I wonder why.) but the economy in and of itself. Remember people must buy clothes, food, furniture and other necessities for the child. Therefore, the added consumption of the 45 million children would be a veritable boon. There also investments, life insurance and real estate to be considered. Parents have to save for college, they are more likely to buy a house, in short, they add to the economy in a way single people don't. Therefore by making it more attractive for people to wed and have children we would be adding more wealth to our nation. Children don't deplete discretionary spending, they increase it. Children, at least those taught Christian values, would also be the ones taking care of their elderly parents later on. Which is how it was before Social Security came into existence. Family takes care of family.As long as the government continues to promote and abet the destruction of her citizens the financial situation will remain grim. Until we once again make it beneficial for people to raise children, we will find ourselves in the situation we have thus created-financial ruin. All social problems can be laid at abortion's feet. From creating a society of violence to Social Security, calamities ensue because we treat our most precious resource-children with the least amount of respect and dignity. How can we expect to have fiscal security when we kill the very means of obtaining such security? It is like expecting to have a house built but putting a hit on every builder in America. A very stupid thing to do. But that is exactly what we have done. We have put a hit on teachers, doctors, actors, lawyers, secretaries and everything else these children would've become and then have the audacity to cry about it.So the next time you complain about your taxes being too high, thank Planned Parenthood, they are the direct cause of it. (Not only that they use your tax money to pay for these murders-how is that for irony!) Next time you complain about the Columbines, thank NARAL because they created the kill or be killed mentality. Next time you complain about overcrowded schools and not enough textbooks or teachers, thank every anti-family feminist who despises your children anyway! Though things won't change soon because of liberals like John Brummett, a columnist for Arkansas News (a disgrace to people of that fine state) who happens to think unborn children are a waste of our time. That we should spend more time fighting over money and less time fighting over human lives. Until the rest of America stands up to bullies like John Brumett, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the rest of their anti-family cronies we will get what we deserves-fiscal and moral bankruptcy!

by Dena Leichnitz


__________________________

From http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1359

Oil Baron Al Gore Disses Climate Change Skeptics
Kurt NimmoTruthNewsDecember 21, 2007
Al Gore didn’t like it one darn bit:
“More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says,” reports the Washington Times. “The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the ’scientific consensus’ that man-made global warming imperils the planet.”


Gore, as you may recall, has declared the debate is over on climate change. Like a Soviet bureaucrat, he has testily demanded nobody pay attention to the skeptics and we get busy transforming society in the way envisioned by the IPCC and the United Nations. In other words, it is time to implement Agenda 21. Get ready to be moved off the land into a crowded urban ghetto — for the sake of the snail darters, don’t you know. It’ll be just like a scene out of Soylent Green.
As for the 400 scientists challenging Gore and the IPCC, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider “said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile Corp.,” an accusation rejected by Exxon Mobile.
Gore should not be the one talking about greedy oil corporations. As it turns out, the Gore family “owns at least a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of Occidental stock.” Back in the 1990s, when Gore was in the White House, Colombia’s U’wa tribe had a bone to pick with Occidental. In 2000, Ken Silverstein wrote for the Nation:
One of the world’s hottest battles between indigenous groups and multinational oil companies is heating up in Colombia, where Occidental Petroleum is seeking to drill on land claimed by the 5,000-member U’wa tribe. Early this year, the Colombian government deployed several hundred soldiers to guard workers building a road to the multibillion-dollar project. That led to a clash in February when security forces used tear gas to break up an anti-Occidental demonstration of several hundred Indians. Three children reportedly drowned when they fell into a river as they fled from government troops.

But it is not strictly oil: “In the sixties, the Gores discovered zinc ore near land they owned in Tennessee. Through a company subsidiary Hammer bought the land for $160,000–twice the amount offered by the only other bidder. He swiftly sold the land back to Al Gore Sr. and agreed to pay him $20,000 a year for mining rights. After receiving his first payment, Gore Sr. sold the land for $140,000 to Gore Jr., who has received a $20,000 check nearly every year since he acquired it. Strangest of all, Occidental has never actually mined the land. Al Jr.’s coffers swelled further in 1985 when he began leasing the land to Union Zinc, an Occidental competitor.”
But never mind. It’s not about oil or Exxon Mobile, it’s about discrediting the opposition, as usual.
Everybody naturally hates oil barons.
It doesn’t matter if Al Gore is one.Sphere: Related Content