Discernment

Barack Obama's Science czar had plans to issue sterilization of the population through our water supply. This is apart of eugenics of course and the deal is that these actions have been occuring for decades. The czar's name is John P. Holdren. His 1977 book called "Ecoscience" proposed to sterilize the population by artificially medicating municipal water supplies. Such chemicals are already in our water supplies that have decreased global sperm count (world sperm count have dropped by a third since 1989 and by half in the past 50 years) and these gender bending chemicals pollute our rivers and lakes. John P. Holdren of course is the person who advocated a global planetary regime to force abortions onto people, have the government to seize children born out of wedlock, and used mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy. This is something out of a science fiction movie, but this is very real. He even wanted a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods (with stiff requirements that it will only affect humans not livestock). “It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,” wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. Holdren admis that this proposal will horrify people since it's about forced sterilizing people against their will. The rate of decline of sperm count is only accelerating as more and more couples find it harder to have children. In studies of white European men, the rate of decline is as much as 50 per cent in the last 30 years. In Italy, this equates to a native population reduction of 22 per cent by 2050. Population reduction is already occurring amongst native residents in many areas of Europe and America. The blame for this problem has been cellphone signals, soy products, HRT products, and female hormones entering our water supply. There are antiandrogens. These substances can prevent and inhibit the biologic effects of androgens, male sex hormones, on normally responsive tissues in the body. Antiandrogens are given to transgendered men who want to become women and they are also given to sex offenders released from prison to reduce their sexual libido. These substances have the effect of counteracting masculinisation and effectively diminishing normal male biological characteristics associated with the release of testosterone. Antiandrogens are used in pesticides sprayed on our food which have been called "endocrine disruptors" that have demonstrated to induce demasculinization in rats. These poisons have caused gender bending fish in British rivers (some of them produce eggs or go fertile). Polar bears, bald, eagles, otters, and whale have been affected by this problem. Some male fish have developed female characteristics as a result of these chemicals (which cause a declining fish population. This is in our water supply as well). Professor Charles Tyler of Exeter University is one of the nation's leading authorities on the effects of oestrogen in the UK. He said these chemicals can harm humans (when filters are proposed to stop this, they are rejected by eco-extremists since of their carbon footprint. Water filters in our homes are more than necessary to prevent poisons doing into our body). It's no secret that eugenics is going on today with eugenicists wanting a large part of our population to die off (as "useless eaters."). We are involuntarily sent poisons and dangerous chemicals in our food and water supplies which is against the Nuremberg code. So, we should reject poisons, abortion, population control, dangerous chemicals in our water supply, eugenics, and forced sterilizations completely.

The House Democrats want to have a massive $540 billion tax increase. There is a lagging U.S. economy today with an increasing unemployment rate. This is being proposed to help pay for the national health care reform proposal that President Obama is urging Congress to enact this summer. Rangel (who is apart of the House Ways and Means Chairman) revealed late Friday afternoon that House Democrats will seek to increase income taxes by 540 billion dollars. This massive new tax increase would be in the form of a "surtax" on people filing taxes in the upper brackets of the income tax code. There upper tax brackets are about to be set to increase after next year. This is when the income tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 will expire. President Barack Obama and the Obama Treasury Department have indicated that they intend to let thsoe tax cuts to expire for the upper 2 income brackets. That means that any individual or small business earning more than $200,000. Some criticize the surtax House Democrats want, because the increase the income tax rate for people plus small businesses paying taxes in the top bracketes. The surtax could increase taxes on individuals wanting more than $280,000 a year or couples over $350,000 as reported by the AP reported. On Saturday morning, the Washington Post published a report on its Web site about the planned tax increase, under the headline—“Democrats Agree on Tax Hike to Fund Health Care.” Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats view this policy as the only means to fund health care reform (in order to give access for all Americans and stem the high costs of medical care while improving patient outcomes). Barack Obama said that this proposal is a mandate that the people want. In 2001, President Bush signed tax reform legislation that cut income tax rates across the board. People who were then paying a 15% federal income tax rate had their rate cut to 10%. The higher income tax rates of 39.6%, 36%, 31%, and 28% were cut to 35%, 33%, 28% and 25%. President Obama’s Treasury Department has indicated that the administration will seek to increase the current 33% rate to 36% and the current 35% rate to 39.6%. Under Obama’s tax-increase plan, individuals making $200,000 or more would be subject to the new 36% rate. The income “surtax” House Democrats now plan would come on top of Obama’s tax increases. The future is uncertain for what our health care will be. The truth is that you can agree or disagree with this proposal. What is certainly true is that something ought to be done to reform our health care system completely.

Steven Ertelt who is a LifeNews.com Editor on July 13, 2009 wrote about a new bill that would ban using human cloning to create human-animal hybrids. 2 members of the Senate have been unsuccessful to ban all forms of cloning. Now, they are introducing legislation to ban the use of cloning to make human-animal hybrids. This research is occuring now in England. Stephen Minger is a researcher of King's College London. He receieved permission from the British government to engage in hybrid cloning there. He's been pushing hybirds forward. Minger is attempting to fuse DNA from cows with that of humans in order to create new stem cells that could be used in scientific research. Sens. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, and Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, want to prohibit such research from taking place in the United States. “This legislation works to ensure that our society recognizes the dignity and sacredness of human life,” Brownback told LifeNews.com on Friday. Brownback said that human-animal hybrids can alter the genetic makeup of human beings or organisms which violates human dignity. The Human Aminal Hybrid Prohibition Act bans human animal hybrids in other to stop part-human/part animals from being formed in labortatories (which blurs the lines between species). The bill is modest in scope and only affects efforts to blur the genetic lines between animals and humans. It does not preclude the use of animals or humans in legitimate research or health care where genetic material is not passed on to future generations. It doesn't ban the use of organs to help treat human dieseases though. Brownback said that his bill is modeled after a bill Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed to ban the creation of human-animal hybrids. In February, research (from Robert Lanza in the biotech firm of Advanced Cell Technology) proves that such retrival of eggs from animals are not a good source of forming embryonic stem cells that some researchers want to use in experiments. Wesley J. Smith even had written information about his opposition to human-anmial hybirds. He is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network. In 2008, members of the British House of Commons rejected an amendment in a vote of 336 to 176 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that would have prevented the hybrid cloning. Members of parliament also voted 286 to 223 to reject a second amendment that would have prohibited so-called "true hybrids" using the sex cells of a human and an animal. So, the UK has a long way in promoting the dignity of human life just like America has. Many co-sponsors in America support the Brownback-Landrieu hybrid cloning ban from McCain, Vitter, Ensign, Coburn, and others. I oppose human animal hybrids as well since it diminishes the dignity of human life. Also, it's similar to playing the Creator in distorting what Nature has in the Universe.

Sarah Foster from NewsWithViews on July 14, 2009 described about the climate bill. On June 26, the House passed the highly controversial H.R. 2998 (which was originally called H.R. 2454) or the American Clean Energy and Security Act. It's the ACES or the "Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill." Its cosponsors are Henry Waxman from CA and Ed Markey from Mass. who are Democrats. Senators will vote on the bill. The House vote was 212 to 219. 44 Democrats voted No. Without the Yes votes of 8 Republicans it would have gone down in defeat. President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) loves the bill of course. And in a derisive slap at the grassroots opposition that bombarded congressional offices with emails, faxes and phone calls, Pelosi declared: “For some it was a difficult vote because the agents of the status quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts and here [in D.C.], but [the representatives] withstood that.” Critics of the bill believe that the bill will negatively assault the U.S. economy, industry, and the standard of living among Americans. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio called the bill as the biggest job killing bill that have been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Myron Ebell is the Director of the Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (or the CEI). Ebell called the bill as a massive tax hike that would expand the federal government's power over the economy. The bill lasts over 1,000 pages. The bill wants to decrease the level of CO2 levels or greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The bill mandates that 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from “renewable” sources. Electric and gas utilities, refineries, cement plants, steel foundries and other companies would be required to lower the amount of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and down to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. People dispute man-made global warming. The cap and trade system deals with requiring companies to have one emission permit or a ration coupon for every ton of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks (while there are caps on the amount of CO2 emissions in order to invest in wind, solar, and other alternative energies). The costs could be trillions of dollars and it will cause tax hikes. Even Barack Obama admitted that the cap and trade system will cause electricity rates to skyrocket. At the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, researchers crunched numbers and came up with some specifics about the first 23 years of a project that’s planned to go on for the next 90 years. According to Heritage findings, under Waxman-Markey the cost of electricity will soar 90 percent between 2012 and 2035; gasoline prices will rise 58 percent; and residential natural gas, 55 percent. A family of four can expect its annual energy bill to be raised by $1,241. (Figures are adjusted for inflation, and assume a 36 percent cut in energy use by consumers trying to adjust to escalating costs). Some believe that energy rationing could be a result of this bill being passed as law. Even Greenspeace oppose this bill. Now, cap and trade is a huge government influence on our economy and industry which does little to help our environment. Its impact on CO2 levels is minimum and it rewards polluters with a carbon credits. Proponents of this bill are the Big bankers and Al Gore since the carbon credit will economically benefit them (when they have programs that will utilize the cap and trade system). It's a bad solution in an economically distressed time.

The Hate Crime Bill is heavily popular in the Congress. The Senate is considering to pass or reject the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act or S. 909. The hate crimes bill claims to promote tolerance, but it really silences free speech. It equates free speech to felonous violence when laws exists that will punish violence against anyone for any reason. Some people are fighting against the bill. The Human Rights Campaign is promoting the bill. This time around many conservatives are not getting a greater result in stopping the bill since most of the Congress are composed of Democrats. Another reason is that many people don't know what the bill actually says. They go into the euphemisms of tolerance when suppressing dissent is wrong just like violence against innocent people. Some Evangelical talk radio people like Dr. James Dobson, Tom Minnery, and Tony Perkins said that there is no chance to defeat the hate bill. It's kind of this defeat attitude that I reject. Years ago, this bill was rejected. If it can be rejected then, it can be rejected now. Even Ted Pike (which I don't agree on every issue) showed his recent video about Eric Holder admitting that there is no equal justice under the hate bill (i.e. soldiers are not protected by this bill). Little calls are reaching Senators about dissenting with the bill. See, similar hate crime laws in Canada and Europe have caused Christians who aren't violent to be arrested and jailed for their dissent. Opponents of abortion should consider the anti-life censorship in Canada. For at least 15 years, those who protest killing the unborn have been restricted, fined - even imprisoned. Ms. Kelly of FOX News also expressed indignation that, while the Democrats acted to protect pedophiles (since the hate crimes bill's proponents refused to add a provision in the bill to punish pedophiles), they rejected Republican efforts to obtain similar special protection for war veterans. Especially in times of unpopular wars, these are common victims of "hate crimes," spit upon or attacked because of who they are -- military defenders of America's freedom. Therefore, this hate crime bill can do this since it says if you feel abused by certain "threatened" speech, you can be arrested and jailed for years in prison. The solution to hate is stronger enforcement of laws, laws that don't violate the First Amendment, education, real dialogue, and the use of our First Amendment rights.

Angie A. Welborn from the Congressional Research Service on July 13, 2009 wrote about mandatory vaccinations in precedent plus current laws. A report from the CRS or the Congressional Research Service was posted on the Federation of American Scientists website. State laws try to require individuals or populations to be vaccinated against various communicable diseases. In America, mandatory vaccination laws were first enacted in the early 1800's when Masschusetts enacted the first such law in 1809. Jacobson v. Massachusetts is viewed as the seminal case regarding a state’s or municipality’s authority to institute a mandatory vaccination program as an exercise of its police powers. In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law that give municipal boards of health the authority to require the vaccination of persons over the age of 21 against smallpox. They determined that the vaccination program instituted in the city of Cambridge had "a real and substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety." The Court says that regulations can be done that relate to vaccinations which can't contravene the Constitution of the USA or infringe on any rights. The Supreme Court in Jacobson did the wrong thing in saying that explicit mandatory vaccination is a violation of Constitutional liberty. There are state mandatory vaccination laws in public schools as well. This came about heavily because of the measles outbreaks in the 1960's and 1970's. Generally, states use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s schedule of immunizations as a guide, and require children to be vaccinated against a number of diseases on the schedule, including diphtheria, measles, rubella, and polio. The government wants to force vaccinations especially in times of an emergency. Under the Public Health Service Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to make and enforce regulations necessary “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” The Act recognizes that individuals may be unable or unwilling to undergo vaccination “for reasons of health, religion, or conscience,” and provides that such individuals may be subject to quarantine to prevent the spread of a contagious or possibly contagious disease. As noted above, state and local governments have the primary responsibility for protecting the public health, and this has been reflected in the enactment of state laws pertaining to public health and establishing procedures during a public health emergency. Any federal mandatory vaccination program applicable to the general public would likely be limited to areas of existing federal jurisdiction, similar to the federal quarantine authority. The lesson here is that the government supports mandatory vacciantions on some levels. We should reject mandatory vaccinations completely.

Secret Societies are ever common in the world. There are things that you get to see involving Secret Societies that you wouldn't of realized before. Pastor Hatchett was an ex-GLO member and an ex-Freemason. Now, he is preaching the Gospel and inspired people leave occult inspired GLOs. The reasons are that GLOs typically have swearing of oaths, some haze, and many of them praise false gods (like Minerva, etc.) as role models or inspiration figures. When ex-GLO members would admit to this. An idol false god ought to be never be permitted as a role model. The prophets, real religious champions, and of course God Himself should be our role models. Accoring to Hatchett Omegas teach the Universal Brotherhood of Man and Fatherhood of God, which is a Masonic doctrine. Freemasons admits that fraternities and sororities are cousins to the GLOs. Many Pentecotal people readily expose GLOs, yet some of their doctrines have errors in them. Some believe that the same miracles and authority of the apostles in the first century exist presently. The reality is that these things don't exist today since the apostles have long been deceased. Many Pentecostals aren't monolithic since some love Jesus Christ and reject the Laughing Revival Movement like Dr. Joseph Chambers of Charlotte, North Carolina. Many originators of the Pentecostal movement like John Alexander Dowie believed that faith healing is promised in the atonment (without medical treatment in some cases. Ecumenical Kathryn Kuhlman taught that healing was promised by the atonment of Jesus Christ. Kurt Koch was a renowned evangelical researcher into the occult. In his book Occult ABC he describes his research into Kathryn Kuhlman's healing ministry. He found no clear healing by Kuhlman's organization. Kuhlman committed adultery with the married evangelist Burroughs Waltrip). This is extreme of course. Dowie was accused of sexual irregularities and was declared bankrupt. Pentecostal originator William Branham was another heretic. He denied the Trinity (saying that it was of the devil) and taught the false view that Satan said sex with Eve to form Cain. He viewed that the Mark of the Beast was denominationalism and denied the eteranlity of hall. William was a false prophet by saying that the end of the world would occur by 1977. He did a healing ministry as well claiming to resurrect a dead fish. There are other examples of some Pentecostal minister making false claims and false prophecies. Today, people in this movement like G. Craig Lewis are Pentecostal people mixing truth (exposing GLOs, evils in popular culture, evils in Secret Societies, exposing abortion) with error (sometimes using rumor in criticizing people, believing that you must speak in tongue as a sign of you being saved, etc.). Lewis is known to saying degatory names for people, which the Bible says we should use no filthy communication out of our mouths. Hatchett asked G. Craig Lewis to give more concrete evidence about TD Jakes being involved in a certain sexual orientation (which was said by "Apostle" Youngblood). Lewis and his crew didn't provide extra evidence (yet, they responded in saying degatory language against homosexuals plus others and used ad hominem attacks against Hatchet. You can disagree with homosexuality as Christians, but it's evil to use degatory language in harming a person regardless of what they are), so Hatchett rightfully rejected that claim. Miracles exist all of the time in the world, but we aren't saved by them. Ironically, G. Craig Lewis refuses to allow people to comment on his own blog. We're saved by the Jesus Christ with his grace.

By Timothy