This Friday thousands of students across America will walk out of school in the name of human-caused global warming. It’s called the U.S. Youth Climate Strike, part of a global student movement inspired by socialist radicals in Europe.
As a guy who used to interpret weather data for a living, allow me to assure you there is no impending global climate emergency.
What should be treated as an emergency is the green brainwashing of the Millennial generation. They’ve sucked up Al Gore’s big bag of hot air, held their collective breath, and now they’re turning red.
Red, as in Marxism, socialism and communism.
As I state in my 2012 bestseller, Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America, Karl Marx perceived the environment as an effective tool to push his anti-capitalist, anti-God, agenda.
Reading from one of his most popular screeds, Das Kapital, Marx sounds like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
…all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the laborer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards ruining the lasting sources of that fertility. The more a country starts its development on the foundation of modern industry, like the United States, for example, the more rapid is this process of destruction.
Like Marx, the new breed of socialists in the U.S. sees capitalism as unjust, the use of natural resources for profit immoral, and the human population something that must be controlled.
Here are three direct disciples of Marx that illustrate my point.
Sir Edwin Ray Lankester was a zoologist at University College, London, and noted as the greatest Darwinist of his generation. Though Lankester was some thirty years younger than Marx, the two were close friends, colleagues, fellow materialists (didn’t believe in God), and socialists. Lankester was a frequent guest at Marx’s household.
Lankester was the most eco-socialist thinker of his time, writing powerful papers on species extinction due to human causes with an urgency that would not be not found again until the late 20th century. Lankester’s most popular book was Nature and Man (1905), in which he describes humans as the “insurgent son” of Nature.
Lankester’s star pupil was Arthur Tansley—the man who is noted for coining the term “ecosystem.” Too young to have interfaced with Marx, Tansley was a fellow Darwinist, materialist, socialist, and a foremost academician specializing in botany. In his book, Ecology, Tansley spoke of “the destructive human activities of the modern world.” He argued, “Ecology must be applied to conditions brought about by human activity.”
In the 1940s, Tansley had a young protégé named Charles Elton who worked with him to further develop the ecosystem concept. Elton’s fiery writing style set the stage for the coming generation of eco-authors. In a blazing 1958 condemnation of the use of pesticides, Elton declared that “this astonishing rain of death upon so much of the world’s surface” was largely unnecessary and threatened “the very delicately organized interlocking system of populations” in the ecosystem.
Today, this green worldview resonates with an entire generation. Through advanced education and absorption of such deceptive disinformation, this “elite” caste surmises they can become masters of the universe.
It’s all directly from a dangerous playbook written by Karl Marx and his early followers.
Theirs is an amoral system in which there is no room for absolute truth, only relativism, lest they be forced to acknowledge a divine being who has an absolute rule of law, which would force them to throw out their dogma, or else move forward filled with guilt about their waywardness.
Leaders of this green movement believe theyshould have the power to define all societal morality, rules, and laws subject to their goals. Hence, the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as recognized by America’s founders are viewed as absurd, because an imaginary God cannot declare rights.
This radical crowd believes that all so-called “rights” be issued by the government in the form of laws.
And, just as a law can be issued by the government, so shall it be taken away by that government should they deem necessary.
Where do you stand on God? Is the Bible to be believed, do all roads lead to God, are all people basically good?
Please enjoy this podcast by clicking here, and please feel free to share it with others!
If you are a registered Democrat and genuine follower of God, you need to RUN from your political party.
If you are a person of good moral character, but not necessarily religious–and a Democrat–take off.
Seriously, run. Your party has gone ghoulish.
Last night, only three Democratic senators voted against infanticide when the Senate took a roll call vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
The bill, introduced by Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, would provide medical care and legal protections to infants born alive after an attempted abortion. Sasse initially called for unanimous consent on the measure several weeks ago, but Democratic Washington Sen. Patty Murray blocked it.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brought Sasse’s bill to a roll call vote Monday, and it failed largely along party lines. However, three Democrats did break with their party to vote in favor of the bill.
Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey voted alongside Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, also from the Keystone State, who had co-sponsored the bill with Sasse. Democratic Alabama Sen. Doug Jones, who recently flipped his seat from Republican hands, also voted with Republicans Monday.
Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin was the third Democrat to cross the aisle on this particular issue — a move that many likely expected after some of his more recent comments. Manchin was one of the only Democrats to stand during President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address when the president called for an end to abortions after the unborn baby can feel pain.
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:13).
Several years ago, WND Books published my two best-sellers on global warming, “Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam” (2008) and “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America” (2010).
Both books are filled with hundreds of footnotes detailing peer-reviewed scientific studies illustrating why one should, at the least, be skeptical of human-caused global warming claims.
Interestingly, “Climategate” and “Eco-Tyranny” also clearly tie the roots of the green movement to a host of influential leftists, beginning with Marx and Lenin.
Last week I posted a tongue-in-cheek video on YouTube, for an ongoing series called, “The Epic Story of the Day.” In this particular video, subtitled, “Global Warming,” I read a vivid description of incredibly warm conditions in the Arctic Circle and a prediction of worse to come. I concluded my comments by comically mentioning that the article I was reading was originally published, word-for-word, by the Washington Post – in 1922!
Within an hour of posting the humorous piece, YouTube’s speech police stationed this dictatorial warning directly below the video box:
“Global warming is a long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system, an aspect of climate change shown by temperature measurements and by multiple effects of the warming.”
The disclaimer, which is primarily seen by those using a desktop computer, included a link to Wikipedia declaring anthropogenic global warming to be fact.
Unreal. To think that YouTube’s almighty speech police rely on Wikipedia as its purveyor of truth.
What a joke. Last I checked, the bio Wikipedia displays about me is brimming with blunders.
This is chilling. YouTube (a subsidiary of Google) is likely the largest media content provider in the world. By all accounts, its board of directors and corporate officers lean (way) left. At what point will a decision be made to add disclaimers to videos involving the Ten Commandments, the deity of Jesus, or biblically based morality and family values?
No question, YouTube is in the censorship business. As a private enterprise they are able to get away with it because they are not subject to a government entity like, for example, the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees broadcast radio and television.
In fact, in a 2018 court case involving Prager University, a nonprofit run by conservative radio talk-show host Dennis Prager, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said the organization had failed to show that YouTube infringed its free speech rights by placing restrictions on its content.
The plaintiff, Prager University, said YouTube’s “animus” toward its “political identity and viewpoint” led it to curb access to videos, including through its “Restricted Mode” setting, on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism, despite its stated promise of neutrality.
The judge said YouTube did not qualify as state actor subject to the First Amendment by creating a “public forum” for speech.
“Defendants are private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website,” Koh wrote. “Plaintiff has not shown that defendants have engaged in one of the very few public functions that were traditionally exclusively reserved to the state,” she added.
My recommendation? When posting conservative truth, thought and opinion on YouTube, follow the words of Jesus: “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).