The Results Of “Restoring The Scientific Process To Its Rightful Place”
July 17, 2009
Remember when President Obama announced that now he was going to restore science to its rightful place? That was one of those comments that nobody has any idea exactly what it meant but by golly it sure sounded good. Granted, in this particular reference, he was referring to action being taken on the Endangered Species Act, but most feel it was also a message to Americans that it also implied all scientific aspects of his administration.
Evidently we are getting a taste of what Obama meant. Back when he made the statement, I asked whose science was he planning to restore? Maybe he is planning to restore the science, if that’s what you want to call it, of his newly appointed “Science Czar”, John Holdren.
For those who might not know anything about Holdren, he is a former professor of environmental study at Harvard. He also suggests that forced sterilization through adding things to our drinking water or food supply would be a good thing, or that requiring all babies born illegitimately be forced into adoption. Put him together with Obama’s pick to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a man who believes animals should have a right to sue, and we’ve got the makings of a dynamic duo.
Holdren’s science, I guess, must be science that Obama agrees with. And if that’s not enough, then let’s require all women to take a sterilizing implant and only be allowed to have babies when the government approves.
Pretty far fetched isn’t it. And some of you probably think that believing this is as weird and far out as Glenn Beck. What’s troubling though is that when people talk of Obama being a radical, it is all too often denied. But what is to be said about a man who surrounds himself with these kinds of people? Do not birds of a feather flock together or is just certain species of birds?
It’s equally troubling that a president is picking all these so-called czars. They are unelected, appointed by the president and answer only to the president, yet he gives them all kinds of power. They are exempt from the control of Congress or we the people.
It would be my guess that Obama’s idea of “restoring science to its rightful place” is on the same par with “hope and change”. It all sounds really swell boys and girls but in truth, none of us have any idea what he’s talking about until we begin to do a bit of digging to find out more about a man and who he selects to surround himself with and get advice from.
I don’t know about you, but I find that quite scary.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
Ripe for the pickins. I could go off and yell with discust how ignorance got us in this boat but some of the folks that voted for it are really getting fired up to complain…. if they can figure out what to complain about.
It is amazing how much they don’t know, or forgot, maybe. And the sad part is, it’s not very difficult to understand.
I’ve been listening to eddie burk in anchorage on kbyr am radio. He didn’t finish high school but he can certainly understand the intentions of our founding fathers just as well as the next guy except the next guy went to school later than eddie or I and is, for all intent and purposes, stupid.
Basic communication skills allude them. If they can not speak, how can they think? And based on what? A heart-string – (if the animals could talk, huh?)
The scientific process is aimed at the fat asses intending to stay that way so others will do the work ’cause ” I deserve it. I’ve worked, now, for almost a year so it’s time I got paid back what is owed me.”
Somewhere along the line, MY COUNTRY OWES ME began resounding off the workplace walls and a generation of unaware communists/socialist headed for the unemployment line for a taste of the handout.
“I own part of GM, now and I want a new car, don’t you?” Some one asked me this the other day, believing their car manufacturer would give them a car.
Because everything a liberal communist says is death and destruction, I don’t let them finish their statement, cut em off. I won’t listen to lies and thinking that goes nowhere.
Tom, I got a couple-few months to go before I reach 60. How much do you figure I need a gd health plan?
The first health plan I needed was when I busted an ankle. The second was when I needed my inards taken out. I paid for my health plan as soon as I figured out how much to plan to send them each month. So, for about 3 years I paid the doctors and technicians and consultants until the balance was paid in full. Those are the two health care plans i’ve had over the years.
But completely worthless for the individual not intending to work.
You knew I would so here we go.
“That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins–all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand” (“A Free Man’s Worship” in Selected Papers of Bertrand Russell [New York: The Modern Library, 1927], p. 3). Others have said that as science finds explanations of natural phenomena, God becomes smaller and smaller. Once God was the Almighty; now science is the almighty.
As the quote from Bertrand Russell indicates, those who reject God are faced with hopeless despair. They’re forced to conclude that all man’s efforts are ultimately meaningless since all men die, and eventually the universe itself will die. However, Christians have hope. In fact, we are to rejoice in hope (Rom. 5:2; 12:12). We can have hope when others have only despair because what we do for God in this life is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58).
Are you a hopeful person? Or is your life clouded with the same despair that plagues non-believers? If your hope is sagging, why not pump new life into it by taking your Bible and concordance and doing a Bible study on hope?
Real Hope, In the Promises of God. Not the (Scientific) hope of the Pope “O” Hope-n-Change
http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html
esa
http://www.takingliberty.us/Narrations/endangered/player.html
http://www.takingliberty.us/Narrations/roadless/player.html
http://www.takingliberty.us/Narrations/MasterPlan/player.html
war on property rights
http://www.discerningtoday.org/war_on_property_rights_1.htm
Volume 3 Issue 7-8, July-August 2001
Unconstitutional origins of the Endangered Species Act
© 2001 Discerning the Times Digest and NewsBytes
By redefining Article 6 of the US Constitution, all globlists now have to do is ratify international treaties that, in total, subvert the Constitution and put all power into their hands. As a consequence, Americans are systematically coming under the control of international law and the United Nations, and flies and suckerfish have more legal rights than people.
To most American citizens the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and many other environmental laws are a noble effort to save species from extinction, and to protect the environment from reckless destruction by man. The human tragedy caused by the ESA and other environmental laws is rarely reported, hence most Americans also do not realize that hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens, primarily in rural areas, are needlessly being stripped of their livelihoods and decimated economically by these laws as our government uses them to nationalize their property.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, the granddaddy of all these anti-human US laws, derives its authority and power from five international treaties, the most prominent being the Western Convention. Section 2, paragraph (4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 states; “the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to-
A. migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;
B. the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;
C. the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;
D. the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries;
E. the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean;
F. the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and
G. other international agreements; and…
The ESA even extols the fact that it cedes sovereignty to the international community by saying its purpose is to “develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards.” These in turn are “key to meeting the Nation’s international commitments.” (Bold and italics added for emphasis)
The Western Convention and the ESA
Even if they did not know of its existence, most Americans who live in rural America will recognize with alarm some of the key language in The Western Convention because they have witnessed it being applied in their area through the ESA. The goal of The Western Convention is to “protect and preserve in their natural habitat representatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna…in sufficient numbers and over areas extensive enough to assure them from becoming extinct through any agency within man’s control…. (Bolding and italics added for emphasis)
Some citizens have even experienced the ESA horror as it has stripped them personally of their right to use their own land. Under the ESA, private property can condemned by the federal government to create the habitat needed, or possibly could be needed, by an endangered fly, sucker fish or beetle, as well as more glamorous species like the bald eagle.
The Western Convention also provides for the establishment and total protection of National Parks, National Reserves, Nature Monuments and Wilderness Reserves. Within these protected areas, Section 4 of the Western Convention requires the host nation, “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable – shall… designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat.” Not surprisingly, in language identical to the Western Convention, Section 4 of the ESA states, “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable–shall…designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat.” (Bold and italics added for emphasis)
According to Article VIII of the Western Convention, all endangered species “shall be protected as completely as possible, and their hunting, killing, capturing, or taking, shall be allowed only with the permission of the appropriate government authorities in the country.” Not surprisingly, the concept of full protection, critical habitat and takings is also found in the ESA. Under Section 9 of the ESA, it is unlawful to “take any” endangered “species within the United States or the territorial sea of States,” or “take any such species upon the high seas.”
If only National Parks, Reserves, Monuments and wilderness areas received this kind of protection, the treaty would accomplish what most Americans desire. But, it goes far beyond protecting these political designations. Article V also includes ” the protection and preservation of flora and fauna within their (the nation’s) national boundaries but not included in the national parks, national reserves, nature monuments, or strict wilderness reserves…. (bold and italics added for emphasis)
Hence all land, public and private is under the jurisdiction of this UN treaty through the ESA.
The usurpation of the US Constitution
The UN-administered Western Convention has provided the hammer for denying landowners of their property rights in the US by superceding the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution:
….No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (bold and italics added for emphasis)
Most if not all of US environmental natural resource laws have their authority derived from Article VI of the US Constitution, not Article I that defines the eighteen enumerated powers of Congress. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states:
Congress shall have power to:
1. Collect Taxes and Duties
2. Borrow Money
3. Regulate Commerce
4. Naturalize Citizens
5. Coin Money
6. Punishment of Counterfeiting
7. Build Post Offices & Post Roads
8. Promote Inventions
9. Constitute Lower Courts
10. Punish High Seas Offences
11. Declare War
12. Raise an Army
13. Provide a Navy
14. Make Rules for Military
15. Call Militia and Suppress Insurrections & Invasions
16. Organize and Arm Militia
17. District of Columbia
18. To Make All Laws for Above Powers, and Powers Vested by the Constitution
According to the US Constitution, Congress has no power to legislate anything other than in the eighteen areas listed above, and none of those allow Congress to pass environmental law, except number 18, which is defined in Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Bold and italics added for emphasis)
As it was originally written, the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The laws of the United States had to be “in pursuance thereof,” or subservient to the Constitution. Likewise, treaties could only be made “under the Authority of the United States.” Since the authority of the United States comes from the sovereign people who delegated it to the US Constitution, treaties also had to be subservient to it.
Although the founders thought it obvious and therefore did not include it in the original US Constitution, the sovereignty of the people was spelled out in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. For instance, Amendment IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Just to make sure future courts understood this, Amendment X states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It was the people’s ironclad contract that they would never become serfs to the state. (Bold and italics added for emphasis)
Needless to say, the US Constitution stopped the globalists from implementing their one-world plan dead in their tracts. They knew that something had to be done to override the sovereignty of the individual. In the case of property rights and natural resources, international treaties were used. The Constitution began to be reinterpreted in the case Missouri vs. Holland 252 U.S. 416, 40 S. Ct. 3822, 64 L.Ed 641 (1920). In that decision the US Supreme Court held that the federal government may preempt state control over wildlife under federal legislation implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty. By putting liberal and corrupt judges into lower courts and the Supreme Court, Article 6.2 of the Constitution was gradually reinterpreted to mean:
…all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…
Such an interpretation fits perfectly within the globalist’s agenda. By redefining Article 6 of the US Constitution, all globlists now have to do is ratify international treaties that, in total, subvert the Constitution and put all power into their hands. As a consequence, Americans are systematically coming under the control of international law and the United Nations, and flies and suckerfish have more legal rights than people. “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” (Romans 1:22-23)
I believe!