Canada has proudly joined the ranks of the “Progressives” with the election of the part-time ski instructor, Justin Trudeau, as our Prime Minister.
“It’s his presence, not policies that puts Canada on the map. Women all over the world are tweeting variations of ‘Oh my god, I’m moving to Canada #JustinTrudeau’ with a sexy shirtless picture of our new leader.”
According to the New York Times: “Justin, has sex appeal. ‘At last, a politician with a movie star/pop idol/ski bum name!’ And ‘square-jawed, with great hair, has a decorous young wife, and is as smooth and personable as a TV game show host.’”
But as the New York Times also noted: “He has a striking lack of political experience.”
Wow. Reminds me of another politician: Obama. No credentials? So what? It’s all about packaging and those who put Trudeau together did a bang up job. It’s all about sizzle over substance.
Trudeau is all geared up for the climate change conference coming up in Paris. It’s a crucial priority of his. What worries me is that the Progressives will fix the climate with their polices. They point out that climate change is the result of human beings-our activities.Dottie Lamm, former first lady of Colorado, who served as member of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, still preaches that population is one of the major contributors to climate change and other environmental crises. She wrote all about it in a Denver Post op-ed.
Well, based on the focus of world-wide Progressives, human beings won’t be a climate problem for long. We have a “Progressive” plan to reduce population, which really goes back to 1952 when John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council in New York, to promote studies on the dangers of over-population. It became the world’s first truly global population control foundation. During the 1960s there was a world-wide movement concerned with overpopulation and concomitant famine. Abortion was promoted as a means to reduce famine and so abortion became more acceptable throughout the sixties.
And now thanks to Trudeau we can look forward to progressive abortion laws in Canada. We can look forward to fewer daughters-unless the doctors refuse to divulge the sex of the child. Many cultures prefer sons to daughters and abort or kill new-born girls. We know some of the consequences because of China. Fewer women-fewer wombs-fewer babies. Unlike Prime Minister Harper who refused to provide funds for abortion in third world countries and instead focused on maternal health, Trudeau plans to reinstate money for abortion in the name of closing the gap in reproductive rights and reducing the population in underdeveloped countries. Shades of Rockefeller.Trudeau is so focused on this that he “disallowed pro-life MPs in his party and said he will force any Liberal MPs with pro-life views to vote in favour of abortion if the issue were to ever arise in the House of Commons.”
And then there’s Trudeau’s embrace of euthanasia. We will be able to get rid of the elderly and disabled. Of course one will need to get the “permission” of a doctor but Belgium has that down pat. Your daughter dies, your heart is broken-no problem- here’s the blue juice for you (for those who don’t know-the blue juice is the drug vets give to animals to “put them to sleep”).
When abortion was first introduced, there were limits. Those limits are long gone. What makes us think that limits on euthanasia won’t be pushed to the point that our elderly, disabled and mentally ill won’t feel pressure or pressured to end their lives for the sake of the community?
Many Progressives don’t like the idea of vaccines, either. That vaccines saved millions from diphtheria and whooping cough, polio, rubella, doesn’t matter. That was so yesterday. The new Progressives see them as unnatural and unnecessary. And why not? They haven’t witnessed the ravages of polio or measles or rubella. Out of sight out of mind. These people who don’t vaccinate their children put others in harm’s way, especially those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immuno-compromised individuals because of the lack of the “herd” effect. So think about the deaths from preventable childhood diseases that will take place across the developed world and third world countries.
Then there’s the fight against genetically modified food; foods that make it possible to feed billions of people. Professor Jonathan Jones of the John Innes Centre pointed out. “When I started making GM plants 30 years ago I did wonder if there might be unknown unknowns. But the evidence now is clear. GM food and crops are as safe as non-GM food and crops.” And then there is the fight against golden rice. “Golden rice was first developed in 1999, but its development and cultivation has been opposed vehemently by campaigners who have flatly refused to accept that it could deliver enough vitamin A, and who have also argued that the crop’s introduction in the developing world would make farmers increasingly dependent on western industry.”
And now there is a fight over a genetically modified non-browning variety of apple that shuts off the enzyme that initiates browning on the apple’s flesh because “it could compromise the fruit’s reputation as a healthy, wholesome food.” Several individuals commenting on the possibility of allowing this apple to be sold said it was “playing God” with the apple. That genetically modified foods help feed the poor doesn’t matter to those opposed. The World Health Organization puts it succinctly: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods (GM) by the general population”.
It’s the “natural” craze that is behind all of this. And that leads to “eat local” and organic. I can’t think of better strategies to reduce the world population than these.
While these “Progressive” ideas move through the West, Israel is working on better ways to increase food production while reducing water consumption and is sharing these innovations from Africa to California. Israel is a top innovator in finding cures for cancer and improving the lives of those who have lost limbs or live with incurable diseases like ALS.
The Paris Climate Change Conference won’t need to talk about carbon reduction. They have a Progressive agenda that targets population, the cause of climate change.
What would our sages say about this “progress”? How do these ideas fit in with our teachings about the sanctity of all life?