An Invitation To Invasion

In America, we see boarders where there were once borders.  And what lacks a border, cannot be a nation for long.

Also, in what other 'humanitarian crisis' arising from conflict, have we seen children--many children unaccompanied by adults--flee across a border for safety?  For example, who occupies the refugee camps in Iraq and Turkey?  Only children?  No, in crises, families flee.  Parents don't abandon children en mass except to ensure them amelioration, assured of their safety and prosperity.  Would you abandon your children to America's care--after so many broken assurances to them by American leaders?  The parents of our boarders at the borders must have more faith in America than you or I do or must expect more actual fulfillment from America's leaders--as illegal aliens.

Borders are about national security:  an open border is an invitation to invasion.

Chicken Little's Great Big Thermostat in the Sky

Over a century, the earth’s temperature may have risen by one to two degrees Fahrenheit; and, it is possible that humans are culpable; but from the rhetoric of climate change alarmists one might conclude that the world is on fire and that the fire is an arson ignited by American humans against their host, earth. By contrast, weren't Chicken Little's claims sedate?

These alarmists spend most of their time stoking hysteria ("the consequences will be terrible if we don't take quick action") and excoriating their opponents as "flat-earthers", "deniers", and "anti-intellectuals" spewing "venom" and "sheer rage". Maybe they consider it disclosure and debate to just darkle populist, even institutional opposition like Congress, (ie. preposterously, as believers that the moon is cheese)? Why all this drama, mama? Are they scaring because they are caring?

If only we could calm them, if only they would hush their hysteria just enough for a reasoned discourse they might discover the 'nuts' that inform some of their opinions.

First, why are these alarmists so negative about climate change? I thought they were all about change. Remember the rain forest? Rising levels of carbon have been and will be a boon to plants according to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate, citing 3,586 studies: “Most plants will display enhanced rates of photosynthesis and biomass production as the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration rises”—even anthropogenically. Aren’t plants green? So, this is a reason for alarm: the spruce tree in one’s own landscape may become a giant sequoia? It seems like climate change activists are looking at the glass half empty. Maybe, instead, it is half-full: will melting ice caps / rising oceans be adverse to endangered whales? According to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate, “Multiple studies from multiple ocean regions confirm ocean productivity tends to increase with temperature…..Subjects of this research include phytoplankton (whale food) and macroalgae, corals, crustaceans, and fish.”  Hurrah for the whales!?

In resisting change, which may be demonstrably good for plants and animals, are climate change activists being anthropocentric chauvinists—discriminating against plants and animals and in favor of their own species? So, whose environment concerns environmentalism, hypocrite? Would you speak for the Earth and all its life? While some climate scarers are hypocrites, I think it is likely that most are sincere but misinformed. ‘Consensus’ and catastrophism has them denying the prospective benefits of change—even to humanity. And even if climate change is as adverse to humans as alarmists assert, won’t humans adapt? Maybe climate change will enhance our evolutionary biology? Perhaps they have never seen that budget-buster movie, Waterworld?  Why won't they focus on the positive? And be calm? And defer to a deliberative approach? 

Second, climate scientists have been so engrossed in discerning a change to global temperatures, in refining what were unreliable models of climate change, and in constructing consensus publications that even the most panicked among them have yet to make specific, sequenced policy prescriptions. Instead, a recent report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program which pooled resources from many federal agencies including NASA, (the once National Aeronautics and Space Administration--retooling as the National Atmospheric Science Administration?) focuses on simulating catastrophes. It draws tangents between future catastrophes and past events without disclosing probabilities and correlations. It describes future black swan events including floods, hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, and food shortages in detail by U.S. region. This approach makes cataclysm seem close to home.  What the report lacks is specific, sequenced prescriptions about how society might avert the simulated catastrophes. But if its authors are panicked about our prospects without climate controls, why would they omit these? Especially when the report asserted that: "response activities are necessary to limit the magnitude and impacts of global climate change on the United States". What response activities “are necessary”?  They won't say.  This they defer to a prospective Climate Controller in Chief.

Have they omitted their prescriptions because there is no consensus among them as to what response activities will save us from the dire consequences they simulate? Doesn't this say something about how ingenuous they are about their fire alarms--if they won't immediately identify the emergency exits they see and supply us with their prospective extinguishers? Doesn't it also say something about how efficacious they consider their evacuation plans and extinguishers? Would they have all of creation put its blind trust in a single, human, lay Climate Controller in Chief?

Third, recognize that this alarmist approach creates a climate of crisis in America that is adverse to the rule of law. Is "quick action" on climate change--like the new executive edicts and the new EPA regulations--legal or Constitutional? Do they acknowledge the sovereignty of the rule of law? Will Congress or the Supreme Court consider and check these executive, federal, and bureaucratic histrionics? Or will we, like Chicken Little in tow, become fox food?

Fourth, our ability to measure, let alone to hindcast or to forecast, climate change is nascent. Consider this:  how reliable were weather instruments a century ago? How robust (ie. as to frequency) were thermometer readings a century ago? How subject were these readings to human errors (ie. someone slept in)? How unbiased was the choice as to where measuring instruments were placed when data couldn't be retrieved wirelessly? In other words, what inferences can one make about how global surface temperatures have changed from intermittent data collected at sparse points on the globe as recorded in private journals a century ago--let alone how oceanic or atmospheric temperatures have changed? And what assumptions or adjustments are necessary to relate those scant measures with the more robust readings available today--and thus to form a time series? A time lapse map showing the counts and placements of human instrumentation employed in measuring climate change data would reveal how tenuous are any take aways as yet. Recognize that robust climate change measurement is just decades old. And human hindcasts and forecasts are much younger.

Given the data limitations, it is entirely possible that global warming as measured has much to do with environmental changes only at the points where weather instrumentation was placed. Of course, New York City and London have changed and were cooler when they had pastures--green pastures where blacktop and buildings now stand. Climate science has not adjusted its data for urban heat islands as noted by Dr. Roy Spencer. And adjustments would be assumptive--and not exactly scientific.

Somewhere, perhaps a civilization more advanced is chuckling unsympathetically: here is a curious life-form, the human, still uncertain of its own consciousness and comprehension; perceiving progress (ie. science) even in nullifying entropy (its own concept)--as discerned by its biased anatomy using tools, references, and elements motive in nearby space; presuming, to make inferences from the near past (decades) reliant on the most minute changes to its heat measures (a degree) to simulate centuries of cataclysms to be averted; presuming to differentiate cause from effect and help from harm to its host while assuming its tenancy is healthy to Earth; presuming to sustain its comparatively superannuated satellite by its fledgling, but now conscious (?) acts or omissions; presuming to check itself in favor of other life-forms; presuming, on this basis, to enforce regulation of existential emissions against its own kind. Is this what 'science' saw in the lemmings? Meanwhile, on Earth, this callous exercise might be as harmless as a game of billiards played "on a cloth untrue, with a twisted cue, and elliptical billiard balls"--if it didn't involve all of our lives and livelihoods.

Of course, true conservatives acknowledge climate change. Global warming is described in the Bible:  "For behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.....But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings.....And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet". True progressives, true conservatives don't consider this reference to global warming to be a cause for panic any more than we consider current climate scare tactics to be a cause for panic. We trust the Creator.  How many comets, asteroids, and satellites, in this solar system, have never collided with the earth? How many calamities have never culminated here? Elevated, erroneous observations of science and edicts by our leaders are just a precursor to Biblical global warming. To avert the adversity of this inevitable, imminent climate change, one needs only personal change: to be humble, to cease to do wickedly, and to trust God. Neither science, nor authority, nor crisis should supplant our trust in God. And it would be catastrophic to render unto Caesar that which was made in the image of God: if we trust God, we will not be reconciled to having our God-given breaths taxed by men, to having the air we exhale regulated by government, to giving custody of our bodies to a state--any more than we will be reconciled to erecting a man-made, high-tech, Babel-like tower to 'heaven'. Some may consider our dissent intolerable discord. We consider it concord with the will of God--trusting that those who foment false crises, who burn the truth, who burn the Constitution, and who burn believers, will, in God's good time, be burned--eternally.

D-Day Today

"And there was a war in heaven.....and the dragon fought and his angels.  And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.....Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them.  Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea!  for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time (Revelation 12:7-13)."

A war that the Eternal Father did not avert, in a place where peace eternally purls, rages on.  From John we learn, it is waged no more in heaven but continues on earth.  This wider war was not won at Normandy.  The hostilities did not end at Yorktown, or Appomattox, or on V-E Day, or with the close of the Cold War.  No union or league of nations has preserved a peace.  More impermanent, more unsustainable is peace to this war than it has been in the Middle East.

James Joyce once asked, with all this world's war-weary:  "Are you not weary of ardent ways?"  Many, like John Lennon, suggest we should surrender to a certain peace and brotherhood:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Many suggest that we should surrender our ideals--that the impediments to peace are aspirations for eternal life and inhibitions about eternal damnation or, in other words, are religious.  These theorists often assert that religion is the cause of conflicts--as if the Jews brought on the Holocaust by their beliefs.  Put aside God-ward aspirations that divide, and lay aside arms, they assure us, and we will have peace on some sustainable terms--theirs (or their Father's below?).  They assure us that love or peace, not human or terrestrial or galactic domination, is their acme aspiration--and should be ascendant over our eternal aspirations.

But if God did not preserve peace in heaven, how will we preserve it here?  If the contest of opinions was worthy of warfare in heaven, should we disarm and seek détente on terms dictated by mortal deceivers and convenient deceptions?  Jesus sent not "peace" but a "sword" (Matthew 10:34-36).  This original civil war pits one against himself:  "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit" (Galatians 5:17).  This war within bursts outward:  "From whence come wars and fightings among you?  come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?" (James 4:1).  Failing to overcome us, our enemy seeks hostages among those who are dear to us.  In this way, one may be pitted against his own:  "a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matthew 10:34-36).

Our adversary informed Sun Tzu's strategies.  He would never declare war when peace and 'normalcy' disarms the complacent majority.  Instead, he recruits turncoats at the top--executives, administrators, judges, legislators, academics, and influencers in media--people who turn laws, institutions, bureaucracies, and media against God, people who dismiss even reasoned dissent as 'conspiracy theories' from 'anti-intellectuals' and 'haters'.  Their Father below will not risk bullets when he already controls most ballots, federal benches, blogs, and big screens.  Like Sun Tzu, his strategy puts victory before violence.  But this is his endgame--violence--even against his adherents.  So revolting are his intents that they must be kept from daylight.  His thralls (ie. some religious thralls) use insinuations, secrets, darkness, dossiers, lies, libels, mobs, terror, vigilantism, and violence.  He wants us to affirm his 'altruistic' plan before we know what it is:  fetters and fear for everyone.

Thoreau observed that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation"--perhaps like homesteaders in a holocaust.  Always, the ignorant and timorous deny the desperate conflict around them with inanities like "shit happens".  But to lay aside arms is to become a casualty.  To affirm every act and every actor in this conflict is to inflict casualties (ie. to right and truth and innocence and innocents), to kill, without a cause.  The hot battles happen in a fog, at the exposed flank--between those who recognize the momentous stakes.  Usually, right appears outnumbered and outgunned (ie. at Calvary).  This persuades many that might makes right and that truth and faith cannot prevail--let alone endure.

Recognize that peace and brotherly love are ideals, but apparently they aren't, according to the word of God, paramount.  The first commandment, Jesus taught, is to love God with all our heart.  To love God is to love good--He is goodness itself.  When some were estranged from Him--that is from goodness--our Good Father did not compel reconciliation, peace, fraternity, or love (ie. of Him) as heavenly brothers took up arms.  He respected right and righteousness, truth and freedom, and his children so much that arms were admitted into heaven.

As fallible, mortal combatants, we overcome, we triumph, in this mortal combat, "by the blood of the Lamb (Jesus Christ), and by the word of (our) testimony" that Jesus is Savior.  He will prevail again.  The time is short.  At the front, there are perils of every nature.  Will you join this original and final battle?  Those who conquer will "love not their lives unto the death" (Revelation 12:7-13) and will "lose their lives".  And finally gain eternal life and real peace through Jesus Christ.