Author archives: Tony Perkins

Video: The White House Gone Fishin’

by Tony Perkins

August 6, 2009

(Transcript after the jump)

The White House apparently subscribes to Vince Lombardi’s idea that the best defense is a good offense. The widespread opposition to the Presidents proposed takeover of health care has apparently blind sided the administration and is causing panic over the prospects the whole plan could be sacked by the American public.

As a result the White House is striking back. Macon Phillips on the White House blog wrote, “Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet.” he goes on to say that “since we cant keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help.” Phillips goes on to ask individuals to send the White House any email or health care message on the web that seems fishy.

Fishy? If there is anything fishy it is the White House wanting people to help them keep track of those who oppose the government takeover of health care. Is the White House is simply wanting to keep a scrapbook of the emails that primarily quote the President and the legislation that he is pushing, or is it possible they are simply looking to use this information to intimidate and if possible silence their opponents?

Science Czar or Bizarre?

by Tony Perkins

July 23, 2009

Science Czar or just plain bizarre? Among President Obamas growing list of czars there are as many as 34, by one Congressmans count - is the White House science czar, Dr. John Holdren.

Holdren wrote a text book with well-known scientist Paul Ehrlich. Your remember Paul Ehrlich, right? He wrote a popular but now discredited book entitled The Population Bomb more than three decades ago in which he claimed that the world was overpopulating and would be out of food by the end of the 1970s. Well, were still here, with greater food supplies than ever in history.

Holdren and Ehrlichs book, which they wrote in 1977, is entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. In it, they advocate for radical government action to limit population growth. Their proposals included coercive abortions for women and involuntary sterilization through infertility drugs placed in food or the water supply.

So-called undesirables those that contribute to supposed social deterioration, would be forcibly sterilized at puberty. Holdren also advocated a planetary regime that could control the global economy. Holdren and the White House have dismissed the concerns saying he made those statements 30 years ago.

My question: Does he now disavow them? And as he works in the White House shaping national policy, what recommendations is he making?

To learn more about how FRC is defending the culture of life, visit us as www.frc.org.

Spending A Moral Issue

by Tony Perkins

July 22, 2009

A good man leaves an inheritance to his childrens children. That bit of insight is from the wisest man who ever lived Solomon, the author if the Book of Proverbs.

Notice that Solomon is not calling for us to just hold back of little of our savings to leave something for your kids, but rather that it is prudent foresight that leads to investment in future generations.

Such advice would be considered radical in America today, especially in Washington where the nations debt is currently $11.5 trillion, with another trillion projected to be added this year. In fact, for every dollar that the federal government is currently spending, 47 cents is borrowed. When federal, state and local government debt is combined the average familys burden of that debt is almost one million dollars.

As a nation, weve not only lost the biblical ideal that one generation should pave the way for the next by investing in its future, but we have decided by our fiscal irresponsibility to live on Easy Street and let our grand kids and great-grand kids pay the mortgage.

Thats not right, and its got to change. To learn more about how federal tax policy affects your family, click here.

Global Governance

by Tony Perkins

July 20, 2009

Is global warming the gateway to global governance? Before you tune me out, those are not my words. They are the words of Al Gore, the guru of global warming.

Recently in a speech in the United Kingdom, the former Vice President praised Congress for passing the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill, saying it was a step in the right direction. But he didnt stop there.

Mr. Gore went on to say, It is the awareness (of global warming) itself that will drive the change. One of the ways it will drive the change is global governance and global agreements.

His matter of fact candor belies repeated denials that embracing the proposed solutions to the global warming hype would lead to the loss of national sovereignty among other things. In the end, the effort to stop supposed global warming is about power, not people. Its a twisted view that says political power must be consolidated so that we can save the planet.

This reminds me of another group that consolidated their power to reach the heavens at the Tower of Babble. Whenever man thinks he can manage his own affairs without God, whether personally or through some form of global government or anything in between, confusion and disarray ensue just like at Babble.

For more about the global warming debate, click here to listen to the audio of our important panel discussion, Faith and Science in the Global Warming Debate. The experts on the panel were Dr. Calvin Beisner, Dr. Kenneth Chilton, Rev. Dr. Jim Ball, and Dr. Lowell Rusty Pritchard.

Political “Science”

by Tony Perkins

June 6, 2009

In this secular age where “science” trumps all else, it is borderline blasphemy to question the inerrancy of scientists. However, since I received this revelation of scientific misconduct from FRC’s resident scientist, Dr. David Prentice, I assume I have standing to bring it to your attention:

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.

Apparently a number of scientists, who increasingly are helping drive controversial public policies, don’t walk on water after all. Just because a “scientist” said it is so, doesn’t necessarily mean it is so.

Archives