So who do we believe?

Yesterday, energy secretary Ernest Moniz said, “I want to say this is not an agreement for 10 years or 15 years or 20 years. It is a long-term agreement with a whole set of phases...So that's the way we’re thinking about it. It's not a fixed-year agreement. It's a forever agreement in a certain sense, with different stages.”

In an interview on NPR yesterday, the president said, “What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they (the Iranians) have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

Double standard?

End of last week, comic Steven Crowder released video of his efforts to buy a same-sex wedding cake in Dearborn, MI. The three stores in the video refused. Only thing is, they were run by Muslims instead of Christians. I have yet to see this reported by anyone in the mainstream media and I have yet to hear of any protests. We wouldn't have a double standard here would we? Is there anyone willing to take on the Muslim community for their anti-gay religious beliefs? I doubt it.  Crowder video

A hundred years

Speaking during the 1912 election, President William Howard Taft declared, "The great bulk of our people are not emotional, undiscriminating, superficially-minded, non-thinking, or hero-worshiping. They have the virtue of second sober thought."

Hmmmm. What a different a hundred years make!

Preposterous!

Thus saith Patrick Moore PhD, early member of Greenpeace: I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.” My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization. The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened.

Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays.

Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

Read full piece at: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

Those who are ignorant of history...

President Obama from 2007 speech in Selma, Alabama: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they [his parents] got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.” 

Of course, the bridge march in Selma happened in 1965 and BO Jr was born in 1961. The real question is, which of the 57 states was he born in? After his recent comments about the Crusades and the Inquisition, and his comments last summer when he tried to justify the Bergdahl swap by referring to Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, it has become glaringly obvious that our president is disfunctional when it come to history. He seems to mostly just make it up to fit the current need. One would think he would have someone on his staff to check out the facts before he utters them. But then again, what do the facts matter? It doesn't matter what the facts were in the Furgeson shooting, the protesters were still justified in what they did.

Will Hillary survive Email-gate?

Look at the original

If you want to know what it means to be a real Christian, you don't look at the Catholic crusaders, or Martin Luther and the Reformers, or Oral Roberts or Billy Graham. You look at the original Christians: the ones who came along immediately after Jesus. Fortunately we can do that by reading the Book of Acts in the New Testament. Likewise, if you want to know what it means to be a real Muslim, you don't look at the typical modern Muslims, such as Karem Abdul Jabbar, Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens), or even Louis Farrakhan. No, you look at the original Muslims: the ones who came along immediately after Muhammad. Fortunately this is also easy to do.

Having read extensively about the early Christian era and the early Islamic era, it is interesting to note the differences. I challenge anyone to read about the life of Peter and compare it to the life of Abu Bakr, the first successor to Muhammad. It is also interesting to note that the vast majority of Christians today consider those who attempt to live out authentic Christianity after the model of the original Christians to be fanatics and Jesus freaks. Admittedly, when compared to today's limp-wristed Christianity, the original does look rather excessive. But which is the real thing? Likewise, the majority of modern Muslims look with disbain at those who are attempting to follow the model of the original Muslims. But for anyone who cares to look at the original, it is obvious that ISIS is far closer to the original than Congressman Keith Ellison. I wonder which is the real thing?

Review of foreign policy successes

Let's begin with September 10, 2014, when President Obama touted Yemen as a counterterrorism success. What he actually said was, "This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years." We have "successfully pursued" this policy all the way up to the past week when the president of Yemen has resigned, our embassy personnel has been evacuated, the Marines have been order to scorch the earth by destroying their weapons, and Al Qaeda of the Arabian Penisula has taken over. Success #1. 

Over the past couple of years we have also witnessed over 200,000 Syrians killed by a combination of Syrian forces, the supposedly pro-western anti-Assad rebels, ISIS, and other jihadist factions. Success #2. 

In addition we have seen Libya decend into chaos and become a haven for jihadists. Success #3. 

And of course we have watched as ISIS has taken over the second largest city in Iraq as well as many other cities in which brave Americans gave their lives to free Iraqis from the murderous tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Success #4.  

Outside of the Middle East, we have seen North Korea get nuclear weapons and Iran get closer day by day to having them. Success #5 & #6. 

We have also see Vlad Putin snatch Crimea from Ukraine and absorb it into Russia. Success #7. 

We have also seen him instigate and participate in a so-called civil war in Ukraine, where another cease fire agreement was just brokered, not by the US, but by France and Germany. (We'll see how long that lasts.) Success #8.

About the only failure I can think of is in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood took over with our support, only to be overthrown by the military because they were too zealous in instituting Sharia. The is clearly an example of failure being snatched from the jaws of success.

Acceptable liars

Reuters reports (2/10/2015): Emmy Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson, who covered the story of Hillary Clinton's lie about being shot at in Bosnia, says she can't understand how the former secretary of state weathered the scandal while NBC News anchor Brian Williams may not.

That's easy: we don't like news anchors and reporters lying to us, the same way we don't like conservative politicians lying to us. But we have no problem with liberal politicians lying to us. In fact, many of us really like their lies (e.g. "Premiums will go down $1500.00 a year." "You can keep your health plan if you like it.").

Bush predicts rise of ISIS