There are times some people shouldn't speak.

  God be mad? No, He can't be!
It happens all too often: we press our own thoughts and feelings onto God and expect Him to act as if He was at our command. Some say God is all about love and can't be angry and punish us. "God is love, and isn't about punishment", they say. Well, I am here to tell you 'they' are correct and wrong! God is love, but part of love is having to show your children that there are consequences to our decisions. If there were no consequences, there wouldn't be a thing call sin. We all would go through life doing what we wanted to do and never listen to anyone or God.

God never changes so that He matches our beliefs:
[ "So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty. 6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty... ] -Malachi 3:5-7 NIV

So, when I read the story today that the Roman Catholic Church will expel those that carry out embryonic stem cell research, I was amazed to read a quote of Paola Binetti, an Italian senator, a member of Opus Dei, and a "prominent campaigner for Catholic rights": "I am upset and stunned," she said. "It is a mistake to give out the idea that God is angry with Man because he is not in agreement with him."

What? Do you not read your Bible? Ever heard of the story about Moses coming down from the Mount to find the people worshiping the golden calf?
[ Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.' 9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." ] - Exodus 32: 7-10 NIV

Of course God gets upset with his people when they don't agree with him. He shows mercy and grace to us, but that doesn't mean he is not angry! Duh!

God will forgive our sins when we have accepted His son Jesus as the messiah and Lord, but there are always consequences to sin. No matter what we think...

  CBS Evening News' Dan Rather appearing on The O'Reilly Factor
When Dan Rather appeared on The O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly, he said this wonderful gem:
"I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things." - CBS News' Dan Rather on The O'Reilly Factor
Just think, a lot of Americans held him in high regard. Just goes to show that you should only look to the One for an example. Duh!

  Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.
Article published here: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

  "Further Evidence Of A Tipping Point In Islam"
I just read a really interesting post over at National Review Online written by Jim Geraghty.
His point is very valid (not saying I agree with everything, but I do agree with a lot of it!).
He also covers other posts on the subject of the state of the Islam 'uprising' and their view on free speech.
Here are a couple of quotes from the article:
-"...the limits of free expression cannot be set by the sensitivities of people who don't believe in it."
-"And these "moderates" are aided and abetted by Western "moderates" who publish pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung, and celebrate the "Piss Christ" (a crucifix sitting in a jar of urine) as art deserving public subsidy, but are seized with a sudden religious sensitivity when the subject is Muhammad."
-"As Signor Frattini explained it to the Daily Telegraph, "The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression. . . . We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.""
-"Only extremist sects like the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia think any depiction of Mohammed is blasphemy. But this isn't reported much, because if it were, it would be clear the media's self censorship is motivated more by cowardice than by conviction. "
Best point to get from this: "This is not "sensitivity", this is fascism, a dictation of the terms of political and religious discourse, enforced with violence."
If there is no free-speech, there is no freedom. Duh!

  Abortions hurt more than the baby?
I just read an article written by Kathryn Jean Lopez over at NRO concerning the report released by The South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion. It does mention that there are some issues with the report, but the interview results are genuine. After speaking with almost 2000 women that had an abortion, the overwhelming sentiment is that "it's not an in-and-out-and-it's-over procedure." Not only is the baby brutally murdered (warning: graphic!), the mother is forever scared by the loss and guilt.

Also in the report was the often stated fact that women were more pressured into the abortion by the father of the baby, and/or the mother's parents, because it was legal.
You mean what I do might have long-lasting effects? Duh!

  Joel Stein is a moron
I hate to give him more publicity, but Joel Stein's article on how we should not support our troops is yet another example of someone who grew up with the safety and security of being an American, with never having to do anything to obtain that security.
I am impressed with the fact that he admits he has no experience in anything close to holding a weapon (I bet he squeals if he hears a gun shot). But, from his article, it seems that no one should sign up for the military because they might have to do something they don't want to (or someone else who is too scared/unfit doesn't want them to do). If there was no US military, there would be no peace anywhere. There is no other country that is capable and willing to step up and tell other countries to stop doing things wrong. Duh!
Let M(s) Stein takes his lazy butt to China, North Korea, Iran, etc. and see how he likes his freedoms there.
I am here to tell you M(s) Stein, you are the wuss. I think the dictionary should have your picture right next to the definition: "A person regarded as weak or timid and especially as unmanly:"

Few people know that Kwanzaa is a "holiday" 'made up' by a man who severely tortured two women (and was convicted of the crime). Now, some would say "he was reformed and was a good guy when he created the holiday." Well, that is wrong! Duh! He came up with the "holiday" BEFORE he was convicted of torturing Deborah Jones and Gail Davis.
Ron Karenga, whose given name is Ron N. Everett, created the holiday because he wanted others not to believe in  'spooks who threaten us if we don't worship them and demand we turn over our destiny and daily lives', among other things. Calling God a spook...can you believe some African-American Christians actually celebrate this holiday?
Karenga, a believer in Marxism, was the head of the "United Slaves", a murderous, racist organization bent on the elimination of the government and all things 'white'.
Can you imagine a white racist coming up with a "holiday" and schools, libraries, communities nationwide celebrating it? Of course not!
Please find out what you are celebrating!!!
Find out more information HERE.

  Kerry- "Americans want..."

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Below is a statement from Senator John Kerry on President Bush's address tonight on the devastation of Hurricane Katrina:

"Leadership isn't a speech or a toll-free number. Leadership is getting the job done. No American doubts that New Orleans will rise again, they doubt the competence and commitment of this Administration. Weeks after Katrina, Americans want an end to politics-as-usual that leaves them dangerously and unforgivably unprepared. Americans want to know that their government will be there when it counts with leadership that keeps them safe, not speeches in the aftermath to explain away the inexcusable."

*End quote

Let's take this one sentence at a time:

-Leadership shouldn't be defined by a speech or toll-free number, but it has to include communication (the speech) and direction (toll-free number).

-Leadership is not really getting the job done; it is putting the right people in place to get the job done. However, you can't have a leadership role when you don't have authority! See United States Insurrection Act.

-Mr. Kerry, you are correct! Americans want an end to politics-as-usual, so quit attacking and trying to place blame where it doesn't belong! Duh! Do what you were elected to do, make legislation, not releasing attacking sound-bites. The 'destruction' of human life in the Gulf Coast region was caused by LOCAL politicians being incompentent. It is not my responsibility as an American citizen to pay for a levee system in New Orleans! It is the responsibility of those living in New Orleans. However, the LOCAL politicians were prepared to evacuate the citizens of their cities, but they didn't act. That is called being incompetent; it's not called being unprepared.

-As a "normal", mid-income, "not raised with a silver spoon in my mouth" American, I can firmly say Americans want their government to 'be there' with issues that concern us all. However, I want my state officials to be there when they are responsible! I pay taxes to them too! I, as an American, also want to confirm that I wanted an explanation for some shortfalls; a REAL leader stands up and says "There were some problems, and since I am in charge, I take the blame" even though they may not have been responsible. We all know, Mr. Kerry, you have had a hard time doing that: i.e. your 'I voted for the war before I voted against it' speech. Take your own advice, don't try to explain what went wrong, just help to fix it now!

  Please loan me some money, but don't think you have a say in how I spend it!

The New Orleans area is in need of some rebuilding, some say. My personal opinion is that they should not rebuild in areas that are below sea-level; it just isn't smart! Duh!
But today, the New Orleans mayor (I could give him other titles, but I am trying to be nice) says the city is bankrupt and is in need of some help via federal and bank loans. However, he says he will take our money (yes, the money the federal government uses is our money!), but don't tell him how to use it to rebuild.
"However, Nagin was emphatic state and federal officials would not railroad through city reconstruction until it had passed city muster" (http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20050913-084248-8471r.htm )
He stated, "I don't want anybody outside of New Orleans planning nothing as it relates to how we're going to rebuild this city without us signing off on it."

Ever walked into a bank and said 'Hey, give me a loan [or I will smear your name in the news] and don't even try to tell me what I can and can't do with it'?
Give me a break; if you are going to use my money, you better use it wisely so I don't have to give you any more money when the next hurricane comes through!!! Why should I have to pay for your stupidity? I will help you this time, but don't come asking again if you don't listen me!

Please support the relief efforts now by donating to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army

  Nobody told me that I had to request that,"
As the debate grows over who is to blame for the massive problems resulting from the hurricane Katrina (I personally believe the 'blame-game' should not be going on right now!), it is becoming more clear to those who initially blamed President Bush that the state and local governments were actually responsible for handling the crisis.
When Governor Blanco was told she had to, by law, officially ask for the President to send troops, her response was "Nobody told me that I had to request that." Shouldn't it be a requirement for politicians to actually KNOW the law before coming into office? Duh!

Oh, and when they say they didn't know the levees would break (the levees are also the local and state governments responsibility), here is an article that clears it up:

It has troubled me the number of 'vocal' people saying it was the federal governments fault that 1) the levees broke, 2) the evacuation before the storm was not handled properly and 3) the response was too slow.
People do forget that states have independent rights that keeps federal troops (active) to just come into a state and take over. I was happy to find several articles written by people who knew what they were talking about concerning this subject.
Here are the links:

  Kids May Mimic Parents' Smoking, Drinking
Now, this has to be one of those times when you have to think, "It took them this long to figure this out???"
Of course kids mimic their parents; that is why children are 10 times more likely to retain their parents financial status (poverty vs. wealthy) than not....it is why the rate of underage pregnancy is much higher in those who were themselves "children of children"...and so on. Duh!

Kids May Mimic Parents' Smoking, Drinking By CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?