No One To Defend The Helpless

I don't know if you heard about the Muslim girl who converted to Christianity who has been (somewhat) in the news lately. She ran away from home because she feared that her family would kill her. Today I was saddened to read the following headline:

Judge Orders Christian Convert Runaway to Return to Ohio

My sister in the Lord is being forced back into a situation where she had reason to believe that she would be murdered by her own family. Perhaps the judge is grossly ignorant of the practices of Islam. After all we've been told that Islam is a "peaceful religion." But I've heard too many stories of Muslim converts to Christianity who find themselves "resting in peace" at the hands of those who should have undying love for them.

I am curious what grounds the judge had for forcing this young woman to go back. She is 17 years old - only months from her 18th birthday. Hopefully, those few months will not be her last. I will have to do more research.

The law is to protect the helpless, but in this country it never seems to. Where is justice? Where is the protection for the widow and the orphan? I am convinced that the state of our justice system makes God want to vomit.

I will be praying for this sister. I have been praying - but perhaps not diligently enough. But one thing is sure: God - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Great I Am, The Sinner's Hope - will be glorified by this young woman's life.

Lord God,

I ask you to protect my sister's life. I ask you to give her courage and strength to face this unjust decision and to trust Your sovereignty and Your goodness. Defend her life, Lord, and soften the hearts of every lost soul that she knows to come to the knowledge of you.

Father, I know that this outcome does not surprise You, and I know that You have prepared her for this moment from before the foundation of time. Let Your Spirit hover close to her. Let her sense Your closeness and Your love. May Your angels encamp around her to keep her from even dashing her foot against a stone.

Fill her with Your word and help her to not worry about what to say or what to do, but to trust that You will give her the words to say and the courage to face whatever comes. Lord God, I place her into Your hands.

Amen.

God be with you, sister. I will be praying for you.

UPDATE:

In another article I read, the father says he loves his daughter and has no plans to harm her. I hope he is telling the truth.

But according to another article the young lady sure seems to think something else:

"If I had stayed in Ohio, I wouldn't be alive," she said. "In 150 generations in family, no one has known Jesus. I am the first — imagine the honor in killing me."

"There is great honor in that, because if they love Allah more than me, they have to do it. It's in the Koran,"

So who do you believe? I think you probably ought to err on the side of life. If it is possible that they may want to kill her then I think she should be allowed to protect her life. We'll see how it plays.

Um, Can They Do That?

In an article titled Livid Democrats Demand AIG Return Bailout Bonuses I read today,

Whatever the process, lawmakers of all stripes said, the money — generally "retention payments" to keep prized employees — belongs back in the government's hands.

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer of New York.

Not all Democratic leaders were racing in that direction. Penalizing people with the tax code could be inappropriate, declared Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the taxwriting Ways and Means Committee. He said, "It's difficult for me to think of the code as a political weapon."

I don't think that they can do that. How can the government legally target specific individuals for taxation penalties? If they can, then things are worse than I thought, and we might as well change the flag to a solid red field with a gold sickle and hammer crossed in the upper left hand corner.

If the people in Congress and the White House had intended for these funds to not be used that way then they should have had the foresight to stipulate that. Or even better they should have let capitalism do it's thing, letting the companies that have been competently managed thrive and the ones run by boobs sink. The share holders in these companies ought to be out for scalps.

According to the article it would seem that these bonuses were contractual.

Administration officials said Geithner did all that he legally could to avert the payments.

Geithner urged AIG's Liddy last week to renegotiate the contracts that called for the bonuses.

"He recognized that you can't just abrogate contracts willy-nilly, but he moved to do what could be done," Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told the AP in an interview Tuesday.

How do I get in on a contract that will pay me million dollar plus bonuses if I run the company into the ground on top of a multi-million dollar salary? I need to get me some of that. How is it that the share holders allow this sort of thing to go on? Something stinks like five-day-old road-kill. The "little people" don't get deals like that. No wonder American business is floundering. Toddlers are sailing the ship. Wait, toddlers would probably do a better job.

Joe The Plumber

I just saw an excellent video that encapsulates very well why I do not support Barack Obama's economic "plan." (Scheme seems a more appropriate term.)



If you want to see most of the conversation between Barack and Joe you can see it HERE.

Neil Cavuto of Fox News interviewed Joe. It was also worth viewing.



Barack Obama is a master of obfuscation. In another video that I saw today Charlie Gibson pointed out that in both cases when the Capital Gains tax was lowered (by Bill Clinton and by George W. Bush) that tax revenue increased. Barack objected that he didn't care about revenue he cared about fairness. Then, of course, he turned around and said that you have to have enough revenue to "pay as you go."

I have a real problem with this Obamanomics. First of all, it is utterly socialist for the government to redistribute wealth. In fact, it really goes beyond socialism - that is more a tenet of communism. The communists "redistributed the wealth" by taking all of the wealth so that everyone (except for those in charge) were dirt poor. Odd thing was - it still wasn't fair. And it deincentivised the workers in the society by removing any reward for their labor.

This is what Barack Obama proposes: The government is all-knowing and all-wise and knows what a "fair wage" is far better than you do. If you (or your business) get above that level of income the government should knock you back down to size and take your "excess" because it can waste money far better than you ever imagined was possible.

As a former small business owner, I can testify that the amount of revenue that a company brings in is in NO WAY a reflection of the income that the owner takes home. My "prosperous" real estate business bled out three times what I took home in expenses. In one good year where I actually managed to make about $10,000 more than the average my taxes knocked me back down to making LESS than I had the year before. Even with revenue over $100,000, my take home pay was not enough to make ends meet, and I do not live an extravagant lifestyle by any means. (I live in a modest home under 900 square feet. I own one vehicle. I don't have any "toys" like boats or 4-wheelers or things like that.)

This will only get worse under Obama's "brilliant" plan.

In fact, Obama's many assurances that he plans to lower taxes for us peasants appear to be prevarication. According to a recent email that I received:

Obama plans to charge 28% Capital Gains Tax on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) How well do you think that will help the housing crisis? Funny how he didn't mention that part in his discussion with Joe.

Obama plans to raise the dividend tax from 15% to 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') Remember what Charlie Gibson said in the debate? Lowering taxes INCREASED tax revenue.

This increased dividend tax will also hurt small business owners who have incorporated under an "S" corporation. They are able to reduce their tax liability by paying themselves dividends instead of income. Yet one more way Obama is planning to pillage the little guy.

Obama also wants to reverse the Bush Administration tax cuts in the income tax. Currently these liabilities are as follows:

Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Under Obama's plan?

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

And Obama wants to bring back the inheritance tax too. This tax was never fair. All of the items in an inheritance have already been taxed throughout an individual's lifetime. Yet the government decided that they could rape the heirs by stealing the estate that a person worked so hard for all their life through taxes. Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. This is basically the government playing God. By this tax they are saying, "I have given you all of these things and so I deserve to take them back."

In addition to these tax increases, Obama plans to penalize people for buying houses that are too large (new government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.) The government under Obama will suddenly have the right to determine how big a house you should have. He also plans to add new taxes for natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) because the government should also save the world from "global warming," no doubt. Communism, my friends.

Oh yes, and then there is the increase that Obama plans for the gasoline tax. And plans to tax your retirement accounts. And new taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

If Barack Obama was interested in "fairness" over revenue, then he should be talking about the fair tax plan proposed by Mike Huckabee and others. Why not have a flat tax based on consumption rather than based on income? Think of the reduction of government expense if they didn't have to employ an army of auditors to keep the people of our country afraid to do their taxes. Turn those auditors against the government bureaucracy! Let them find the waste in the government and root out the dead wood. That would account for a huge reduction in revenue needed to run the government.

Wouldn't it be much nicer if no one had to worry about doing taxes? If they were handled whenever you made a new purchase? Those who spend less will pay fewer taxes. Those who spend more will pay more taxes. Makes sense to me. Accountants will be able to keep normal hours throughout the year and focus on other aspects of their business that are more enjoyable and incur less liability than personal and business income taxes do.

Barack Obama's economic/taxation policy will bankrupt America. It will take a shaky economy and send it in an unrecoverable tailspin. I pray to the Lord that he never gets his way.

(The text in italics is taken directly from the email that I received. A couple links were offered as verification for the claims made, but there are about 50 articles between the two links and I have not had time to fully investigate. And both links take you to CNN sources, which I hardly trust as unbiased or trustworthy. Is everything contained in this email true? I don't know. The articles that I have tried to scan seem to be all over the place, just like Obama's answers to every question that is asked him.)

In the end, regardless of whether this data is completely true or not it does not influence my decision one iota. I had already made up my mind before I saw this, and it only serves to reinforce that decision. I may take the time to verify all of this data, but realistically I probably won't. I don't have the time, interest, or patience to deal with a whole lot of political hooey right now. You can check the links that I provided above if you have an inquiring mind.

But What About The Polar Ice Caps?

So I read this brilliant article today about the polar ice caps. Turns out that they didn't move out permanently - they just went on vacation.

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

Call me smug. Call Gore a liar. AND QUIT INTERFERING WITH MY LIFE AND WASTING MY MONEY WITH YOUR STUPID LEGALIZED EXTORTION SAVE THE WORLD SCHEMES! There is one thing and one thing only that is going to bring about the end of the world: man's sin. PERIOD. Man's sin has created the whole mess.

Every time I turn around there is some new scam being perpetrated on the American people. "Ohmygosh! We're going to burn ourselves up! Global warming! Global warming! Let's make ethanol to save ourselves from ourselves!" "Ohcrap! That made the price of corn go up - and it didn't reduce greenhouse emissions in the first place! (And the oil companies are threatening to take away all that money they give me if I keep pushing this ethanol stuff.)"

I even heard a group of scientists the other day that are ready to suggest that it is actually another Ice Age that we need to fear. Good grief!

I am so utterly sick of the corruption and the lies. They aren't even believable lies anymore. Back in the 70s they told us that we were running out of oil - said that we'd be out by the late 70s or early 80s. Guess what? We still have oil. In fact, every week I keep hearing reports of some huge new oilfield that has been discovered that I should invest in.

There is one reason and one reason only to develop bio-fuels: to provide an alternative to the oil companies' and commodity traders' greed. I firmly believe that the international community's about-face on ethanol has far less to do with corn-driven inflation and far more to do with threats to these spokespeople from the oil industry. Big oil doesn't want any other players on the field, and the politicians don't want to lose that Sugar Daddy. It would be awful hard for Exxon to post those record profits if demand drops by 85%. Yes, I am just cynical enough to believe that. It isn't even a stretch for me.

If I had the money, I'd hire a top-notch team of the brightest, most-creative engineers, chemists, and designers that I could assemble right out of college and I would set them to developing a feasible, cost-effective means of transportation that did not rely on oil for propulsion at all.

While we developed that, I'd have teams of folks scouring the US Patents' Office for any devices created to increase fuel efficiency in petroleum-powered vehicles. I'd set my "Skunk-works" team to improving the ideas that they find and then we'd produce and market those technologies.

I simply don't believe that we have achieved the pinnacle of fuel-efficiency and power that technology can afford. Do I know what I am talking about? No! But neither did Henry Ford. He simply didn't believe his engineers when they told him it was impossible to make an 8-cylinder engine work. Guess who ended up being right? Would it be easy? DUH-HUH! Nothing is EVER easy. I have learned that one the hard way. But then I have digressed, haven't I?

So anyway, the article pointed out just how far it would seem that we are from global warming with the ice caps growing, Chinese houses collapsing under the snow, and young cows dying in Vietnam from the cold weather. If you are interested in more, there was an interesting article published by the Daily Mail that is mocking Gore over this stuff too. Seems like I remember that the Weather Channel guy said that it would turn out like this months ago. If he isn't already mocking the global warming crowd, he should be. I know that I am.

Give Me A Break!

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called on Great Britain to adopt Islamic sharia law. Yes you read that right. No, I'm not kidding; once again proving that common sense isn't.

The Archbishop of Canterbury caused consternation yesterday by calling for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.

He declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.

This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.

You know, sometimes when I'm around adolescents I can't help but wonder what has happened to their brains. The thing is at least they have an excuse. Their bodies are coursing with extremely elevated levels of hormones that they have never had to deal with before. From the picture I saw of the Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe that he is well beyond that excuse.

How could anyone who is supposed to be the head (or at least second in charge) of the Church of England suggest something so looney? This is the problem that comes with removing and/or ignoring the foundational truths that Western culture has been built upon. If you remove enough threads you end up with something that looks nothing like the original garment. But then I'm advocating another religious law, am I not?

I suppose that I would be curbed by that argument if all religious laws were equal, but they are not. Christian law is built upon the moral law of Judaism with mercy added. It is this law that has given birth to Western Culture; and it is the departure from that law that is threatening its survival, and, I am convinced, is the source of most of the maladies afflicting us including "global warming."

Boob Alert!

John Kerry blamed the recent round of tornadoes on "global warming."

“[I] don’t want to sort of leap into the larger meaning of, you know, inappropriately, but on the other hand, the weather service has told us we are going to have more and more intense storms,” Kerry said. “And insurance companies are beginning to look at this issue and understand this is related to the intensity of storms that is related to the warming of the earth. And so it goes to global warming and larger issues that we’re not paying attention to. The fact is the hurricanes are more intensive, the storms are more intensive and the rainfall is more intense at certain places at certain times and the weather patterns have changed.”

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I wonder what hotshot drove to the interview in? I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that it wasn't "green."

I wonder if he figured out how to blame this on President Bush?

Stop the Stupidity!

I found this new career opportunity online today. Global Warming is going to make Y2K look like a legitimate threat! If you think that you got fleeced for Y2K you ain't seen nothing yet!

If you want to wallow sideways in the public trough here is the perfect opportunity for you. (What do you think Al Gore is doing? I'll bet he is beating these salary levels too.):

Carbon coach
Reducing contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, or the carbon footprint, is one huge step toward sustainability, but few guidelines exist for how companies gunning to be green should proceed. Carbon coaches offer this essential information. In addition to calculating carbon footprints and offering advice for offsetting them, carbon coaches help companies fit sustainability into their overall mission. Their services range from providing branding strategy for "green" product launches to advising companies on their relationships with NGOs....

Few guidelines exist, indeed. In fact I read an article today about how the UN is now saying that bio-fuels will cause more trouble than they will mitigate, but I will get to that in a moment. Back to the article at hand.

Most carbon coaches work at consulting firms, where they command salaries ranging from $40,000 to $60,000 for entry-level positions and $60,000 to $100,000 for mid-level positions.

Sadly, folks working for not-for-profit companies aren't going to make that much. "Non-profit organization salaries aren't as high; an entry-level carbon coach with a master's degree can expect a salary of $30,000 to $50,000." Well, it's for the children, though, right? Just like John Edwards' compassionate legal work for all of those poor children, right? It WAS for them, wasn't it? But then why did he take HALF of the rewards in legal fees? But I digress...

In another "What the crap?..." story, check out this headline from across the pond:

A British bus company has apologized to a girl who is led around on a leash by her boyfriend and describes herself as a human pet after one of its drivers threw her off a bus. Tasha Maltby, 19, told British newspapers she was the "pet" of her 25-year-old fiancé Dani Graves….

WHAT?!!! Yes, I read that right.

Maltby -- who lives on state benefits and got engaged in November -- said her choice of lifestyle might seem unusual but was harmless.

"I am a pet," she told the Daily Mail. "I generally act animal-like and I lead a really easy life. I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."

Well, can't say that I could see that happening here... the very suggestion that a woman wear a leash would end up sending a fellow to the dentist for a new set of teeth with most of the women I know. People are weird.

So back to the UN article I was talking about earlier. I find it hilarious (in an infuriating sort of way) that the UN is backpedaling on its claim that bio-fuel will be the great messiah of our poor, little, carbon-polluted world.

...Regan Suzuki of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledged that biofuels are better for the environment than fossil fuels and boost energy security for many countries. However, she said those benefits must be weighed against the pitfalls — many of which are just now emerging as countries convert millions of acres to palm oil, sugar cane and other crops used to make biofuels.

...Foremost among the concerns is increased competition for agricultural land, which Suzuki warned has already caused a rise in corn prices in the United States and Mexico and could lead to food shortages in developing countries.

Is anyone besides me not surprised that no one stopped to think about the possible negative effects of this policy? Politicians never do. Just like the stupid bill that was passed by the geniuses in Washington that outlawed incandescent light bulbs - while favoring fluorescent bulbs that contain heavy metals and other serious toxins. I stopped needing someone to wipe my nose about 34 years ago, thank you very much.

Here's a shock for you: I am totally in favor of the development of alternative / renewable fuel sources. I suspect that I just surprised some of my more loyal readers with that statement. Why am I in favor of the development of alternative fuels and new technologies? Do you think that it is because I am concerned one iota about global warming? NOT A CHANCE.

The reason that I support bio-fuel development is because (based on my own reading) it looks like a relatively small farm could produce enough ethanol to allow a family to cut its dependence on oil severely if not completely. I am sick of the oil companies and commodity traders and the local gas stations charging as much for their product as they can without starting a riot.

They know that there is no competition for their product. They have a captive market. Americans can't just stop driving cars. The public transportation infrastructure does not exist on a large scale and the structure of our communities is not conducive to public transportation. Big oil knows that they have us between a rock and a hard place. The development of bio-fuel technology gives me the chance to produce my own fuel and stick it to the man. Viva la revolucion!

Anyway, this new "concern" by the UN is a big smoke screen in my opinion. They are already looking for a graceful way to escape the corner they have put themselves in by buying into the Chicken Littles' dire predictions and drinking the loonies' Kool Aid. See, it will cost all of the big wheels in the UN too much profit if petroleum goes away. They can't have that, but in the meantime they will line their pockets with ummm, spend waste trillions of dollars (yes, Virginia, that is trillion with a "t") until everyone figures out that the sun still keeps coming up in the morning and realizes that all this climate change is a bunch of hooey. (Then they'll blame Al Gore for it all, but he'll shift the blame to President Bush somehow.)

Come QUICKLY, Lord Jesus!

Then Tell Me Why I Haven't Been Warm All Day Long...

"Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday."

What a boob.

I'd Like To See You Blame This On Global Warming

Quake Hits Bali Climate Conference

"An earthquake on Friday rattled Indonesia's resort island of Bali, where thousands of people were gathering for a U.N. climate change conference. There were no immediate reports of damage or injuries."

Hmmm. Wonder how they will blame that on global warming? I am so over this stupidity. I still say that they signs all point to Divine displeasure, but to properly respond to something like that requires prayer and fasting and not a two-week jaunt and a world class resort.

I read another report today about some heathen in Australia who thinks there ought to be an international cap on the number of children a family can have. Those who have more would be taxed for the future pollution the little buggers will be creating, those who have less will get tax breaks. Not quite as Machiavellian as the Chinese, but the same general idea. People, if you are feeling guilty for being a human being, try turning to God, don't try to singlehandedly wipe out the species! Talk about a darkened mind.

The crazy thing is that from what I see in the Bible, God is more than willing to rescue mankind if they will only repent of their denial of Him. That is one thing that I don't expect the folks in Bali to do.

I Just Love This Headline

Hot Air Emitted by Climate Summit Equals 20,000 Cars

That really just about says it all. The delegates traveling to this summit are basically hot air balloons.

More nuttiness from the article:

"The delegates each will produce an average 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or CO2, to reach the resort island..."

In today's world of modern communication is there a valid reason why they couldn't have had a big teleconference? Oh, yeah, no resort.

``It's very hard for the public to understand that you come together with so many people to a very distant place and cause a lot of emissions, and at the same time talk about emission reductions,'' Artur Runge-Metzger, head of climate strategy for the European Commission, said yesterday in an interview in Bali, adding that he had offset his own emissions.

Well, duh! That's because it makes no sense at all! It proves that either the whole thing is a sham or that the people hosting and attending this summit really aren't serious about personally suffering any inconvenience or discomfort for the sake of saving the planet.

Here's the way the Socialist/Elitist/Liberal mind works: the sacrifices are for the little people to make, but the big, important people deserve these perks because of all the pressures they are under making sure the proles toe the line. Do you think that any of the world leaders supporting this fallacy are riding around in electric cars or taking a bike or, God-forbid a subway instead? No. Do you think they will suddenly change if they manage to get these stupid treaties passed? Don't be stupid.

They are now and always will be riding around in the biggest gas-guzzler that they can get their hands on. Meanwhile you and me and all the other peons will lose half our trunk to grain storage to power our new kangaroo powered carts. (Horses produce too much methane.)

Here's another doozy from the article.

Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas responsible for the higher temperatures that are causing a surge in sea levels and an increased risk of droughts and floods, according to UN reports.

Rising sea levels? Last I checked, Florida was still there. Lies, lies, lies. Hell will be full of bureaucrats.

Only liberals could take a fairytale and create a bureaucracy.

More Enviro-asininity

Just when you think you have read the dumbest thing ever someone goes and sets a new mark:

In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukkah to help the environment.

The founders of the Green Hanukkah campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.

Oh my gosh! 15 g of carbon! What WILL we do?! Does it feel warmer to you? I think I feel warmer.

If you are really concerned about carbon emissions, why not just forgo the menorah? While we are at it, perhaps we should each hold our breath for one minute in every five. But darn it, that doesn't really reduce carbon dioxide emissions 'cause we just bottle up all that CO2 in our lungs before we breathe it out.

When are these people going to realize that humans cannot live without producing CO2? We require external heat to cook and to keep us warm in the winter. We make it when we breathe. Animals make it when they breathe. CO2 is a part of life. Plants need it to photosynthesize. WARMING TRENDS ARE NOT CAUSED BY SO-CALLED GREENHOUSE GASSES!

In response to the enviro-ninnies:

United Torah Judaism MK Avraham Ravitz called the environmentalists "crazy people who are playing with the minds of innocent Jewish people." He said the campaign would only convince people who do not light candles anyway.

"They should encourage people to light one less cigarette instead," Ravitz said

My favorite quote from THIS ARTICLE was, "Tikkun olam [fixing the world] must be done by adding more light and not by adding more darkness." A truer statement could not be made. Happy Hanukkah!

The Age Of Fantasy

I saw a headline over the weekend that nearly sent me through the roof:

Global Warming's Trillion Dollar Debate

TRILLION DOLLAR DEBATE?!!!!! I can feel my blood pressure getting up already.

The subtitle read, "UN scientists say climate change is happening faster than thought as politicians head to Bali to hammer out Kyoto's successor."

This is wrong on so many levels it is just hard to know where to start.

Let me remind you of the words of the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, that I shared HERE last week:

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend. (emphasis mine)

"Global warming" "man-made climate change" or whatever alarmist title you want to put on it is an utter, total, and complete sham.

First of all to use "global warming" and "debate" in the same sentence requires some fairly restrictive rules. It is OK to talk about the debate between gullible junk scientists about how long it will take for "global warming" to destroy all life on the planet. However, you cannot use "global warming" in conjunction with "debate" in a way that would indicate any meaningful dialog between scientists who support the fantasy of global warming and those scientists whose research indicates that the aforementioned scientists are full of beans. For example, you can say "Scientists who believe in global warming are afraid of scientific debate on the subject." But you couldn't legitimately say, "The facts of global warming have reached scientific consensus through the application of scientific method and open scientific debate."

Let it suffice for this portion of the rant to say that no consensus has been reached in the scientific community about catastrophic climate change as a result of application of the scientific method and scientific debate based on the data collected via objective observation. That's the truth no matter what Comrade Gore says. (I don't care if he DID invent the internet!) What a jerk.

OK, so I managed to look over this article (by liberal CNN) and see that the whole article is about an urgent reworking of the Kyoto treaty that the US never ratified. They're trying to make it even MORE restrictive.

Kyoto, the far-reaching agreement reached in 1997 intended to reduce global carbon emissions, is nothing compared to what could be coming next as the world's governments confront the ecological damage from global warming and debate what needs to be done to fix it.

I love it when journalists lie right off the bat, don't you? While many nations did buy into all of this nonsense, the US did not - of course the writer of this article didn't make it sound that way, did he? (He did, MUCH later in the article, acknowledge that President Bush wouldn't ratify the treaty.)

The fourth and final UN report on climate change, due Saturday, is expected to emphasize that the warming of the planet is "unequivocal" and that humans are the main cause. That report will act as a blueprint for the next crucial round of climate talks starting next month in Bali, Indonesia.

Thank God, it is the LAST report. We couldn't handle any more misinformation.

Scientists say up to an 85 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions is needed to head off potential catastrophic changes that could lead to more floods and famine. How to best achieve those cuts is where the fight begins. (emphases mine)

Is it just me, or are these "scientists" being mighty vague? Even they don't have the gall to boldfaced lie! They are even hedging their words here so that when Mr. Coleman's prophecy comes to pass they will be able to back out of it and try to salvage a modicum of credibility. Weenies!

The Bush administration has so far resisted mandatory caps, and all eyes will be watching to see if White House negotiators hold up the Bali talks.

THANK GOD!!! I'm glad someone is finally giving President Bush credit for doing something smart. Oh wait, this guy (and apparently the rest of the world) blames President Bush for blocking the caps that will save us all from ourselves. History will vindicate him on this one. "Global warming" is the new "acid rain."

Our intrepid reporter goes on to say:

Previous versions of the report, written in the 1990s, said global warming was likely happening and likely caused by humans but acknowledged that the science was not yet certain. The latest report, released in three parts over the course of this year, took away practically all that uncertainty.

Written by over 2,500 top government-appointed scientists from around the world, the fourth report is a user-friendly version that will be used by politicians and bureaucrats as a blueprint during negotiations next month in Bali and beyond.

"Gawrsh, Mickey! It MUST be true then."

Reality check (with much thanks again to John Coleman):

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way. (Don't pretend they don't. JDE)

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside. (Isn't this what Al Gore has done? JDE)

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. (Remember that? I'm still bummed that didn't happen... JDE) In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science. (all emphases and asides mine)

The thing that really makes me mad is that this "scam" based on "bad science" is going to cost TRILLIONS of dollars. Let that word trill off your tongue. It incenses me that bureaucrats and politicians throw numbers like this around so carelessly about an utter prevarication.

Let me put this all in perspective. Let's consider just how much money is being wasted on this post-digestive male bovine silage. According to Compassion International it is possible to feed clothe and educate a child on $32 a month. That would be $384 a year and $6912 to raise a child from birth to age 18. If only 1 trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) were wasted - and it will be FAR more - on global warming you could have fed, clothed and educated one hundred forty-four million, six hundred seventy-five thousand, nine hundred twenty six (144,675,926) children from birth until their 19th birthday. God will hold these liars accountable for their malfeasance.

Ever wonder why Al Gore has been such a crusader? According to THIS article, he has a vested interest in the global warming lie. Apparently, there is big money in global catastrophe.

Perhaps you wonder how I, with no Ph.D. in anything - a former English major, can be so confident that global warming is a hoax. I am certain it is a hoax because I know what the Bible says about mankind's (and the world's) end. If the increased temperatures shown in the data used by global warming's champions are to result in mankind's demise then there is nothing that can be done to avert disaster, and we might as well enjoy the air conditioning, warm heat, and fast cars that carbon-based energy has gotten us.

Once, back when Western Civilization's underpinnings were still Christian, mankind made huge strides in science and thought and the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment were born. Now our atheistic scientists have sacrificed scientific method and objectivity on the altars of Darwinism, greed, and vanity, giving birth to the Age of Fantasy.

I think Steve Graham over at Hog On Ice said it best:

It just occurred to me: isn't Al Gore's idiotic theory the epitome of God-denying humanism? The ancients realized that the weather was something man could not control, so they appeased their heathen gods as well as the actual, correct God. Now a certain segment of society thinks God is unfashionable. So they're looking for a way to turn man into the shaper of storms and droughts. Man, who can barely program his clock radio...

Just When You Think They Have Reached The Apex Of Stupidity...

More asininity, y'all...

Santas Warned 'Ho Ho Ho' Offensive To Women

Click HERE for the whole stupid story.

Perhaps the story about the emergence of two human species wasn't so far off after all. The people I know aren't this brain dead. It would seem that there is a whole Cro-Magnon subspecies still out there.

Anybody who could possibly be offended by Santa saying "Ho, Ho, Ho" needs the special white sweater with the extra-long sleeves that buckles in the back and some time in the padded play room.

Found an Interesting Quote Today...

Was trolling Moxie's blog and found a really great quote today. One fellow was commenting that the essence of Big Government is its false promise to insulate the governed from risk. He included the following:

But insurance against risk is an infinite goal that government does not know how to accomplish. Worse, if government could somehow render our lives care-free by caring for all our needs, its success would put an end to our freedom and virtue by leaving us with nothing to do. Even blundering attempts to minimize risk endanger freedom and virtue by first raising expectations and then producing cynicism when life’s unhappy surprises remain. In short, the worst failing of big government is the way it has harmed the working and reputation of our self-government. This is what the party of government, the Democrats, has done.
--Harvey C. Mansfield (Harvard University)

I'm quite sure that I don't believe that any government on this planet can fulfill a promise of insurance against risk. God doesn't even do that!

To me, though, this seems to be a pretty good interpolation of the natural consequence of trusting the government to insure me from all harm even if they theoretically could. Being American I am not excited at all about anyone in government promising to do something that they can't do, and then interfering with my ability to do what I can do to mitigate my personal loss, and then defending their failure to protect me as if it were somehow my fault that my loss occurred in the first place! Being Southern further exacerbates my impatience with this sort of asinine nonsense.

One great example that I can think of that illustrates this point has to do with a suit that was brought against a local police department. The person who brought the suit charged that it was the police's responsibility to protect him or her from harm. They didn't protect the plaintiff and he or she ended up being assaulted. The police countered (and won) saying that they can't be everywhere at once and that while it was certainly unfortunate that John or Jane Doe was injured in this assault, it wasn't the police's fault that it happened.

But at the same time anti-gun politicians tell people that it is the police's job to keep them safe from harm; therefore, there is no need for common citizen proles to own firearms. See? On one hand the police can't be everywhere at once, but there are many who would prefer that you not be able to defend yourself! It's Orwellian logic at its best.

Reagan was right: smaller government is better government. Governments are just like puppies. They're cute, cuddly, and friendly when they are small, but then they grow up, hog the bed, start to smell, and leave larger and larger presents in your yard to step on. And if you don't watch them, they just might bite you in the butt.