April 24, 2014

Oregon burns fetuses for fuel

Jack Kemp shares this:

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/23/energy-plant-in-oregon-burning-aborted-babies-from-canada-to-generate-electricity/

Energy Plant in Oregon Burning Aborted Babies From Canada to Generate Electricity
by Steven Ertelt | Vancouver, Canada | LifeNews.com | 4/23/14

An energy plant in Oregon is reportedly burning aborted babies from Canada to generate electricity. UPDATE: Local officials say they will stop the practice while they look into the situation.

Read the entire horrible story.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

A Canto 28 Foreign Policy

Timothy Birdnow

Alan Caruba has written a powerful post for The Aviary about the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood courtesy of the Obama Administration, and this dovetails with the recent statements of the Citizens Commission, a group of ex military, ex intel, and think tank people.

According to the U.K. Daily Mail:

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed.

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.

Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, another commission member, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now ‘all in Syria.’

‘Gaddafi wasn’t a good guy, but he was being marginalized,’ Kubic recalled. ‘Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate’ shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.

‘But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce,’ the commission wrote, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.

Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously."

End excerpt.

So the Obama Administration allowed weapons that were intended to assist the Libyan government to fight Al Qaeda and other terrorists to fall into the hands of those self-same terrorists. I doubt that was an accident.

It is heartbreaking to realize that the plan that George W. Bush putinto play actually worked but was horribly mishandled by the Obama team. Bush and the other "Neocons" believed that by taking out a few key tyrants in the region we could start a chain reaction, that the oppressed in the Arab world would rise against the thugs and tyrants, overthrow them, and establish more secular, peaceable nations. The whole Bush strategy depended on fomenting revolution against the old order.

I thought it was a bad policy insofar as I did not believe it would be so simple to create the new liberal democracies that Bush supposed would form. Freedom is a difficult thing, and requires the proper soil to nurture it. The Islamic world does not have that soil; it was and is a mindset of authocracy and repression. The very word Islam means submission, and the doctrine of the Prophet is one of subjegation and the tyranny of Islamic Law over the rights of free individuals. It is in many ways the very same seed that the Left in the West seek to plant. All human behavior is subject to second guessing by the state, which is the creation of Islamic law.

It is very hard to create a liberal democracy in such a tradition. And, of course, the most disciplined - and the most aggressive - faction usually wins in any civil war. It was a dangerous game Bush was playing, one fraught with naivete'. And it was in opposition of the efforts of the United Nations.

Be that as it may, it clearly worked; the dominoes began to fall just as Bush and his team predicted. Problem was Bush and his team weren't there to help shape the future course of the region, but rather a man who was raised as a Muslim, lived in a Muslim country, vacationed in Pakistan when he was in college, and has always had a special fondness for Islam. Instead of following the Bush program he set out to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamicist groups.

We missed a golden opportunity, several actually. Iran was ready to fall and Obama not only did not support the rebels but he has actively assisted the Mullahs in holding power. Consider his relaxing of the boycott while Iran engages in talks; Iran was drowning as a result of sanctions, but Obama threw them a life preserver.

And let us not forget Mr. Obama's shabby treatment of Israel.

In the end the barbarians will win thanks to a Muslim-loving President and an America so profoundly ignorant that they elected him twice, despite every reason to believe he did not have our best interests at heart.

In Canto 28 of Dante's Inferno Muhammed occupies a special place of honor in the 9th Bolgia of the 8th circle of Hell (the place for fraudsters). Muhammed is split from crotch to chin by a demon, reminiscent of his desire to foment schism and sew dissent from the true Church. His son-in-law Ali enjoys the split from the other directions, head to chin. Will Mr. Obama be joining them, perhaps having his ears severed? He certainly has little use for them, prefering to pontificate rather than listen.

Muhammad in Hell; Dante's Inferno Canto 28, verses 30-31; Illustration by Gustave Dore

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1018 words, total size 8 kb.

Obama's Muslim Brotherhood Agenda


By Alan Caruba

It is a task just to keep up with the conflicts dividing America, so it is no surprise that many Americans are unsure of what occurred during the "Arab Spring” that began in 2011 and its aftermath since then. It is likely, too, that most do not know who or what the Muslim Brotherhood is, but it has been around a long time seeking to control events in the Middle East and North African nations. It also plays an astonishing and frightening role in America.


"The Brotherhood’s peak in the United States came with the victory of Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential election of 2008,” says Walid Phares in his book, "The Lost Spring; U.S. Policy in the Middle East and Catastrophes to Avoid” ($27.00, Palgrave Macmillan). "The network, via its front groups, supported the campaign, not as a formal entity, but as a prelude to receiving influence within American bureaucracies and the new administration when Obama took office.”

"The factions within the global lobby had an overarching common interest: to push back against the forces of secular democracy in the Arab world and Iran, and thus against their representatives and friends within the United States and Europe, for the real threat to the Islamists in the East was a secular liberal revolution backed by the West.”

Phares is an internationally acknowledged and respected expert on terrorism, the Middle East, and events that reflect Islamism, the movement to impose strict Islamic law—Sharia—and other cultural restrictions globally, but most specifically in nations where Islam is the dominant faith.

It’s important to know that the Muslim Brotherhood has been around in the U.S. for decades, as often as not working through front organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Student Association, and others. Using petrodollars, it has supported the creation of Islamic studies departments in universities and maintains a communications program to present through the U.S. media its interpretation of events and thus influence public perceptions and opinion.

Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood members who joined his administration after he took office in 2009 were caught completely off guard, however, by the Arab Spring, the name given to a number of revolutions to cast off despots ruling the Middle East. It began in Tunisia, spread swiftly to Egypt, then to Libya, and affected events in other nations of the region. It was led initially by the youth that were connected to one another by communications technology such as iphones and the Internet. They were joined by secular groups, Muslims who did not wish to live under the repression of fanatical Islamists. Swiftly, ordinary Muslims, women, and others joined them.

In retrospect, a nation whose embassies from Lebanon to Tanzania had been under attack by al Qaeda for decades and which had suffered 9/11, an act of Islamic terrorism on its homeland, would seem unlikely to elect a man whose father was a Muslim, who had spent some of the years of his youth in Muslim Indonesia, and whose brother was an active member of the Brotherhood, to be President. But he was. Twice. This represents almost suicidal stupidity.

From the very beginning of his first term, the White House announced that he would take steps to change America’s image in the Arab and Muslim world. Pharas noted that his first interview was with al Arabiya TV on January 29, 2009 to assert that "The United States was the aggressor in the region” and that "the Jihadists were not the aggressors against humanity.”

There was no denying that the U.S., in the wake of 9/11, had been at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001 and in 2003 had waged a war in Iraq to rid it of Saddam Hussein. Both wars had the intention to introduce and help establish democracy in those nations. By 2009 Americans were war-weary and Obama made it clear in his campaign that he would pull our troops out and talked of shutting down Guantanamo detention center where the worst captured terrorists were being held.

Within two months of taking office, Obama went to Cairo where he identified America as the cause of the ills afflicting the Middle East. "When millions of young men and women hit the streets of Tehran in mid-June 2009, they initially protested voter corruption and the forced reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinijad as president. Later they pushed against the entire regime. The world,” said Pharas, "witnessed a moment in which the regime in Iran was very close to crumbling.” Obama’s response was not to support the democracy movement, saying he did not want to "meddle” in Iranian elections.

This was repeated during the Arab Spring as, time and again, Obama withheld support for the outpouring of desire for democracy in the affected nations, waiting until the Muslim Brotherhood, the only organized faction, was able to seize the movements in order to impose their own control. In Egypt, the people had to fill the streets of Cairo and other cities a second time to oust them from power.
How successfully has the Brotherhood infiltrated the circles of power in the U.S.? Huma Abedin was the Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Azizh Al-Hibri serves on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Areef Alikhan serves in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) along with Mohamed Alibiary and Kareem Shora who are members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; and Mohamed Magid who is a member of the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. There are others. Too many others.

Obama made sure that the word "terrorism” disappeared from the government’s vernacular. When soldiers at Fort Hood were murdered by a jihadist, it was classified as "workplace violence” and the whole concept of the "War on terror” disappeared. It was replaced by the charge that any criticism of al Qaeda and other jihadist groups was "Islamaphobia.”

Obama would tell Americans that "I consider it as my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Instead, we had a President who would seek to make a deal with Iran, the foremost supporter of terrorism worldwide and a nation determined to make its own nuclear weapons to intimidate the Middle East and the world.

We have a President who turned his back on the forces in the Middle East seeking to install democratic governments. That struggle is far from over, but they and the world must wait until Obama leaves office before real progress can be made against the Muslim Brotherhood and the jihadists.

For now, one of the most powerful Islamists in the world resides in the White House.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1122 words, total size 11 kb.

April 22, 2014

Carter-pardoned pedophile may perform at NY arts H.S. - Parents in Uproar

Jack Kemp

The New York Post reports today that:
http://nypost.com/2014/04/22/la-guardia-hs-to-honor-convicted-sex-offender-folk-singer/

Folk singer and convicted sex offender Peter Yarrow will be honored by La Guardia HS for the Performing Arts next month, enraging parents and prompting a dozen "uncomfortable” students to refuse to sing for him.

Yarrow, a member of the legendary group Peter, Paul and Mary, was accused of engaging in a sex act with a 14-year-old girl in a Washington, DC, hotel room in front of her 17-year-old sister in 1970. He pleaded guilty to "taking indecent liberties” with the child and landed three months behind bars...

After word leaked that Yarrow would be honored, a La Guardia student wrote on the Facebook page for the school’s vocal majors that a teacher told her that any student could choose to decline to take part in the gala...

Within 24 hours, 10 girls and two boys wrote back that they didn’t want to sing for the performer.

Yarrow said a statement to The Post on Monday that he was grateful for the pardon he received from President Jimmy Carter in 1981...

END OF QUOTES

Yes, I bet he was grateful, as he now grates on the nerves of parents. Apparently the liberal teachers of New York City do not care to understand why parents who may not have been alive in Yarrow's Sixties heyday don't consider him a troubadour-saint. One of them even questioned if Yarrow was allowed to be near children (under anti-pedophile laws).

I was just wondering who the public high school planned to introduce Yarrow on stage. Anthony Weiner? Roman Polanski? Bryan Singer? http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2014/bryan-singer-michael-egan-sex-abuse-sexual-assault/  This show must not go on.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Time to Act on SCOTUS

Timothy Birdnow

Retired SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens has admitted that politics is a key component of when a Black Bart retires from the Court. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/retired_justice_stevens_lets_the_cat_out_of_the_bag_on_politicized_supreme_court.html


There is a great deal of pressure on Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg to retire and thus allow Obama to pick her replacement. Stevens - who has been in the news lately calling for a rewrite of the Constitution - says this is entirely appropriate.

Well, two can play at that game.

The filibuster is still in place for SCOTUS nominees until November, and if Obama tries to appoint anyone before the election the GOP should employ it. Perhaps Harry Reid will change the rules again, but Republicans should force him to do so - and remind the Democratic caucus that they may soon be in the minority. Filibuster Obama's appointees until the election, then simply refuse to confirm anyone, The number of the Court is not etched in stone; they can operate with fewer members and, indeed, should. Frankly, there are too many diabolical minds making mischief there anyway.

It's time for hardball; we should not give Obama ten to twenty years of influence just because he won the last election.

It's time for the GOP to earn their pay.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

April 21, 2014

Liberals Plan to ‘Purge’ Christians - Townhall.com

Jack Kemp forwards this:



They were always deadly serious about criminalizing Christianity and killing free speech, but now the American left has stopped pretending otherwise. In a recent column titled, "Why Are They Called ‘Homofascists’? Here’s Why,”I wrote that "progressive,” "Christian-hating fascists” – but I repeat myself – are "hell-bent on criminalizing Christianity and pushing to the fringes anyone who publicly acknowledges natural human sexuality and the age-old, immutable institution of legitimate marriage as created by God.”
I was referring specifically to the left’s well-organized and highly disturbing character assassination of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for his private support of natural marriage. I was also addressing the larger goal of the American left to completely shut down free speech and freedom of religion and to severely punish anyone who maintains both biblically and biologically correct views on human sexuality.
I closed with this: "They smell blood in the water. I’ve often said that these folks want those who speak biblical truth about human sexuality and legitimate marriage either 1) dead, 2) imprisoned or, if they can have neither of these, 3) marginalized to the point where they can’t even support their families.
"Check No. 3 off the list. I guess they’re working backwards.”
The very next day, and as if right on cue, lefty rag Slate magazine vomited evidence of my claims. It could not have been better scripted if I’d written it myself.
In an article titled, "Purge the Bigots,”Slate writer William Saletan penned these chilling words: "Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.
"More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,’” he continued. "Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them.”
Now, to be fair, Saletan later claimed that his article was intended as satire to illustrate the hypocrisy of his own "progressive” movement. Many, if not most, of his readers seemed to miss the joke,and the article’s comments section quickly filled with people agreeing that it was, indeed, time to "purge the bigots” (read: Christians).
The Fox News Channel observed that the piece "may or may not be tongue-in-cheek.” Satire is traditionally somewhat clever, witty and fairly easy to recognize as such. Mr. Saletan’s piece was none of these things. Nevertheless, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute noted, "The problem with Saletan’s satirical piece is that, unlike Swift’s ‘A Modest Proposal,’ Saletan’s is not outrageous enough. It should be outrageous enough for a satire, but unfortunately, homosexual activists and their allies are tyrannical enough to do just what he’s proposing.
"I know there are many progressives who think such a proposal is defensible,” she observed. "In fact, eight years ago, a colleague (AMM) at Deerfield High School told me that she is so sure conservative beliefs about homosexuality are wrong that they shouldn’t be allowed to be spoken in public schools – even if kids are studying homosexuality-affirming resources. And she was not speaking satirically.”
So here we have Mr. Saletan playing the role of today’s Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi propaganda minister, in an effort, albeit a clumsy one, to underscore how utterly out of control his own "progressive” movement has become and, in the spirit of argumentum ad absurdum, gently coax his fellow bohemians from madness.
Slate was apparently in on the fun too, pretending, for a day, to be "Nationalsozialistischen Briefe,” Goebbels’ parallel publication, in an equally awkward attempt to use the power of metaphor as a scrub brush to wash away the stench of totalitarianism from an American left bathed in it.
But as you read the article a frightening reality quickly rises to the surface. It’s neither funny nor untrue. None of it. The cultural Marxist American left is 100-percent serious about "purging” Christians from society.
They’re as serious as Josef Stalin’s heart attack.
Continued Saletan: "To organize the next stage of the purge, I’ve compiled the financial data into three tables” (he actually did this). He then listed details from, and linked to, the Proposition 8 hit list reportedly leaked by the Obama IRS and meticulously assembled and published by the Los Angeles Times.
This was all by design. It’s what led to Brendan Eich’s career beheading. But Eich was just the opening act. The list provides the exact names, employers, places of residence and dollar amounts of every single person in America who donated even a dime to the Golden State’s campaign to protect natural marriage (I realize it’s hopelessly symbolic, but as matter of principle I will not link to the list).
This is a level of voter intimidation and journalistic terrorism on the part of the Obama administration and the L.A. Times that is unprecedented in American history.
Joking or not, Herr Saletan then gave the rainbow-shirts their jackbooted marching orders: "If we’re serious about taking down corporate officers who supported Proposition 8, and boycotting employers who promote them, we’d better get cracking on the rest of the list,” he said, concluding, "otherwise, perhaps we should put down the pitchforks.”
You do understand this, right? Obama, the L.A. Times and America’s larger "progressive” movement are dead serious about purging Christians and other traditionalists from both the workplace and society at large. It’s coming. Mozilla was just the opening salvo.
In the very same way Eich’s forced resignation was deliberately calculated to terrorize any American who might resist the left’s sexual anarchist agenda, and support some future, legally executed pro-family ballot initiative, the clear purpose behind releasing the Prop 8 donor list was to instill terror in the hearts of Christians and other traditionalists who support natural marriage, family and human sexuality. It was a not-so-subtle shot over the bow.
It was also a call to arms.
It’s fight or flight time, America.
I’ve made my choice.
What about you?
I say that if we once crushed fascism from without … we can sure as hell crush it from within.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1068 words, total size 9 kb.

Obama's War on U.S. Energy


By Alan Caruba

A nation without adequate energy production is a nation in decline and that has been the President’s agenda since the day he took office in 2009. He even announced his war on coal during the 2008 campaign even though, at the time, it was providing fifty percent of the electricity being utilized.

It’s useful to know that the U.S. has huge coal reserves, enough to provide energy for hundreds of years and reduce our debt through its export to nations such as Japan. It increased coal-fired power generation by ten percent in 2013 while Germany’s coal use reached the highest level since 1990. Both China and India are increasing the use of coal. So why is coal unwelcome in the U.S.? Because Obama says so.

On April 15, the White House held a "Solar Summit” to continue promoting subsidies for solar panels and the Obama Energy Department has announced another $15 million in "solar market pathways” to fund local government’s use of solar energy. Its "Capital Solar Challenge” is directing federal agencies, military bases, and other federally subsidized buildings to use solar power.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, "solar energy provides two-tenths of one percent of the total energy consumed in the United States. While the amount of solar electricity capacity in the U.S. has increased in recent years…it still only accounts for 0.1% of net electricity generated…the least among the renewable sources of hydroelectric, biomass, wind and solar.”

So, in addition to the millions lost in earlier loans to solar companies like Solyndra that failed not long after pocketing our tax dollars, Obama is using the power of the federal government to waste more money on this unpredictable—the Sun only shines in the daytime and clouds can get in the way—source of energy whose "solar farms” take up many acres just to provide a faction of what a coal-fired or natural gas powered plant does.

This isn’t some loony environmental theory at work although the Greens oppose all manner of energy provision and use whether it is coal, oil or natural gas. They always find an excuse to mine or extract it. This is a direct attack on the provision of energy, fueled by any source, that America needs to function and meeting the needs of its population, manufacturing, and all other uses.

The most recent example of this is the further extension of the delay on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast. That too is part of Obama’s war on energy for the nation, but it may also have something to do with the fact that the Burlington Santa Fe Railroad owns all of the rail lines in the U.S. connecting to western Canada. They haul 80% or more of the crude oil from Canada to the Midwest and Texas, earning a tidy sum in the process. It is owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, a major contributor to Democrat causes and candidates. The Keystone XL pipeline could divert more than $2 billion a year and if its delay is not crony capitalism, nothing is.


This is what the Sierra Club is telling its members and supporters as of Monday, April 21: "Keystone XL means cancer. It means wolf blood spilled. And it’s nothing short of a climate disaster.” It is a lie from start to finish.

Keystone has become a political issue and the announcement by the Obama State Department that is giving agencies "additional time” to approve its construction due to ongoing litigation before the Nebraska Supreme Court that could affect its route brought forth protests from red-state Democrats in Congress who even threatened to find ways to go around the President to get the project approved. Eleven Democratic senators have written to the President to urge him to make a final decision by the end of May. Some of them will be up for reelection in the November midterm elections.

Even Congress, though, seems incapable of over-ruling or overcoming Obama’s war on the provision of energy sources. In early April, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released new data showing that federal onshore oil and natural gas leases and drilling permits are at the lowest levels in more than a decade. Leases to companies exploring the potential of oil and natural gas reserves were down in 2013 from 1.8 million acres the year before to 1.2 million, the smallest area since records began to be maintained in 1988!

We have a President who gives daily evidence of his contempt both for those who voted for him and those who did not. His anti-energy agenda impacts on the creation of jobs, causes manufacturing to delay expansion or to go off-shore, reduces the revenue the government needs to reduce its debts and deficits, and drives up the cost of energy for everyone.

And he is doing this in one of the most energy-rich nations on the planet.

Editor’s Note:
For the latest, updated information on energy visit http://www.energydepot.us/

© Alan Caruba, 2014

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2014/04/obamas-war-on-us-energy.html

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 846 words, total size 6 kb.

Dirty EPA Deeds Done Dirt Cheap

Timothy Birdnow

The Environmental Protection Agency is full of dirty tricks. Under the Obama Administration (and the tutelage of first Sheila Jackson and now "tailgunner" Gina McCarthy (Are you now or have you ever been a member of Koch Industries?) the EPA has spiralled out of control, conducting human experimentation reminiscent of Joseph Mengele http://www.google.com/url?q=http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/02/report-epa-tested-deadly-pollutants-on-humans-to-push-obama-admins-agenda/&sa=U&ei=3S1VU-S4L6XM8AHbdw&ved=0CCEQFjAB&sig2=-KwzKUUnNsGY6UzN5ldMYg&usg=AFQjCNERcyz4tSXlC9kWDEb2enK6_oGZJQ , Declared Milk to be an oil forcing dairy farmers to purchase expensive "toxic spill" equipment http://www.google.com/url?q=http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/05/epa-to-regulate-dairy-milk-spills-as-per-oil-spills/&sa=U&ei=QC5VU6y2EoO58wHJ0YGYCw&ved=0CDgQFjAE&sig2=_xr0vUUs-Dx8PfgMfNskRg&usg=AFQjCNG365FKIk14ZCbe31kpPW-gVtb7KQ, declared silver particles a "pesticide" http://www.thesilveredge.com/dirtytricks.shtml, has unilaterally reduced the amount of particulate matter allowed in the air in defiance of its' own research results http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/study-no-statistical-correlation-between-fine-airborne-particles, Reduced sulphur levels for no good reason http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/more_fraudulent_science_from_epa. They have unilaterally chosen to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. According to Paul Driessen from the Center for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT):

http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2013/12/27/crooked-labs-agencies-and-prosecutors-n1768783/page/full

"The Constitution specifies that the Executive Branch has no authority to engage in lawmaking, but must faithfully execute the laws as written – and not as regulators might wish the laws had been written, to advance their preferred policy agendas. EPA has violated these most fundamental rules, ignoring inconvenient statutory language, and devising and enforcing other provisions out of whole cloth.

Between 1989 and 2010, Congress considered and rejected some 692 bills addressing various aspects of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. So President Obama’s EPA simply imposed carbon dioxide controls by executive fiat, using "prevention of significant deterioration” and "new source performance standards” to create new authority over coal-fired electrical generating plants. It then unilaterally changed precise statutory emission standards from 250 tons per year to 100,000 tpy – to avoid the public backlash that would come if it began regulating and shutting down all the natural gas generators, refineries, cement kilns, factories, paper mills, shopping malls, apartment and office buildings, hospitals, schools and even large homes that emit more than 250 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Those job-killing rules can come later, when radical environmentalists sue radical regulators, to enforce the statutory requirement."

End excerpt.

The EPA is a rogue bureacracy, totally out of control.

Here is another example. http://www.powermag.com/epa-breaches-legal-commitment-to-issue-final-316b-cooling-water-rule/

The EPA was sued by environmental groups back during the Clinton era, and was under court order to come up with regulations for the discharge of cooling water for power plants. Any power generating system (except the lilliputian power systems of the "renewables") produces waste heat, heat that must be removed. Virtually all such systems cool with water, which can then be discharged without any real treatment necessary. (All that has been added to the water is heat.) But the environmental lobby, Riverkeeper Inc., Waterkeeper Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Environment America, and others, have demanded the regulations be handed down.

Now, the EPA failing to make a court-ordered deadline for regulating an industry may seem like a victory for the energy industry, but think again. What this does is free the plaintiffs to relitigate the case - and no doubt it will be heard by an Obama appointee to the court.

Mr. Obama once said he will allow the building of coal-fired generation plants but restrict their ability to outgas waste - something the EPA has done with it's ruling against fine particulates and sulphur. Now, by constipating the power plants, not allowing them to discharge waste heat, many plants will have to close or power down, making the "renewables" of wind and solar more competitive.

This is just one more dirty trick in a long line of dirty tricks by this lawless administration.

According to the article by Sonal Patel at Power Mag:

"While Congress mandated the EPA establish cooling water standards in 1972, Riverkeeper and other groups sued the EPA in 1993 and obtained a consent decree in 1995, requiring EPA to issue a 316(b) rule in 1999. The consent decree was later amended to allow the EPA to issue the rule in three phases: Phase I (new plants) was finalized in 2001 and a portion of Phase III (new offshore and coastal oil rigs) was finalized in 2006; Phase II (large existing power plants) and the remainder of Phase III (small power plants and manufacturing facilities) were issued in 2004 and 2006, respectively, but were remanded by courts in 2009 and 2010.

In April 2011, the agency proposed new standards that could allow all facilities above a minimum size to install safeguards against the impingement of aquatic life. The proposal allows state officials to decide on a case-by-case basis—based on site-specific analysis—whether closed-cycle cooling systems and other technologies are required. The April 2011 proposal combines Phase II and III into one rule and covers roughly 1,260 existing facilities—670 power plants—each of which withdraws at least 2 million gallons per day of cooling water."

End excerpt.

So the EPA has known this was coming since 2006, yet failed to meet the court-ordered deadline of the agreement. Now the groups are free to relitigate, or the EPA will be forced to issue draconian rules to satisfy them - and provide cover for Tailgunner Gina McCarthy and her boss Barack Obama.

This is another in a long line of dirty tricks, and the end purpose is to further the ambition to reduce America's energy consumption. Energy is a measure of wealth, and with less of it America is brought down to the level of those nations that are poorer than we. That people will be thrown out of work, that elderly folks will die from hot summers and cold winters, that all Americans will find it difficult to pay the increased costs of energy, is immaterial. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, after all!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 942 words, total size 7 kb.

Glacial Loss Decelerated in late 20th Century

Timothy Birdnow

Turns out that glacier loss declined in the second half of the 20th century - where ice loss accelerated it was balanced out with slowing loss elsewhere.

Here is the abstract:

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/659/2014/tc-8-659-2014.html

A data set of worldwide glacier length fluctuations
P. W. Leclercq1,*, J. Oerlemans1, H. J. Basagic2, I. Bushueva3, A. J. Cook4, and R. Le Bris5
1Institute for Marine and Atmospheric research Utrecht, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, Utrecht, the Netherlands
2Department of Geology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207, USA
3Institute of Geography Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
4Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
5Department of Geography, University of Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
*now at: Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047, Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway

Abstract. Glacier fluctuations contribute to variations in sea level and historical glacier length fluctuations are natural indicators of past climate change. To study these subjects, long-term information of glacier change is needed. In this paper we present a data set of global long-term glacier length fluctuations. The data set is a compilation of available information on changes in glacier length worldwide, including both measured and reconstructed glacier length fluctuations. All 471 length series start before 1950 and cover at least four decades. The longest record starts in 1535, but the majority of time series start after 1850. The number of available records decreases again after 1962. The data set has global coverage including records from all continents. However, the Canadian Arctic is not represented in the data set. The available glacier length series show relatively small fluctuations until the mid-19th century, followed by a global retreat. The retreat was strongest in the first half of the 20th century, although large variability in the length change of the different glaciers is observed. During the 20th century, calving glaciers retreated more than land-terminating glaciers, but their relative length change was approximately equal. Besides calving, the glacier slope is the most important glacier property determining length change: steep glaciers have retreated less than glaciers with a gentle slope.

Citation: Leclercq, P. W., Oerlemans, J., Basagic, H. J., Bushueva, I., Cook, A. J., and Le Bris, R.: A data set of worldwide glacier length fluctuations, The Cryosphere, 8, 659-672, doi:10.5194/tc-8-659-2014, 2014.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

EPA's Tower of Pisa policies

Paul Driessen

Like the famous Leaning Tower of Pisa, far too many of our nation’s energy and environmental policies are built upon a flimsy foundation of peak oil, sustainability and dangerous manmade climate change ideologies – and perpetuated by faulty computer models and a system that rewards activists, politicians, bureaucrats and corporations that support the ideologies and policies. At the heart of this system is a increasingly secretive and deceptive U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, and especially certain past and current personnel who are responsible for many of today’s excessive environmental regulations.

My article this week explores this untenable – and harmful – situation in depth.

Paul

EPA’s Tower of Pisa policies

Using lies to shore up policies built on shaky foundations of climate, peak oil and sustainability

Paul Driessen

Built on a foundation of sand, the Leaning Tower of Pisa would have toppled over long ago, if not for ingenious engineering projects that keep it from tilting any further. The same thing is true of ethanol, automobile mileage, power plant pollution and many other environmental policies.
Not only are they built on flimsy foundations of peak oil, sustainability and dangerous manmade climate change. They are perpetuated by garbage in-garbage out computer models and a system that rewards activists, politicians, bureaucrats and corporations that support the hypotheses and policies.
At the heart of this system is the increasingly secretive and deceptive U.S. Environmental Protection Administration. Among its perpetrators are two ideologically driven regulators who are responsible for many of today’s excessive environmental regulations. When the corruption is combined with the EPA’s history of regulatory overkill and empire building, it paints a portrait of an agency that’s out of control.

EPA’s culture of misconduct has already raised congressional hackles over the HYPERLINK "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579602/EPA-employees-used-government-credit-cards-gym-memberships-gift-cards-meals-charity-donations-taxpayer-funds.html"misuse of government credit cards (a recent EPA audit found that 93% of purchases were personal and contrary to agency guidelines); former regional EPA administrator (and now HYPERLINK "http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/sierra-club-hires-epa-official-felled-by-crucify-comments-20120629"Sierra Club official) Al Amendariz wanting to HYPERLINK "http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/26/epa_official_says_philosophy_is_to_crucify_oil_and_gas_companies.html""crucify” oil companies to make examples of them; and former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, who masqueraded as "HYPERLINK "http://freebeacon.com/politics/lisa-jackson-contacted-lobbyist-from-private-email/"Richard Windsor,” to avoid revelation and oversight of her emails with activists.
However, these sorry tales pale in comparison to damaging EPA malfeasance detailed in a new U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee HYPERLINK "http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b90f742e-b797-4a82-a0a3-e6848467832a"minority staff report about convicted felon and con artist John Beale. This guy was convicted of bilking taxpayers out of $900,000 – by convincing EPA bosses and colleagues that he was a CIA agent, failing to show up for work for months, but continuing to receive his six-figure salary. However, these were minor transgressions compared to what he was not prosecuted for.

Beale has admitted he had no legislative or environmental policy experience prior to being hired. Yet he became the lead official for the nation’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter. He and Robert Brenner, his friend and immediate supervisor at EPA, concocted a nefarious plan that used manipulated scientific studies, faulty or even bogus regulatory cost assessments, "heavy-handed management of interagency review processes,” and even  HYPERLINK "http://washingtonexaminer.com/epas-secret-gas-chamber-experiments-a-deceitful-failure/article/2546961" illegal experiments on human test subjects, to impose increasingly tougher, job-killing regulations on US industries.

One of Beale & Brenner’s first actions was to work with the  HYPERLINK "http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2014/03/29/finalized-tier-3-gasoline-sulfur-rules-will-bring-bogus-benefits-at-high-health-and-welfare-price-n1816617/page/full" American Lung Association in 1997 in a HYPERLINK "http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/17/epas-secret-and-costly-sue-and-settle-collusion-with-environmental-organizations/"sue-and-settle arrangement, which led to ozone and particulate matter standards. This underhanded practice enables EPA officials to meet with environmentalist groups behind closed doors and agree to new proposed regulations. Later, the group files a "friendly suit,” and a court orders the agency to adopt the pre-arranged rules. Meanwhile, EPA awarded the ALA $20 million between 2001 and 2010. (Had a business had such an arrangement, it would likely have been prosecuted as an illegal kickback.)

The EPW Committee’s report notes that Beale & Brenner fine-tuned the sue-and-settle idea – and then intentionally overstated the benefits and understated the costs of new regulations. As a result, Beale & Brenner successfully rammed the PM2.5 and ozone standards through the EPA’s approval process and set the stage for myriad additional regulations that likewise did not receive appropriate scientific scrutiny.
In the case of PM2.5 soot particles, the ALA worked with Beale & Brenner to claim tougher regulations would eliminate up to  HYPERLINK "http://www.lung.org/press-room/press-releases/35700-deaths-smog.html" 35,700 premature deaths and 1.4 million cases of aggravated asthma annually. Scientists questioned the figures and said EPA’s HYPERLINK "http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/News/2012/12-July/Goodman-PM-Proposed-Rule-Testimony-July-2012.pdf"flawed research merely "assumed” a HYPERLINK "http://www.api.org/news-and-media/testimony-speeches/2012/howard-feldman-testimony-epa-proposal-to-change-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for-pm"cause-and-effect relationship between soot and health effects, but failed to prove one. Indeed, EPA’s illegal experiments exposed people to "lethal” doses of soot, but harmed only an elderly woman with heart problems.

Beale & Brenner pressed on. Not only were the initial PM2.5 and ozone regulations put into effect, but the questionable and non-peer-reviewed data has been used repeatedly as the basis for additional regulations. According to the Senate report, "up to 80 percent of the benefits associated with all federal regulations are attributed to supposed PM 2.5 reductions… [and] the EPA has continued to rely upon the secret science … to justify the vast majority of all Clean Air Act regulations issued to this day.”

As a House HYPERLINK "https://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/epas-list-billion-dollar-rules-long-and-growing"subcommittee has pointed out, the long and growing list of EPA regulations involves costly changes to automobiles, trucks, ships, utilities, cement plants, refineries and gasoline, to name a few. The rules also raise consumer prices, eliminate jobs, and thus actually reduce human living standards, health and welfare – all of which EPA steadfastly ignores, in violation of federal laws and regulations.

Just one EPA industrial HYPERLINK "http://www.cibo.org/pubs/boilermact_jobsstudy.pdf"boiler emissions regulation will put as many as 16,000 jobs at risk for every $1 billion spent in upgrade or compliance costs, IHS Global Insight calculates. The Administration’s regulatory HYPERLINK
"http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/18/mcconnell-moves-to-block-epa-power-plant-rules/"War on Coal, amply illustrated by President Obama’s call to bankrupt the coal industry in the name of alleged manmade climate change, could HYPERLINK "http://www.americaspower.org/sites/default/files/Job-Losses-due-to-Coal-Plant-Shutdowns-FINAL-Oct-1.pdf"eliminate up to 16,600 direct and indirect jobs by 2015.

Despite the economic damage, EPA applauded Beale’s regulatory success, and he quickly became one of the federal government’s most powerful and highest paid employees. Even Administrator Gina McCarthy had a hand in advancing his fraudulent and pernicious career, when she appointed him to manage the office of Air and Radiation’s climate change and other international work in 2010.

Then in June 2011, Beale stopped going to work. Despite having filed no retirement papers, under an arrangement with McCarthy, he was allowed to continue receiving his salary. When she finally met with him 15 months later, he said he had no plans to retire. Two months later, Beale’s long-term unexcused absence was finally referred to the Office of Inspector General for investigation.

After McCarthy became the EPA Administrator in July 2013, Beale pleaded guilty to fraud and was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison. His partner-in-crime Brenner retired in 2011 before the agency could take action against him for accepting an illegal gift from a golfing buddy serving on the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. But again, these crimes pale in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars that their junk science, sue-and-settle lawsuits and other actions have cost US businesses and families.
Now Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are trying to get to the bottom of the Brenner-Beale-EPA "secret science” that has been used to justify so many regulations. On March 17, Sen. David Vitter (R- LA) HYPERLINK "http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=6de2a2b9-ad38-41bc-a0c4-c909b391a526"sent a letter to Dr. Francesca Grifo, EPA’s Scientific Integrity Official, asking for the original scientific data and voicing concerns about EPA’s apparent violations of international guidelines for ensuring best practices and preventing scientific misconduct. EPA thus far is claiming the research and data are proprietary or  HYPERLINK "http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/epa-concedes-we-can-t-produce-all-data-justifying-clean-air-rules" the agency cannot find them. Teachers demand that students show their work; we should demand the same from EPA – especially since we pay for it.

The agency’s onslaught of carbon dioxide and other climate change regulations – including proposed rules on  HYPERLINK "http://methanemadness.cfact.org/" cow flatulence (!) – is similarly founded on fraudulent EPA and IPCC reports, false and irrelevant claims of scientific "consensus,” and computer models that bear no relationship to temperature, hurricane, drought and other planetary realities. Even worse, it is on this flimsy, fraudulent, lawless foundation that our government’s costly, intrusive environmental and renewable energy policies are based – threatening our economy, employment, living standards and families.

Meanwhile, Ms. McCarthy is conducting business as usual. She recently presented her proposed EPA’s HYPERLINK "http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/fy15_budget_in_brief.pdf"FY 2015 budget to Congress. She says the increased funding should be viewed as an "investment in maintaining a high performing environmental protection organization.” You cannot make this up.
Governors, attorneys general, state legislatures and private citizen groups need to initiate legal actions and demand full discovery of all relevant EPA documents. Congress too needs to take action. Along with one on the IRS targeting scandal, it needs to appoint a select committee or independent counsel to determine which data, computer models and studies EPA used – and which ones it ignored – in reaching its decisions.

Otherwise our nation’s downward economic slide, and distrust of government, will accelerate.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( HYPERLINK "http://www.CFACT.org" www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1548 words, total size 13 kb.

Jimmy Carter, Church Moneychanger

And Jimmy entered the temple and invited in all who sold and bought in the temple, and he set up the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, "It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of politics,’ but you make it a den of rich contributors.”

SECTION OMITTED

For $20,000.00, you and your significant other can go to church with Jimmy Carter. Yes, for a campaign donation to a political campaign, you can go to church with Jimmy Carter.

Just last week, as Russia was actively moving into Ukraine, Jimmy Carter said the United States had become the "number one warmonger on Earth.”

SECTION OMITTED

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, "It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”


Matthew 21:12-13 (ESV)

END QUOTES FROM ARTICLE

U.S. (then) Senator Lyndon Johnson go the Johnson Amendment past in the 1950s prohibiting politicking in churches. Wikipedia states, in its "Johnson Amendment" listing, that:

Proposed by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, the amendment affects churches and other nonprofit organizations with 501(c) tax exemptions.[1] In recent years the Alliance Defending Freedom has attempted to challenge the Johnson Amendment through the Pulpit Freedom Initiative, which urges church pastors to violate the statute in protest. The ADF contends that the amendment violates First Amendment rights.[2]

501(c) prohibition

Organizations recognized under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code are subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities and risk loss of status as tax exempt status if violated.[3] Specifically, they are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.

END OF QUOTES

Now I am neither a federal tax attorney nor an expert on interpreting the Gospels, but I believe that Jimmy Carter is acting as if he is both above earthly and heavenly law in his flaunting his notoriety in a church like a common moneychanger from days of yore. This is one issue where one doesn't need a lot of imagination to answer the question "What would Jesus do?" He would most probably overturn those furniture items not fixed to the floor, throw any check list of contributors to the ground, and scatter the decidedly irreligious crowd of celebrity gawkers.


Will someone in the GOP or in an independent organization, such as the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission or the Thomas More Law Center, fight this obscene effort to turn a church into a political clubhouse?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 5 kb.

April 20, 2014

He is Risen!

The Empty Tomb

The Easter Gospel

In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the Week,came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the Sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from Heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightening, and his rainment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered, and said unto the women, fear not ye; for I know ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here, for he is risen as he said.

(MATT:28;1,6)


And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of James, and Sa-lo-me, had brought sweet spices that they might come and anoint Him.
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came to the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
And they said among themselves, who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
And when they looked they saw that the stone was rolled away; for it was very great.
And entering into the Sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were afrighted.
And he saith unto them, BE not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: He is risen: He is not here; behold the place where they laid Him.

(Mark:16;1,7)


Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared and others with them.
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.
And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee,
Saying the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

(Luke:24;1,7)


But Mary stood without the sepulchre weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked within the sepulchre.
And seeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, the other at the feet of where the body of Jesus had lain.
And they say unto her, woman, why weepeth thou? She saith unto them, because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou has laid Him, and I will take Him away.
Jesus saith unto her Mary. She turned herself and saith unto Him Rab-bo-ni: which is to say, master.

(John:20;11,16)

This is the Word of the Lord.


HAPPY EASTER TO ONE AND ALL.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

The Meaning of Easter

From the archives:

Timothy Birdnow

Imagine, if you will, that you are God. You are all powerful, you have unlimited imagination, you can do anything. Now you are complete, and don't really NEED anything, but you decide you want to have some fellowship of sorts. You take it into your head to create some beings that are independent of you, that exist seperate from you, but that are intended to be your friends and cared for by you.

How do you proceed? Well, first off, if they are to have independent existence you have to create certain characteristics, and a medium in which they operate. The characteristics you want are similar to your own, albeit you aren't going to give them all of your power since they won't be able to handle it, being finite. You want them to be intelligent, kind, loving, and self-willed. You want them to be able to make free choices.

Free choices presuppose alternatives. But what alternatives can exist outside of you? You are the determinant of what is and what is not. How do you give freedom to being that can only exist in harmony with yourself?

When I was a child I had a toy robot that was amazing in it's day; it walked five paces, then threw open it's chest and laser guns came out. It spun round in circles, firing the lasers, then closed it's chest and walked another five paces and did it again. And again. And again. Within a week I tossed it in the toybox and never played with it again.

If you are to create different beings you will want them all to be different. I grew bored with that robot because it never acted any differently. It had no free will; it was preprogrammed and did what it was designed to do regardless of changing conditions. Had I had my will I would have given it independence, let it make it's own choices. I would have wanted it to be unique, individual. I would have wanted that for all of my toys.

If I, with my limited intellect and simply notions, wanted that, how much more will you, the God of our imagination here, want that for your creation?

So you make all of your creations unique, which means some have more of this and some more of that. You love them all, but there will be some who will have more of everything and some less. Do you like the one you gave less to any less than the one you gave more to?

No, but you have created a fundamentally unfair situation.

How do you square these things?

The Bible says that Angels were created before Man. What exactly are angels? They are rather like bits of free-floating information; they are software without hardware, as it were. They are alien from our way of thinking; non-corporeal entities. They exist in a number of differing species - Angels, Archangels, Powers and Principalities, Thrones and Dominions, Seraphim and Cherabim. At the top was one angel who was given the most in terms of gifts. Somewhere there lay a lowly angel with the fewest.

You claim to be all just; what would YOU do?

Hold a tournament, of course!

You have no intention of changing the creatures fundamentally, but you offer them a chance to decide their own place in existence by letting them choose how much they want to have. But you can't intervene much, because that would influence events and if you influence events you are again being unfair. So you veil yourself, recuse yourself and let your creation hash things out. You impose certain rules to act as guardrails, and you sit back and watch.

But what happens? The top dog is likely to not be top dog any more - and he's smart enough to know it. So what does he do?

He decides he isn't playing your stupid game. And he convinces as many of his fellows as he can to simply ignore it - and you.

The Bible says there was war in Heaven, and that war was an intellectual battle of wills between those who wanted to follow God's plans and those who decided they would be their own gods, thank you very much. The fall conceived by Lucifer was rather like performing a lobotomy on onesself, but it was worth it to Lucifer as he simply couldn't accept his coming loss of power. To add insult to injury, Michael, a lowly Archanger (second rank from the bottom) was his chief opponent in the war, and was given the power to expel the now aptly named Satan (adversary) from Heaven.

We can't know what this means; it was a battle between non-corporeal entities, much like a computer virus being removed by an anti-virus program, but that doesn't really give us the true picture. What did happen was that a sizable portion of the original beings created turned against God, and fell. We say they went to Hell, but it seems likely that Hell is a state within their spirits itself; the suffering of guilty consciences by beings who exist entirely in the mind rather than having their thoughts dilluted by physical bodies. They rejected love, which is God, and so suffer the lack of love - even for themselves. They no longer have friendship, they no longer have mercy, or tenderness, they no longer have anything but the torment of rage. Hatred is all that is left to them.

Is God unmerciful here? Was it terrible He let them go to Hell? He didn't force them anywhere; they chose to be there rather than to be with Him. He has simply given them what they want, which is to be cut off from Him. Hell may be a sort of place, but it is more a state of mind. Demons carry Hell with them. And since they are so much more intelligent than Man they did this with full understanding and knowledge, and they will never repent because the only way they can is to go to God to ask for the strength to repent, and they cannot do that because they have chosen to be shut of Him. Hell is the only act of kindness they will accept.

So now, you the theoretical God, decide to create a different creature, one limited by physicality. In many ways these new beings will be weaker, less attractive, less intelligent, but they will experience things very differently from the first creatures you made. But, just as with the angels, you have to give them the right to decide who and what they want to be, where their place will be in your creation. What do you do?

They are too stupid to openly rebel against you, but they can be pursuaded by someone smarter. They have to have this option, or they have no free will and end up as automatons. What to do?

You let the rebels converse with them.

The rebels have only one way of hurting you; they can drag others into their rebellion. They will use their intellects and abilities to trick and seduce, if possible. You permit this, to give the new beings freedom.

Man falls.

Now, because you let them be tricked, you are willing to give them a second chance. The only problem is that evil is a rejection of you and your love, which means they don't really WANT a second chance, except to avoid the suffering that they brought on themselves.

When you created the parameters of reality you built a fundamental justice into the fabric of reality. There are spiritual laws than, once broken, have to be reset. To reset this you need a redeemer, someone who hasn't fallen to come and pay the spiritual debt. Think of it as a bank; if you are overdrawn you can't get anything out of it. Imagine if you want to square your account, but have nothing to put in to pay the fees and penalties; your property will likely be repossessed.

Now imagine a kindly gentleman who feels bad for you, and he pays off your mortgage or car loan.

In this instance God Himself has to come and do the paying, and He has to give you an example of how to avoid getting back into debt. So He comes as a man, born, grows up, then begins teaching, knowing all the while that He has to pay your penalty, which in the laws of the Universe is death. Being perfect He will not receive the final death, which is eternal seperation from God (Himself) so His will be a real death, and a worse one than most people think, because "He decended into Hell" meaning that for a time He was completely cut off from His divine self, and He experienced the pain of all Creation that had been inflicted on Man as a result of the Fall. All of it. It was the worst agony any corporeal being could endure, and it was freely chosen by Jesus. That was for you - and for me.

But the death alone was not enough; Death, the results of Man turning to himself as his own god, had to be overcome. No man had ever come back from the dead (save a few like Lazarus whom Jesus brought back, only to die again) and it was the one thing necessary to bring triumph over Death and Hell - and over the fallen angels who sought the ruin of all Mankind. The resurrection destroyed them, for their power lay in the seperation of Man from God, which was now over. God had made peace with Man, for Man.

Now we live in an age of grace, and Man has a choice again. This ended what was refered to as a great scandal, that God continued to deal with Man after the fall, because it made Him appear hypocritical, intervening in the test we were supposed to have failed. But our failure was a result of trickery and deceit, not volition alone. We are the ones who realized our foolishness.

Much is made of the problem of pain; and many have turned against God because of the seeming unfairness of human suffering. yes, suffering is and can be terrible, but were I the God that I had asked you to imagine yourself I would not have done anything different. Yes, pain can be terrible, but it is temporary to those who choose it to be, and it results in a far better hereafter, both for yourself and for others. The suffering of the damned is only there because they choose to suffer rather than to ask for forgiveness. Once freed of their physical bodies they have true understanding of their decisions, and want to be free of God and with others of their own kind, just as criminals draw together even while they may be actively trying to hurt or cheat each-other. It's who they have chosen to be, and they refuse to seek redemption and be with those who they hold in contempt. The punishment ultimately is from themselves, not God. They know the debt they owe, and choose to continue to add to it.

Another argument made against Easter is that it only saves those who believe, and that is true. What is lft unsaid is that everyone can believe, and at the end everyone will get a final chance. This Catholics call Baptism by Desire; a God-seeking Jew, or Muslim, or Buddhist is not cast into eternal fire - unless he wants to be. BUT it is more difficult to cultivate the habits needed to make the right decisions, and Catholics believe in temporal punishments to make up for "that which is lacking in the Cross" as Paul put it, so the pius non-Christian has a harder go after death to scrape off the barnacles left from Sin. That purgation occurs in a place that is neither Earth nor Heaven, and is called by Catholics Purgatory.

There has been, in the past, another place called Limbo where virtuous pagans (and it used to be believed unbaptized children) went. This was paradise but without God; that is why Dante placed Limbo in Hell. There may be such a place, where those who, on the final vision, reject salvation but seek virtue (I can see some modern atheists ending here) may go; they will have exactly what they want, but God is absent. God is all there is, and without Him we are but prisoners in a guilded cage. A palace can still be a prison, after all.

And so, on this Easter day, we Christians celebrate the gift of salvation, the promise that all has been made right and we can eventually go home. Frankly, were I God, I wouldn't have done it any other way!

He is indeed risen!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2160 words, total size 12 kb.

Bundy and federal land grabs, price of beef

http://www.geocities.ws/lady_jade728/vaderfett.jpg

http://data.earthli.com/news/attachments/entry/2967/cow1.jpeg
Jack Kemp

Here are some thoughts on the Bundy Ranch situation.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62526?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=f0ee18b9e6-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-f0ee18b9e6-297708273

If the feds can charge a tax on ranchers for cow flatulence, they are essentially charging a tax on consumer beef prices at the supermarket, making it so that only rich people can afford beef or veal. As is, the consumer price of beef is the highest it has ever been. The whole concept of the federal government owning one third of our land, particularly in the Western United States, has got to curtailed to a lower figure.

Jack

A NOTE from TIM

I don't think the argument for adverse possession works in this particular instance; Bundy already had agreements for grazing rights before the BLM came in, and he was not really altering the deal. Adverse possession is generally in force when someone "openly and notoriously" uses land belonging to another without any prior agreement. It was put into the law to avoid what happened in Mexico and other such places; a few great men buying up most of the country and letting it sit fallow while the majority of citizens were unable to buy any land because of it. Adverse possession basically says "use it or lose it" but if you have an agreement at any -point the right is no longer exercisable, if I understand the law correctly. (I'm not sure how it may differ in Nevada, too.) BUT Bundy clearly had certain legal rights here, enforceable rights. He essentially had an easement on the land.

I'm also unsure if adverse possession works with the government.

But clearly Bundy had a deal that the Feds simply negated. I am mindful of Darth Vader's statement to Lando Calrissian "Do you feel you are being treated unfairly? I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it further."

If the governement can simply change the rules midstream than no contracts are safe. If no contracts are safe then we do not have an orderly society but a despotism.

And this is absolutely an attack on beef. The Left has always hated beef, long before Global Warming became an issue. I wrote about it at American Thinker a while ago. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/wheres_the_beef.html The Left wants to create an international cuisine, and they hate Americans eating beef because much of the world cannot afford it. Also, they hate the fact that it takes four pounds of grain to make one pound of beef.

As for diabetes, as a diabetic I can say that beef is a Godsend; it allows me to avoid the dangerous carbohydrates. I cannot eat all beef (Adkins is a dangerous diet for diabetics) but - especially with my heart failure requiring limited sodium - the first thing on the menu is meat. Without it I would be mighty hungry.

Here is the entire article:

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy stated that the EPA and the USDA are going to regulate 56 farm practices
Lessons Learned and Lessons Missed from the Attempted Land Grab
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh (Bio and Archives) Saturday, April 19, 2014

The recent standoff at the Bundy ranch in Nevada has taught us many lessons, but the most important one was missed.

We learned that the government will do anything to private citizens in order to grab land and private property either under the guise of protecting an "endangered” desert tortoise that is actually overpopulated, or getting rid of "feral” and destructive "trespassing cattle” grazing the land for generations, cattle that are in the way of developing a $5 billion Chinese solar panel plant (ENN), and the exploitation of rare earth elements in the larger adjacent area.
Mr. Bundy was too stubborn, the last rancher standing in Clarke County, Nevada, clinging to his inconvenient "feral” cattle, his agreement with the State of Nevada, with the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, his "prescriptive rights,” and his ranch. I thought cattle were domesticated, not feral, and were raised for beef consumption.
Mr. Bundy may or may not owe the $1 million in grazing fees. The case is not clear-cut on either side and may go all the way to the Supreme Court. If someone trespasses or uses someone else’s land for at least five years without the owner of the land taking legal action, that person can claim prescriptive rights. In Mr. Bundy’s case, twenty years have lapsed since payment of fees have been in question.
Mark Levin explained in his April 11th broadcast that "Bundy had agreements with the State of Nevada before the BLM claimed jurisdiction.”
The sad lesson was how innocent animals were hurt and no animal protection agency stepped forward to protest their treatment, how people were manhandled, tasered, frightened by fully armed and menacing agents, and how massive, extreme, and expensive was the government’s response to one farmer who allegedly has not paid $1 million in grazing fees. How many people are currently in court that have embezzled other people’s money, or have failed to pay money owed to the federal government, yet have not received the Bundy treatment?

Another lesson missed was that the federal government has huge land holdings, particularly in the southwest. Lord Monckton mentioned in his article that "almost one-third of the entire 2.3 billion acres in the country are owned by the federal government.” He is of the opinion that there should be a statute of limitations on civil debt, including the right of use.
The BLM citing alleged environmental damage by the Bundy Ranch was not credible because ranchers grow up caring for the environment that provides their livelihood. They are not likely to abuse the land or any property that sustains them and their families for generations.
The other important lesson missed was that putting so many ranchers out of business, coupled with other variables, is having a negative impact on the price of beef. U.S. cattle inventory is at a 63-year low for several reasons. William Hahn of USDA explained that "cow numbers were down… and the lower supply meant higher prices.”
The U.S. is the world’s largest beef producer and Texas is the leader. Demand from China and Japan for U.S. beef has increased. Supply is tight, "everything produced is consumed.” Dry seasons, increased cattle feed prices due to grain use for ethanol are some of the variables affecting supply and beef prices. Wrangling Mr. Bundy’s cattle with helicopters and exhausting some to death certainly would not help the price of beef.
Ranchers are happy with the higher prices but consumers are looking at an increase of 5-10 percent for steak this year and 10-15 percent for ground beef. Consumers can switch to cheaper priced meats. Economists call this the substitution effect. Restaurants are cutting beef portion size and increasing their prices.
According to USDA, "beef and veal prices, which are already at or near record levels across the country, rose 4 percent in February and are up 5.4 percent over this time last year. As the largest monthly increase in beef prices since November 2003, this reflects, in part, an increase in exports, a decrease in imports, and further reductions in the U.S. cattle inventory.”
Replenishing the beef supply is not easy nor quick. It takes two years for cattle to be ready for slaughter.
There is an environmental push against meat consumption because cow flatulence produces methane. Methane is one of the gases which environmentalists blame for global warming. To mitigate such "pollution,” environmentalists would like to impose a flatulence tax per head.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that animals emit greenhouse gases through flatulence and belching and pollute the air. The EPA is considering charging any farmer with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle, or 200 pigs an annual fee of $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 for each beef cattle and $20 per pig.
To influence and discourage the public to consume meat, a study from the Netherlands by Monique van Nielen of Wageningen University claims that "too much animal protein is tied to diabetes risk.” The study was done ex post facto, looking at dietary data from 11,000 select people who developed type 2 diabetes and 15,000 people without diabetes.
The study should have randomly assigned subjects to eat varying amounts and types of protein. This would have given a better indication if "too much animal protein is tied to diabetes risk.” Instead, the study looked at the diets of people who developed diabetes and those who did not. There were so many other variables besides meat consumption that were not controlled in the study.
The Diabetes Journal discussed the effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes in a 2004 study.
The last and most important lesson about the Bundy land grab standoff in Nevada is heightened awareness to other land grabs, specifically what House Appropriation Committee Chairman Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky) calls "the biggest land grab in the history of the world” that would have a "profound economic impact” and it "would absolutely freeze economic activity in this country.”
What Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky) refers to is the joint EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2014 proposed rule, Waters of the United States, to spell out which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act.
During the Congressional budget testimony last week, it was revealed that Waters of the United States would give the EPA authority over streams on private property even when the water beds are dry or have been dry for a long time.
The EPA website posted the rule for a 90-day commentary period. The science behind the rule has not been completed. Yet EPA claims that "the proposed rule will benefit businesses by increasing efficiency in determining coverage of the Clean Water Act.”
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for civil works, Jo-Ellen Darcy, opined that the nation’s waters and wetlands "are valuable resources that must be protected today and for future generations.”
EPA administrator Gina McCarthy stated that the EPA and the USDA are going to regulate 56 farm practices so that farmers no longer need to ask questions whether their activities are considered exempt under the Clean Water Act.
"The proposed rule will:

* Preserve current agricultural exemptions for Clean Water Act permitting, including:
* Normal farming, silviculture, and ranching practices. Those activities include plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for production of food, fiber, and forest products.
* Upland soil and water conservation practices.
* Agricultural storm water discharges.
* Return flows from irrigated agriculture.
* Construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches on dry land.
* Maintenance of drainage ditches.
* Construction or maintenance of farm, forest, and temporary mining roads.
* Provide greater clarity and certainty to farmers.
* Avoid economic burden on agriculture.
* Encourage the use of voluntary conservation practices.
* Be consistent with and support existing USDA programs.”

Congresswoman Murkowski and many farmers are troubled that the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USDA, the Department of Energy, and the Army Corps of Engineers would gain so much power as to dictate grazing rights, food production, farming activities, animal husbandry, and the use of water and energy on private lands.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1877 words, total size 12 kb.

Try to Ignore Earth Day




By Alan Caruba

Try to ignore Earth Day, April 22. It won’t be easy. The print and broadcast media will engage in an orgy of environmental tall tales and the usual end-of-the-world predictions. It will scare the heck out of youngsters and bore the heck out of anyone old enough to know that we have had to endure the lies that hide the agendas that have driven the Greens since 1970 when the event was first proclaimed.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It is the third planet from the Sun and fifth-largest of the eight other planets that orbit it. It is the only planet in our galaxy that has life on it and it has an abundance of mineral resources as well as water and the fecundity to grow crops and maintain livestock to sustain the human race.

The climate on Earth is entirely dependent on the natural cycles of the Sun. Despite four decades of being told that the Earth was going to heat up due to greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide and methane, we are currently in a cooling cycle and no child born since 1997 has ever experienced a single day of the dreaded "global warming.”

Humans play a very small role affecting the Earth’s climate although, for example, deforestration is one way it has affects it. Other than cutting down trees, another way is to put the government in charge of vast acres of forest. It has a long record of failing to manage them well to the point where diseases and pests render the trees so weak that wildfires wipe out what would otherwise have thrived.

Otherwise, the Earth is and always has a been a very volatile place, subject to a variety of extraordinary natural events such as hurricanes, tsunamis, blizzards, floods, droughts, tornadoes, and earthquakes. The only thing humans can do is clean up and rebuild.

What has mostly changed for humans has been the discovery of energy sources that have transformed and enhanced their lives. Coal, initially, followed by oil and natural gas. All are carbon based, but then, so are humans and other life forms.

The Greens call them "fossil fuels” and some refer to "dirty coal” or seek to demonize "Big Oil.” Between 2007 and 2012, three U.S. oil companies paid a total of $289.7 billion in corporate income taxes. Until the Obama administration took power, coal provided fifty percent of all the electricity Americans used. Completely bogus "science” cited by the Environmental Protection Agency has been used to shut down coal-fired plants and close down coal mines. And, in concert with costly, unpredictable and unreliable "renewable” energy, wind and solar, have driven up the cost of electricity for everyone.

According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, released in March, over the next two decades the EPA’s climate rules aimed at reducing "global warming” (which is not occurring) will cost the economy $2.23 trillion. An estimated 600,000 jobs will be lost. The jobs that would be created by the Keystone XL pipeline have been waiting five years for the White House to approve the project.

As mentioned, it has been the many inventions that utilize the energy sources the Greens want to "leave in the ground” that have totally transformed the lives of Americans and others throughout the world. What Earth Day is really about is not the improvement of life, but limits that will reduce the world’s population. The one thing all environmentalists agree upon is that there are too many humans. This is a form of fascism that goes back to the creation of the communist/socialist economic systems, none of which have provided the level of prosperity that capitalism has. Even Communist China has adopted the capitalist model.

The other agenda Greens agree upon is that the government should own and control every square inch of the nation’s (and world’s) landmass. That is why climate change is part of the United Nations’ intention to become the single world government. It is home to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has clung to the global warming hoax since they invented it in the late 1980s.

Recently, the IPCC released another report claiming "climate change” will melt polar ice, cause the oceans to rise dramatically, generate extreme weather conditions, et cetera. There have always been extreme weather conditions somewhere and the rest of the IPCC claims are just great big lies that have been around for decades. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/14/Give-up-meat-coal-oil-economic-growth-and-national-sovereignty-orders-new-IPCC-climate-report

Along the way, environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth, among countless others of comparable or lesser size have received millions in membership dues, donations, the sale of products, and from the assets that many own. Many, like Greenpeace, enjoy a non-profit status. For example, in 2011, Greenpeace took in $27,465,948 and had assets of $4,653,179. Multiply that against all the others and it adds up to billions.

Green organizations represent a very big business that is constantly at war with legitimate businesses in the energy, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors, seeking to impose laws and regulations that cost them and consumers billions every year.

If you’re a parent take some time to explain to younger children that the Earth is very old and not going to suffer the claims Greens repeat and repeat. As for everyone else, just try to ignore the Earth Day deluge. It won’t be easy, but it will be worth it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 912 words, total size 6 kb.

April 19, 2014

"Heaven is for Real" but so is Hell

Timothy Birdnow

There is a difference between Heaven and Paradise.

Modern thinking has so confused the two concepts that we fundamental principles of faith have been compromised - and that is no accident. The true ecumenists - and I would add the atheists in that mix, since their ultimate goal is to bring us all together in a belief system that rejects the old order - have labored dilligently to eradicate the difference between Heaven and Paradise so that the public will cry out against the justice of God. Paradise is a place of peace and happiness, a place where we live forever with those we have lost. It is not Heaven.

Heaven is the presence of God Almighty. It is a wonderous place, the place we were all created to inhabit. It is also not a little bit fearful of a place; all that is, was, could be, might be resides in the persons of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the lap of the Most High we are also in the lap of ultimate justice, and of ultimate power.

As a result it is a holy place, and one we would be too frightened to inhabit with any blemish or sin. Frankly, nobody in their right mind would want to be in Heaven without first being perfected.

That
is what is wrong with so much of modern thinking on the subject. This movie, for instance.
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/new-film-heaven-is-for-real-is-for-everyone/article_fb3c87de-19dd-5393-b446-165fc54bf278.html

The problem here is that the makers of this film (and author of the book) confuses Heaven and Paradise. Everyone wants Paradise, few want Heaven.

Christian teaching has always been clear on the subject; one cannot get to Heaven except through Jesus. Now the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of Baptism by Desire, which says that anyone who would accept Christ if circumstances were appropriate (say, a Muslim in Saudi Arabia) is de-facto baptised, made clean by Christ's sacrifice. And it is also taught that, most likely, the non-Christian (who has not already made up his or her mind) will be given a vision of Christ at the end and allowed a final choice (and this is mirrored in near death experiences where everyone meets the "being of light" and is given a life review). So it is possible for everyone to get into Heaven but many will chose not to go there. Why would that be the case? Well, if you were a jihadist who persecuted Christians would YOU want to hang out with Jesus? Would you dare to go into such a formidable presence when you are guilty? If you were a mobster would you want to stand before the Lord and justify murder and torture and other horrible sins?

No you would not.

So you would want paradise and not Heaven. But paradise without God is not Heaven but rather...

In Dante's Inferno the vestibule of Hell was a wonderful place, clean, fragrant, peaceful, happy. Everyone there wanted out. Why? It was ultimately empty, a spiritual dead end. These were the souls of the virtuous pagans, of the atheists, of those who chose another god or another path and refused to depart from it. They were stubborn about it, and it led to their being placed in Paradise. Paradise was ultimately Hell, because God was absent. No matter how wonderful things are they eventually grow stale without the Creator.

And nearly anyone could handle Paradise, but how few would dare go into the chamber and face the Creator of all things, knowing He is bound by absolute justice? It is a terrifying thing.

That is why Christians believe Jesus had to come; to act as a bridge between God and Man. We live with our own sins quite comfortably and tolerate them in others to a lesser degree but we know they are wrong, and Earth is not a happy place because of them. How can Heaven allow this cancer into its midst? Do we really want to be in a place where people are still jerks? It cannot work that way.

And so Jesus accepted the punishment necessitated by justice.

Catholics further believe in Purgatory, which is a place of penance where we are perfected before going into Heaven. It's nature is unclear, but even the righteous followers of Christ have their faults and must have some way of cleaning up before going to the ball. I certainly would not want to go straight into the throne room in my current state. So there is a kind of locker room you have to pass through first. Your salvation is assured at this point, but you still have to clean up. It may be a long, arduous affair or it may be instantaneous. But everyone will have to pass through if only momentarily.

Again, there is a similarity to near death experiences. People speak of going through a tunnel, which could be a purgation region. Also, some speak of being in a mist for a while, which could be a longer purgation.

It's not about making people experience pain to make up for the pain they caused, but rather to reform their disordered souls. And all of our souls are disordered.

So the happy vision in this film is quite appealing, but it ultimately falls short. I wouldn't want a Heaven that is too easily gained; it would lack a sense of honor, of achievement. Heaven is supposed to be a place of heroes, a hall of honor for those who overcame. Letting any old jackass in would make it, well, New Jersey (present company excepted Selwyn and Alan!)

That is not to say that I do not want everyone, every single person, to go home. But some of them will not want to go, and some would prefer Hell. Hell is not necessarily the medieval torture chamber of Dante; it could be a very nice place (as in the circle of virtuous pagans). But it is a place where the sinners can hide from God. They do not want to be with Him. Some think quite ill of Him and prefer their unhappiness to bowing the knee. I have met atheists who are that way.

The first circle in the Inferno we call paradise, but also Limbo. Catholics believe in four separate places where souls go - Heaven, Purgatory, Limbo (paradise), and Hell.

Being a good person is not enough because good people are still full of faults, and more importantly they are full of wants and opinions that are in error. God is permissive; He gives us what we want. If we do not want to be with Him he will give us the illusion of isolation. But He is also Just, so if that isolation ends up being horrible He will not shield us from the consequences. We have to choose.

Which is why Michael Bloomberg's recent statement about earning his place in Heaven is so monumentally stupid and dangerous; you don't earn your place in Heaven by doing what you think are good works. You have to choose what you BELIEVE. If Bloomberg doesn't truly seek God he can do everything in his power to do what he thinks are good works and he will get nowhere. If, on the other hand, he chooses for God he will eventually find his path.

So Heaven is not a simple matter of living well and being rewarded. It is a condition, a state of mind, a spiritual acceptance. All can have it, but not everyone wants it. And Hell is a place where a great many people actually want to be.

So movies like this Heaven is for Real provide a disservice to us, because they tell a pleasing little lie. Yes, Heaven IS for real, but so is Hell. We cannot, must not forget that.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1308 words, total size 8 kb.

Truer Words

Timothy Birdnow

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch alerts us to a serious crisis that must be solved by the Feds:
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/federal-government-will-track-deadly-pig-virus/article_62a4bd1f-8d0d-5004-9d79-0f9c732627f7.html


Federal government will track deadly pig virus

Not surprising; Congress and the bureacracy have been greedily feeding at the trough for generations. I suspect the virus they are refering to is the Tea Party...

more...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

A NY Media Kind-of Easter Story

Jack Kemp

From TownHall.com:

http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2014/04/18/why-did-a-news-outlet-cancel-this-churchs-easter-ad-n1826297?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Journey Church, a Christian evangelical congregation, paid $1,400 to run a series of ads on the Capital New York website. Capital New York is a sister publication of Politico...

The advertisement read: "You’re invited to discover #HOPE at The Journey Church this Sunday April 20. Click here to discover how you can find hope when you feel like giving up.”

Pastor Kerrick Thomas tells me the advertisement ran on Capital New York’s website earlier in the week – but on Wednesday the church received an email notifying them that the ad was being pulled.

"Capital is implementing a new policy company-wide that we won’t be running any religious-affiliated campaigns moving forward,” the email read.

It certainly seemed rather convenient that the company’s new policy was implemented just days before the holiest of holidays for Christians. Heaven forbid Capital New York soil their fine reputation by taking money from Christians.

"It stings a little when someone says they won’t work with you because you are religious or Christian or a church,” Thomas said. "But we are going to love everyone and keep moving forward to have an impact for Christ in New York.”

The news organization’s decision put the church in a jam.

"As a church we have limited resources – so we have to be strategic when we invest in outreach,” Thomas said. "We thought working with them could be a cool way to bless New Yorkers. The fact that it was canceled the week of Easter made it impossible for us to use our resources to try something new in such a short amount of time. We really felt like it wasted our time and a great opportunity at Easter.”

But fortunately, this Easter story has a happy ending.

About an hour after I started sniffing around and asking questions, Capital New York suddenly had a change of heart – a come-to-Jesus moment.

The company reversed course and apologized.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

April 18, 2014

NY Times Steps in it Again

Jack Kemp

Recently, the NY Times found a graduate student from Northwestern to write a hit piece on military veterans claiming they are likely to become members of the KKK, such as the Democrat who killed those Jews in Kansas City recently. This brought a heated response from Oliver North
and also the president of a veterans' organization.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/18/ny-times-kathleen-belew-links-returning-vets-kkk-white-supremacists

BEGIN QUOTE

  On The Kelly File last night, Megyn talked to Iraq veteran Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. He said immediately after the op-ed was published, he started hearing "complete and total outrage" from veterans across the board.

Rieckhoff said Belew's argument is "garbage."

"It isn't supported by the facts and it's really folding into this stereotypical narrative that veterans are either homicidal maniacs or victims, which we have to fight back against every single day," he said, noting that "veterans are unfortunately one of the few minority groups that it's still OK to stereotype apparently."Rieckhoff said he'd love to sit down with Belew so he can hear her try to defend what she has written.

Watch that interview (at the FoxNews story link above).

END OF QUOTE

I just sent the IAVA  the following background information about past editors and the writers for the New York Times. I hope it is of some value to them, although in seeing Mr. Reickhoff speak in the FoxNews video, he really doesn't need any help from me.

My Letter to IAVA:

Two members of the family that owns the NY Times were veterans of WWII (Army and Marines). Were they "crazy?"

From Wikipedia listing for John Bertram Oakes:

His uncle was Adolph Ochs, the publisher of the New York Times...

When the USA joined World War II in 1941, Oakes entered the Army as a private in the infantry. He was recruited to join the O.S.S. (the Office of Strategic Services), and served two years in Europe capturing and "turning" enemy agents still in communication with the Nazis. In recognition of his service there he received the Bronze Star, the Croix de Guerre, the Medaille de Reconnaissance and the Order of the British Empire. He ended the war with the rank of lieutenant colonel.

Immediately after his discharge in 1946, he joined the "family paper" as editor of the Sunday New York Times "Review of the Week." Three years later, he became a member of the editorial board.

END QUOTE

The father of the current publisher was a mixed up kid that he himself admits the Marines straightened him out as he became a WWII radioman.

http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/ny_times_tell_it_to_the_marines

January 20, 2008

NY Times, Tell it to the Marines
By Jack Kemp

It seems like an appropriate time for "Pinch" Sulzberger to listen to some fatherly advice on how the US Military builds character, a week or so after the Times featured a Sunday article on murders by some former servicemen, with the implication that the military made them violent and deranged.

From "Behind the Times" by "New York Magazine" writer and NYU Journalism professor Edwin Diamond, viewed within the Amazon Online Reader:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226144720/ref=sib_dp_pop_ex?ie=UTF8&p=S012#   pages 34-35, from the chapter entitled "Punch and his Times," a quote about Arthur Ochs "Punch" Sulzberger, the father of the current head of the NY Times:

'...in 1943, at age seventeen, he left the Loomis School in Connecticut to join the Marines, with his father's written permission. He did well enough, serving in the South Pacific toward the end of the war as a radio man and driver in rear echelons. "Before I entered the Marines, I was a lazy good-for-nothiing. The Marines woke me up," Punch would later say. After his discharge he attended Columbia University, enrolling in a general studies program (his father was a trustee, and that helped with the admissions office). In 1951, a year after the start of the Korean war, Sulzberger was recalled to active duty, to be a public information officer in Japan and Korea.'

END OF QUOTE

This is what happens when some wealthy Boomer liberal spends their whole life isolated from the realities of life. Years ago, the Times used to have a military analyst/columnist who was quite good, even though he wasn't a veteran. He learned much by spending time with people in the military, so he could write realistic articles about military matters and the behavior of veterans as a whole. Today, the New York Times has no such columnist with that type of experience. I'd venture to quess that a majority of the Times staff were against the 1990s US Navy Home Port plan to station warships on Staten Island, the New York City borough south of Manhattan. "Sophisticated" New Yorkers got their wish - and thus had no warships in port on September 11th capable of using an onboard missile to shoot down an airliner approaching the World Trade Center.

And, as Ralph Peters  and others have pointed out, the New York Times also flunked Journalism 101 by not doing basic research to compare the veteran population's murder rate to the general population of young adult men. A scientific comparison would have lead the Times to the conclusion that the murder rate among veterans was much lower than that of the comparible civilian population. Once again, the Times disgraces themselves - and seems totally unable to do their journalistic job professionally.

The late Anne Richards once said of President George H.W. Bush (41)'s privileged family that he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Well, "Pinch" Sulzberger believes that the New York Times, every time they step up to the plate, has already hit a home run and can merely circle the bases as an afterthought. Just because "post-modernist educators" give gold stars to everyone, that doesn't mean they earned them.
 
The New York Times, in its' one dimensional and unfair attack on American Armed Forces veterans, could arguably be said to take an elitist position, myopically believing "their crowd" were the only type of people who deserved fair treatment, while rationalizing a self-delusional excuse.

In 1990, a white, Wellesley and Yale educated female investment banker was raped and beaten unconscious in New York's Central Park. The suspects were poor black and Hispanic youths. This became a national story and the Times chose not to publish the victim's name. A year later, a college dropout woman accused William Kennedy Smith of raping her at his family's Florida mansion. In this case, the Times chose to print her name, details of her personal sexual history, and the some details of her mother's social and sexual history. The Times used the excuse that NBC had broadcast her name the night before. To quote page 14 of "Behind the Times" by Edwin Diamond,

' "When have we ever given a shit about what NBC said before," I was told by a reporter who attended the (Times) staff meeting.'

END OF QUOTE

In fact, a famous NY Times female columnist accused her employer of prejudice. On pages 14-15 of "Behind the Times," it states:

'Times columnist Anna Quindlen made just such a charge in her Sunday Op-Ed page space two days after the staff meeting: as far as the editors of the Times were concerned, Quindlen wrote, women who have prestigious jobs will be treated more fairly than "women who have 'below average' high school grades [and] are well known at bars and dance clubs." Others who wanted to know why the Times hadn't produced a similar investigative profile of the well-connected man in the case, William Kennedy Smith. They were told, "one is in the works." (When it eventually appeared, there were new outcries. A Washington Post profile of Kennedy Smith quoted several women, most of them anonymously, who described his loutish and sometimes violent sexual behavior; the Time's Kennedy Smith article, produced by the Washington bureau, didn't include these alleged episodes. Bureau people later said they were unable to confirm the accounts to the editors' "satisfaction." '

END OF QUOTE

Does this story remind you of a later prominent politically connected family's scandals involving attacks on less prominent women and statements such as "drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find?" But I digress - into that which the Times, for all its' "high minded liberalness," has enabled and de facto encouraged.

So it appears the Times has a history of writing hit pieces on the non-rich, particularly when the well-heeled are involved in some way. In contrast, the tabloids also write about the failures of the poor - but they also highlight the successes of the sons and daughters of the non-privileged, often as a result of their serving in the military. Frankly, I don't believe the Times understands that it has a problem with covering the news fairly and perceptively. It will take some even greater criticisms and financial upheavals before The Gray Lady "gets
it."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1489 words, total size 10 kb.

BLM Trashes Bundy Ranch

Timothy Birdnow


The Bureau of Land Management trashed the Bundy ranch as they left.

If they will not pay compensation the Bundy's should withold it from their real estate taxes.

America is becoming a banana republic.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 455 >>
151kb generated in CPU 0.42, elapsed 3.3744 seconds.
29 queries taking 3.11 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.