Kurt Schichter Tries New Rules On Climate Alarmists. Good Luck, Kurt!

In years past I have noted that the entire global cooling...no global warming...no global climate change cult was a giant hoax.  I also pointed out that the real purpose of this hoax was to separate you from your freedom and money.  As usual, Kurt Schlichter has said it better, though.  Today at Townall.com Kurt Schlichter has written a typically snarky post entitled Climate Change Is A Hoax that exposes the entire climate change scam without using the typically dry charts and facts.

What? No charts and facts?

Well, no, and why should he use charts and facts.  Climate Change True Believers pay no attention to facts or science anyway, so who knows...maybe shark will penetrate their dense brains.  Or not.

Here is Schlichter's take:

Understand that the term “climate change” does not refer to actual meteorological phenomena but, rather, to the sordid rat-king of lies, scams and power grabs that we are commanded to accept as pagan gospel lest we burn to a crisp or drown or suffer...whatever the Armageddon du jour is. When you say “climate change is a grift,” and you should as often as possible, you are pointing out that this green-on-the-outside/red-on-the-inside fake frenzy is really just a set of intertwined grifts transparently designed to separate you from your freedom and your property in the name of somehow adjusting the weather.

Observing that “climate change” is steaming garbage served in a dirty ashtray is not disputing that the climate changes. That the climate is not static, and never could be static, is one of the myriad reasons that this whole idea is ridiculous. The planet gets hotter, it gets colder, sometimes quickly, sometimes over eons, and there are a bunch of reasons why, like the sun and volcanos. Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors, but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one. Of course, if they really cared about carbon, they would be up in arms about China and India, which are upping their output while we are slashing ours. Yet the object of their ire is your New York strip. Gosh, does that seem consistent with 1) someone truly concerned about atmospheric carbon, or 2) someone who trembles with joy at the notion of bossing around you rubes out in gun/Jesusland?

Apparently Schlichter has had much the same experience as I have. Note that the earth has been much hotter than today, and mammalian life survived. Withing the time that man has been on earth, it has also been much colder, and man has survived.

The underlying premise of their claims seems to be that there is a “right” temperature for the earth; watch them sputter when you enquire about that perfect setting for Earth’s thermostat. Remember, if you ask questions you hate “science.” If they did stop telling you how you hate “science” long enough to respond, they might explain that of course there’s no perfect temperature – it’s not like LA, where it’s always 72 degrees.

Another clue, in case you hadn't noticed, is that no matter whether it is global warming, global cooling, or just global climate change, the solution is always the same:

That’s another big red flag – have you noticed how “science” always tells us that the only possible response to the climate hullabaloo is to give liberals exactly what they always wanted anyway? How lucky are the leftists to have had an existential problem drop in their laps where the only solution is to give them everything they could not otherwise convince us to give them? What a remarkable coincidence!

And what’s also weird is how nothing that we must do right now no time to debate it’s a crisis think o’ the children in any way inconveniences or calls for sacrifices from our climate crisis-pushing elite. Boy, they really scored with climate change – if they were going to manufacture a crisis in order to get the power and money they craved, how would they do it any differently?

I have pointed these things out, using charts, graphs, and science. Anthony Watts, a meteorologist has pointed these things out at his site Watts Up With That?. S. Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, and others have raised the alarm that the climate cult is a great hoax. Still the climate hoaxers keep marching on. Maybe it is time to try a different approach. Since these people do not understand science, and why would they, having never studied it, maybe they can be reached by a different approach. Good luck Kurt. I wish you the best.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church Beclowns Itself Again

I have been a member now of a Congregation of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod for a couple of years now.  When I meet another member of my new church home, they usually ask, of course, where I was before.  I always explain that I am an escapee from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA).  They always nod in understanding.  Today, over at the American Thinker, Don Fisher, Jr. has a post explaining that the Evangelical part is just notional, not really binding on the church body at all. His post is entitled The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Misinterpreting Christ's Teachings Yet Again.

You can read the whole thing, but let me explain what the word "evangelical" actually means.  Many people think it means something like conservative, or fundamentalist.  But it doesn't mean any of those things, although someone who is indeed "evangelical" could be described that way.  The word "evangelical" means, according to Merriam-Webster's first definition: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels. The ELCA has strayed far from the Gospel.  Now, they want to become a "sanctuary church."  They, of course, hang their latest invention on the admonition in Jeremiah 22:3 to "Do no wrong to the resident alien."  But you must first understand that a "resident alien" is one who has applied under law for a visa to live here, and possibly to work here.  These resident aliens have Constitutional rights extended BECAUSE they have taken steps to enter the country legally.  Illegal aliens have not, and therefore their rights are less under our laws.

Please go read the entire post.  If you want to find out more, the ELCA has a website, that you may view at your peril.  However, if you want to find out what real Christianity is, go to Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, where we still believe that we are saved by Grace alone, Faith alone, and Scripture alone. One may not add to, or subtract from one jot or tittle in the Holy Scripture. The ELCA seems to be doing exactly that.

It Looks Like the Stupid Party Is About To Act Stupidly

On Wednesday, Mark Overstreet had a very long article telling Republicans not to cave to the Democrat demands for universal background checks and red flag laws.  The reasons include that it would be another stupid move by the stupid party, and would virtually ensure a Democrat victory in the Senate and White House.

More importantly though, these laws are terribly Unconstitutional.  Further, they wouldn't do anything to stop crime, because criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.  So, what in the heck or Democrats, who are not giving up their guns, trying to do.  Mark Overstreet has the answers in  Why Republicans Shouldn't Cave To Democrats On Guns:

‘Universal’ Checks Are Really About Gun Confiscation

...snip...

However, almost all mass murders with guns are committed by people who pass background checks to get guns. As Professor James Alan Fox, the nation’s leading criminologist in the study of murder, has explained, “Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally.”

Furthermore, “universal” checks would not be universal, because most other criminals—who commit the vast majority of murders with guns—get guns by methods to which a background check requirement is irrelevant. The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics has repeatedly found in surveys of state prison inmates imprisoned for gun crimes that most—90 percent, in the most recent survey—got guns by stealing them, by buying stolen or illegally trafficked guns on the black market, or from acquaintances such as “straw purchasers”—people who can pass a background check, who illegally buy guns for people who cannot pass checks, and who would still be able to do so if a “universal” checks requirement were imposed.

So, if all this is true, and I have written about for as long as I can remember, what is it the Democrats are really after? Again, after a long rehashing of the history of American gun control, he finally gets to the real goal:

Democrats are going after guns for two reasons. First, since the advent of the big-government Democrat Party under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, they have increasingly opposed people having arms with which they might most easily defend themselves against government overreach.

After imposing the NFA and GCA, primarily to restrict guns particularly useful for defensive purposes, Democrats in the late 1970s and 1980s supported campaigns to get handguns banned. In 1986, when most members of the House of Representatives were not present, Democrats snuck into the otherwise favorable Firearms Owners’ Protection Act an amendment banning newly manufactured fully-automatic firearms. In 1989, they began campaigning to ban various semi-automatic firearms. Democrats also signed amicus briefs supporting the District of Columbia’s handgun ban in Heller.

Second, midway through the Obama administration, “progressives” decided to use “guns” as a core issue around which to rally their voter base.

The next point that Overstreet makes is that the Second Amendment does not protect sporting weapons, except as those may be useful for war, but it does protect the individual possession and carrying and use of weapons of war.This is something I have argued in these pages, as well as David Codrea and others. The Second Amendment is designed to produce a population armed with the latest small arms carried by the most recent soldiers into battle. That would probably be something like the M4 carbine and the M9 Pistol.

***Rant***As an aside, here is one way to ensure it happens: At age 18, an   able bodied person is drafted into the Army, Navy, Marine Corps or Air Force for two years. They are trained, and, at the end of their two years, take home with them their M4 and M9. Every 6 months for the next twenty years, they muster out with their weapon to receive additional training, including marksmanship. If someone is a conscientious objector, or otherwise doesn't want to be drafted, they also can never vote. There would of course be provisions that our current standing forces would necessarily be reduced.  There would also be provisions for those disabled, or not able to be trained.  But many of the disabled can none the less perform as communications, clerks, or other functions in the armed forces, and who says that a person can not defend themselves, so many of them would have to go through weapons training.***/Rant***

Please go read the whole article.  Federalist articles are longer than is typical at other sites, but they are also more informative.  Oh, and please write or call your Congressman and Senators and tell them you do not want them voting for further gun control.  If anything, they should be putting in legislation to repeal what is already illegally in the law.

The Left Has Stopped Trying To Persuade You To Give Up Your Rights. They Are Just Going To Take Them.

Today, at Townhall.com, Kurt Schlichter has a post about the dumb, as in stupid, arguments being advanced about gun control by the left.  Schlicter's article is entitled interestingly enough, Dumb Arguments About Gun Control. If you have been a faithful reader, and I know there are at least 2 of you out there, you have read a debunking of every idiotic idea the Left has come up with to try and talk you out of your right to arms.  Remember the "but if it saves just one life" and the "do it for the children" arguments?

The change that is happening now is that the Left is no longer trying to talk you out of your rights, and instead they are saying now that if elected, they will just take them. The have given up on convincing you because it has become clear that you are not going to willingly give up your rights.  This should come as no surprise because the Left has always been a totalitarian operation.  They have simply been lying in hopes of catching you off guard.

Not-Senile-At-All Joe Biden inarticulately joined the “Take All The Gunz” chorus the other day, joining the rest of the socialists, socialists lite and fake Indians who make up the Democrat slate in thinking we’ll just hand-over our arms because of their wanting us to. There are good arguments against their position, including not wanting to rip our country apart with a bunch of Waco redos, but I don’t argue except for money, and I especially don’t argue about my gun rights since they are not up for debate. If I were to argue over the right to keep and bear arms, my position would be simple. Fifty percent of my “argument” would consist of the naughty word the media squees over Beto now uses when babbling about disarming us, plus the word “you.”

The elite, including their pet media, are no longer lying about how they are not going to try to take our guns. They are now all in on disarming you. We need not worry that Donald Trump will roll over on gun rights because that’s political suicide, and a hara kiri move that would leave his family at the mercy of a Democrat Department of Justice who will no doubt be much less picky with his people about who they charge with crimes then they have been with Democrat faves. However, there are weak-hearted GOP congressmen and senators who would love to surrender because that’s what squishes who read the NYT and respect it do. They need to fear our electoral wrath. They need to know that we will destroy them at the ballot box if they allow their cowardice to bring our country to the brink of chaos by empowering the same folks who brought you Spygate, and who let Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit off, prosecute millions of Normal Americans for “crimes” that are legal acts today and that the Constitution says are our natural rights.

No gun bans, ever. You feel us?

Of course, you should read the entire article, but you can take action as well. Go to the Gun Owners of America site and take action to tell Republicans to not go squishy on gun rights. If you have been keeping up with gun news, you may know that many Republicans are feeling the pressure to pass gun control. We need to let them know that the gun grabbers will never vote for them in any case,  But if they vote to infringe our rights, those of use who WOULD normally vote for them, will sit out the election.  We are their base, and any politician who votes against his or her base can not survive.

Milano Gets Taken To The Woodshed

So, Alyssa Millano got a virtual ear full from Ted Cruz on gun control in a post by Leah Barkoukis at Townhall.com entitled Ted Cruz Launches a Tweetstorm on Alyssa Milano Over Guns, Bible.

Actress and liberal activist Alyssa Milano got quite the earful from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) after she posed a question asking if someone could “cite which passage of the Bible God states it is a God-given right to own a gun.”

This is not as uncommon as one might suspect, as people with little intelligence and few debating skills believe it is clever to propose that God did not say in the Bible that we have a right to guns, per se. However, Cruz chose to take her seriously, and answered her both seriously and correctly.

Among the Ten Commandments in Exodus, Chapter 20 is this one:

13 “You shall not murder.

Cruz correctly notes that the commandment to not murder includes also the commandment to defend your life and the lives of your neighbor and loved ones under your care.  Of course how you do that is up to you.   Each person must constantly evaluate the risks and decide for himself what he needs to defend his life, and provide a defense for his family and neighbors.

Milano tweeted back at Cruz:

She also pointed him to 1 Peter 4:8, which says: "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."

Unfortunately, for Milano, the context of the scriptural reference she makes is important. The book of 1 Peter is about dealing with the suffering and persecution of the Christian communities in Asia minor which was then prevalent.  Note that one should suffer for the Gospel, but that does not mean that one should suffer death because a criminal attacks.  The admonition to defend life still holds.  Jesus came to fulfill the law.

At one point the author does say that we should love one another. However, loving one another does not detract from being prepared to defend one another. Indeed, preparing to defend one another shows great love for the other person.  Again, context matters.

Please read the whole story, and hope that Milano meets Cruz in person.  She would be taken to the woodshed indeed.

Antenna Up

I think I have mentioned before that I am an Amateur Radio operator with a General Class license.  I haven't spent much time lately on the air, but with Hurricane Dorian bearing down, I put up an antenna in order to monitor Dorian.  According to American Partisan you can monitor on 20 meter and 40 meters if you have a short wave radio. The specific frequencies are 14.325 MHz and 7.268 MHz. As they say, you can listen in, but unless you have active traffic to pass, stay off the air. Traffic is normally passed by the members of the National Traffic Service, who actively train to be able to pass traffic in an emergency by passing routine traffic on certain frequencies ever day. The type of traffic passed in a hurricane would typically be welfare of individuals who have been affected. People want to know that their loved ones are okay.

At 4:30 pm local time in Raleigh, NC, the hurricane was had 150 mile an hour winds and was moving eastward at 1 mile per hour.

Reaching For Enlightenment: Anthony J. DeBlasi

In keeping with the theme in yesterday's post, I have another, also from the American Thinker entitled Reaching For Enlightenment by Anthony J. DeBlasi. DeBlasi makes the point that we can only go so far with reason, and the intellectual pursuits. While that may seem a vast territory, in the end, a leap of faith is required to attain true enlightenment. The limits of science are well known, in that science can not explain how or why the universe exists. Oh, they have theories, but that is all they are. We are, as DeBlasi says, just guessing.

Compensating for that spiritual blindness with brain-powered “enlightenment” requires an impossible act: the substitution of self for God, an act that mostly leads to misery, not progress. For it feeds an egomania, especially among scientists, social reformers, even theologians who, unlike honest artists and music makers – to bring up a sharp contrast – are too proud to admit that the products of their thought and designs have no more real substance than Rembrandt’s lighting or Ravel’s orchestral color. At best their facts fit together as well as the tile-bits in a Byzantine façade and their constructs encompass life as well, tone-wise, as a Brahms symphony.

Admit it or not, at root level, everyone is guessing – a truism missed entirely by those who have no use for truth, including the value of human life, yet insist on lording over people and controlling their lives, divested of even a shred of humility. This skipping over what it means to be human and mortal while reaching for what is best for human life closes the mind to the nature of reality and predictably leads to an endless return to Square One.

The emphasis is mine.

 A pastor I knew once said to me that all sin (sin is a word for missing the mark. An archer aims for his arrow to penetrate the center of the bulls eye on the target. But if he misses, his arrow goes somewhere other than the bulls eye This missing of the target is the concept of sin.) can be found in the First Commandment from Exodus Chapter 20 (NKJV)

20 And God spoke all these words, saying:

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of [a]bondage.

3 “You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor [b]serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting[c] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

The Pastors main idea was that if we as people got the First Commandment right, all the other Commandments would be superfluous. But we can not get even that right.

In the book of Exodus, the Lord literally brought the people of Israel out of bondage in Egypt. Good for the Israelites, but what does it have to say to us today? The truth is that if you let him, he wants to bring each of us out of bondage to the many idols we set up for ourselves. Money is important, but if we let it rule our lives, it becomes an idol. We ourselves can become an idol if we fail to recognize that He is the ultimate truth. And as Admiral Byrd wrote in his book "Alone":

“approaching the final enlightenment, how little one really has to know or feel sure about...”

In Genesis, the story of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden is a story about people assuming the role of God. But we are not God. In the physical world, we do not have the intimate insights that God has. Too often we miscalculate, and miss the mark in all sorts of ways. We need to remember:

For mortals, the answer to the question – Which is the true reality? – is far less important than the lessons to be drawn from circling the truth. Taking Lesson One, that we are guessing, and Lesson Two, that we are agents in a pliant world – contending with the evil of heartless men and women, it must quickly be added – we can proceed to move in life as though it is a divine journey, guided by time-tested tenets that transcend every generation and are madness to discard. History provides ample evidence that people cannot be their own gods and shows that there are really no supermen or superwomen to take the place of our Creator.

To cut to the quick: when we know that we don’t know, we can see that because every system of thought and action begins with a belief, a leap of faith, we may start by abiding in God without the mental gyrations of “proof” deemed necessary. For they who don’t believe can dismantle every “proof” and those who believe need no “proof.” We may opt for the the goodness of Creation that we form a part of, since all that is left in the way is not a body of data, a set of theories, a political inclination, not even the facts of suffering and the fear of death that attend being mortal in an uncertain world but, as with rebellious children, a foolishly stubborn will.

As always, read the whole article, and ponder. And really, read Genesis, and then read Dennis Prager's book The Rational Bible: Genesis. Believe, or don't, but do not dismiss it without first investigating it.