Archive for July, 2008

Man Opens Fire at Tenn. Church, Killing 2 Injuring 7

Monday, July 28th, 2008

Whereas I don’t see eye to eye with the doctrine of the Unitarian Universalist, this is a horrible tragedy and we need to pray for the victims and their families.

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — A gunman opened fire at a church youth performance Sunday, killing two people, including a man witnesses called a hero for shielding others from a shotgun blast.

Seven adults were also injured but no children were harmed at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. Members said they dove under pews or ran from the building when the shooting started.

Congregants tackled the gunman.

Jim D. Adkisson, 58, was charged with first-degree murder and held on $1 million bail, according to city spokesman Randy Kenner, who did not know if Adkisson had an attorney.

The slain man was identified as Greg McKendry, 60, a longtime church member and usher. Church member Barbara Kemper told The Associated Press that McKendry “stood in the front of the gunman and took the blast to protect the rest of us.”

Linda Kraeger, 61, died at the University of Tennessee Medical Center a few hours after the shooting, Kenner said.

Five people remained hospitalized, all in critical or serious condition. Two others were treated and released.

Original Link.

A Third of British Muslim Students Justify Killing for Religion

Monday, July 28th, 2008

More news from the so-called “Religion of Peace”, aka Islam.

(IsraelNN.com) A new report released Monday by the London-based Center for Social Cohesion reveals that British Muslim students are not far behind their Middle Eastern peers in their social values, especially those who are members of on-campus Islamic societies.

The report, entitled “Islam on Campus: A Survey of UK Student Opinion,” reveals that approximately a third of those surveyed supported the idea that one can kill in the name of religion, a finding that has raised alarm bells.

The Center drew its information from field interviews as well as a YouGov poll of 1,400 students.

“Universities should be places where people of all faiths and backgrounds can come together in an environment of mutual tolerance,” said Center director Douglas Murray.

The study also found that 43 percent of Muslim students said they felt that Islam was compatible with secularism.

Among the Muslim students surveyed, 32 percent said killing in the name of religion could be justified. However, almost double that number, 60 percent of those who are active members of Islamic student organizations, supported the idea.

Original Link.

California Homosexuals’ Boycott Fizzles

Monday, July 28th, 2008

Californians are working hard with available resources to promote a constitutional measure that would protect traditional marriage. The measure will be on the November ballot. Doug Manchester, who owns two luxury hotels in San Diego — one of them the Manchester Grand Hyatt — made a major donation to the drive to gain passage of the constitutional amendment. Homosexual activists then called for a boycott of the hotel — but Bryan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage-California says it has actually convinced more people to stay at the hotel.

“The hotel was sold out on Saturday, the day after they launched the so-called boycott,” Brown points out.

In addition, the boycott prompted supporters of the amendment to contact Brown’s organization. “The number of donations is greatly increasing,” Brown adds. “We’re seeing a lot more, smaller donors who are just outraged at the tactics the other side is using as far as trying to silence and intimidate and really go after free speech.”

Original Link.

South Dakota Abortionists Evade Work to Avoid Law

Friday, July 25th, 2008

Developments ensue in South Dakota after an 8th Circuit Court ruling upholding a woman’s right to know law involving abortion.

Dr. Allan Unruh of Vote Yes for Life notes some of the requirements. “Abortionists who fly in have to inform a woman prior to an abortion, in writing, that she’s terminating the life of a separate, unique, whole, living human being…that she’s giving up her rights to her child, which is protected by the United States Constitution and the South Dakota Constitution…that she has a much greater risk of clinical depression and suicide, as well as suicidal ideation [and] that she also has a risk of infection and hemorrhaging and infertility afterwards and subsequent pregnancies with premature birth,” Unruh explains.

Plus, the abortionist must do a sonogram of the child and show it to the mother. Violators face potential civil and criminal charges.

The court’s ruling had an impact at the Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood facility, according to Unruh. “Monday the abortionists normally fly in to do these abortions. There were five women waiting to get abortions at 8 o’clock, and there was a big sign on Planned Parenthood that said closed, and nobody showed up,” Unruh recounts. “At 10 o’clock, there was still nobody there yet, but the pro-life counselors were around these women who all ended up leaving.”

Unruh is convinced abortionists do not want to comply with the law but also do not want to face the consequences.

Original Link

Poll: Voters Have Misgivings About Obama

Friday, July 25th, 2008

While Democrat Barack Obama continues to lead Republican rival John McCain in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, the survey also reveals that voters have some serious misgivings about an Obama presidency.

In the poll, 47 percent of respondents said they prefer Obama to win, compared to 41 percent for McCain. That’s the same lead Obama enjoyed a month ago.

But when asked which candidate would be better when it comes to being knowledgeable and experienced, 53 percent said McCain and only 19 percent chose Obama.

Asked who would be the better commander in chief, again 53 percent said McCain, while 25 percent said Obama.

Original Link.

“To Conservatives in a Pro-Gay Culture” by Andrew Tallman

Friday, July 25th, 2008

Two different people recently contacted me for my advice on virtually identical situations that arose in the wake of California’s decision to solemnize same-gender relationships.

One woman was concerned about her job in a pro-gay workplace because a friend and co-worker had been disappointed with her inadequately enthusiastic response to his announcement that he and his lover were driving to California to get married. She wanted help expressing her real love for this man while still standing firm in her beliefs.

Another man’s company had created a pro-gay workplace initiative and then solicited employee feedback on it. He, too, was concerned about his job, but he also felt compelled to say something consistent with his conservative Christian beliefs.

Since I expect such difficulties to become far more common, I’ll share with you the principles I advised them to use.

Principle 1: Apologize in advance.

In confrontation, people mistakenly think that playing the “big fish” role will portray strength, perhaps even intimidating the other. In reality, humility best expresses strength, whereas bluster generally indicates weakness. Insecure people always get this backwards. Only the strong can control themselves enough to take the humble approach, and there is no more humble yet powerful thing to do than apologizing at the outset.

Principle 2: Say it before they do.

Generally, we try to hide anything that makes us or our position look weak. Not only is this dishonest, but such things tend to come out anyhow, and it’s always better to control the release of information than to be caught by it. Besides, it’s very disarming to have someone plainly divulge the worst about themselves. So admit anything you’re tempted to conceal, such as your religion, your personal biases, and especially your worst fears. Admitting feared reactions can often prevent them because people dislike being predictable.

Principle 3: Get permission.

Whenever you anticipate a negative reaction, soliciting permission to proceed means the other person has agreed to share responsibility for whatever difficulties ensue. Luckily, this is the easiest one of all because almost no one declines. Curiosity virtually compels their consent.

Principle 4: Be hurt, not angry.

Our instinct for confrontation is to be angry, sarcastic, and harsh. Such tactics will usually make the situation worse. Whoever is perceived as the victim or most hurt gets the most sympathy, regardless of the legitimacy of their pain. Just consider how much more ground homosexuals have gained by displaying hurt at things they oppose than by displaying fury at them. The paradox is that by trying to be tough (usually through anger) you suffer marginalization, whereas by allowing yourself to look weak (usually through sadness) you get influence.

The best way to show hurt in this case is by referencing a pain your audience already understands: that of being forced to be in the closet. Just as gays are coming out of the closet, moral conservatives feel like we’re being forced into it. The social consequences are exactly parallel, except that for us they are rising whereas for gays they are receding. Though some in the pro-gay culture celebrate this, most who have felt this anxiety will recoil at the idea of imposing what they have suffered on others.

Principle 5: Make relationship your main goal.

Winning is nice, but relationships matter more than winning. Fortunately, the best way to have a chance of winning is by cultivating relationships and the influence that comes with them. Real relationships require honesty, vulnerability, and the sort of respect which realizes that friendship cannot be conditional upon the universal acquiescence of the other person to my values. This principle obviously goes both ways.

Read the rest of the article here.

“Science Almighty Demands No Restrictions” by Chuck Colson

Friday, July 25th, 2008

The news is filled lately with stories about the promise of adult stem-cell therapy. Last fall, for example, researchers reported they successfully produced stem cells from adult skin cells, bypassing the need for embryonic stem cells. The Los Angeles Times reported recently that treatment using umbilical and marrow cells healed a boy of a fatal skin disease. Doctors said the treatment’s success may move that disease “off the incurable list” for other patients.

And the Family Research Council just released a report about more successes. “Currently, peer-reviewed studies have documented 73 different conditions in humans where patient health has been improved through adult stem cell therapy . . . and over 1,400 FDA approved trials are ongoing.”

The paper describes a myriad of therapies, including the regeneration of heart tissue for a man with congestive heart failure; enabling a patient with Type I Diabetes to become insulin-free; and the treatment of a bone-cancer victim, who is now cancer-free. The report also cites adult stem-cell treatments that could treat trauma injuries and help patients with liver cancer.

Good news, indeed—and good news that we no longer have to wrestle with the moral question of embryonic stem cell research.

Well, not so fast . . . Both candidates for president still favor it, for they are marching to the drumbeat of those who want no restrictions on science.

Michael Kinsley, for example, a columnist who himself suffers from Parkinson’s, said bluntly, “This issue [that is, embryonic stem cell research] will not go away.”

“Scientifically,” Kinsley says, “it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up . . . Every year that goes by, science opens new doors.”

I hope you see the problem: Just because science opens a door does not mean we should walk through it. In fact, science rarely asks the question, “Should we?” It only asks the question, “Can we?”

Kinsley’s response reflects a certain worldview: specifically, “scientism,” the belief that scientific investigation is the only means to knowledge and progress. As such, it must be free from restraints or interference. Scientists—not political leaders, and certainly not morally concerned citizens—ought to determine what is or is not permissible in the laboratory.

In addition, scientism, given its materialistic grounding, rejects any appeal to the sanctity of human life. The worldview of scientism teaches that we humans are merely an interesting and potentially useful collection of cells and genetic material.

The problem is, if a human embryo only has worth insofar as it can be used for others, then what worth does a person have who is dependent on others—say, someone who is permanently disabled? See where that leaves Kinsley and all the rest of us? Vulnerable.

It is certain that the next president will revisit federal policy on embryo-destructive research. Even though it is not needed, proponents are not going to back down. That is why Christians, who believe in the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, need to continue vigorous opposition to research on living human beings. If we do not, who is next in a world with science unchecked by ethical restraints?

Original Link.

Dem Senate Majority Leader: $5-A-Gallon Gas Is No Problem

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

If you have not contacted your senator and representative, you need to do so now.

WASHINGTON – Asked if he thinks he has the votes to block legislation lifting the moratorium on offshore oil drilling, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: “We will have to wait and see.”

Wait and see?

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi oppose lifting the ban on domestic oil drilling – and they are hoping the American people will just quietly accept gas prices topping $5 a gallon or even higher.

They say the key to lowering the price is conservation.

WND’s Joseph Farah is not accepting that and is organizing efforts to flood Congress with emails, phone calls, letters and text messages demanding action that can lead the country in the direction of energy independence.

“Right now, that means lifting the moratorium,” he says. “That’s the first step. If we can’t agree on that as Americans today, then we are in for a long period of national economic decline. If we can’t push Congress to do the right thing with even a strong majority of Democrats behind us, then this country is simply no longer a place where the will of the people means anything.”

Farah’s goal is to force Congress to act in the next 73 days – before it adjourns for the year.

“There’s an election coming up one month after that adjournment date, and even the most entrenched incumbents know how sensitive this issue is,” says Farah. “Now is the time to let them hear you.”

Original Link.

Proposals Would Give Government Unprecedented Control Over Our Kids

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

No one, outside of my wife and I, know what is best for my kids. I don’t need the government to tell me how to raise my kinds.

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to debate two bills that could give the federal government unprecedented control over the way parents raise their children – even providing funds for state workers to come into homes and screen babies for emotional and developmental problems.

The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343) are two bills geared toward military and families who fall below state poverty lines. The measures are said to be a way to prevent child abuse, close the achievement gap in education between poor and minority infants versus middle-class children and evaluate babies younger than 5 for medical conditions.

‘Education Begins at Home Act’ – HR 2343

HR 2343 is sponsored by Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., and cosponsored by 55 Democrats and 11 Republicans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the Education Begins at Home Act would cost taxpayers $190 million for state home visiting, plus “such sums as may be necessary” for in-hospital parent education.

While the bill may appear to be well-intentioned, Pediatrician Karen Effrem told WND government provisions in HR 2343 to evaluate children for developmental problems go too far.

“The federal definition of developmental screening for special education also includes what they call socioemotional screening, which is mental health screening,” Dr. Effrem said. “Mental health screening is very subjective no matter what age you do it. Obviously it is incredibly subjective when we are talking about very young children.”

While the program may not be mandatory for low-income and military families, there is no wording in the Education Begins at Home Act requiring parental permission for treatment or ongoing care once the family is enrolled – a point that leads some to ask where parental rights end and the government takes over. Also, critics ask how agents of the government plan to acquire private medical and financial records to offer the home visiting program.

Original Link.

Killings Turn Focus on San Francisco Sanctuary Law

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – The scene repeats itself daily on city streets: a driver gets stuck bumper to bumper, blocking an intersection and preventing another car from turning left.

But authorities say that was enough to cause Edwin Ramos to unload an AK-47 assault weapon on a man and his two sons, killing them.

The deaths immediately drew public outrage, which intensified when authorities revealed that Ramos, 21, is an illegal immigrant who managed to avoid deportation despite previous brushes with the law.

The case has put San Francisco’s liberal politics to the test, setting off a debate over its sanctuary law that shields undocumented immigrants from deportation.

On Wednesday, Ramos pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder in the deaths of Anthony Bologna, 49, and his sons, Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. Bologna and his older son died in the intersection on June 22. His younger son succumbed to his injuries days later.

Shortly after that, police arrested Ramos, a native of El Salvador and reputed member of the Mara Salvatrucha gang, known as MS-13. Investigators believe he was the gunman, though two other men were seen in the car with him.

The heinousness of the deaths has put pressure on San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris to seek the death penalty against Ramos. Harris, who campaigned on an anti-death penalty platform and has never pursued capital punishment during her more than four years in office, has declined to say exactly how she intends to proceed.

“This case has been charged as a special circumstance case,” making it eligible for the death penalty, spokeswoman Erica Derryck said. “No additional announcement has been made about this aspect of the charging.”

Ramos’ attorney, Robert Amparan, said his client was not the shooter. “They have the wrong person,” he said.

Amparan declined to discuss details of the case, but he denied his client was involved in gang activity and said Ramos entered the country legally. Federal authorities contend Ramos is undocumented.

The victims’ family learned that Ramos had been arrested at least three times before the shooting and evaded deportation, largely because of San Francisco’s sanctuary status.

The policy, adopted in 1989 by the city’s elected Board of Supervisors, bars local officials from cooperating with federal authorities in their efforts to deport illegal immigrants.

Officials in the juvenile offenders agency interpreted the law to also shield underage felons from deportation by refusing to report undocumented ones. Mayor Gavin Newsom said he rescinded the policy regarding juvenile offenders after learning about it in May.

The Bolognas’ relatives say Ramos apparently benefited from the policy when he reportedly was convicted twice of felonies in 2003 and 2004 but never was turned over for deportation.

“All San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance has done is bring violence and death to this once-great city,” said Frank Kennedy, who is married to Anthony Bologna’s sister.

Kennedy called for an investigation of the sanctuary policy and demanded “prosecutions for violating the law.”

Meanwhile, local and federal authorities are pointing fingers at each other over Ramos’ most recent arrest before the shooting.

Ramos was arrested in late March with another man after police discovered a gun used in a double homicide in the car Ramos was driving.

The district attorney’s office decided not to file charges against Ramos, and he was released April 2 even though he was in the process of being deported after his application for legal residence was denied, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Original Link.

WaPo: As Obama Makes Gaffe After Gaffe, Let’s Talk About McCain’s ‘Flubs’

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

Remember when McCain said that he had visited all 57 States during his campaign? Then there was the time that McCain said “Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.” Oh, and what about the time that McCain said “10,000 people died” in the Kansas tornadoes (death toll really 12). Crazy stuff, eh? Wait, let’s not forget when McCain said that Arkansas was a “nearby” state to Kentucky. Man was that a major flub showing a complete lack of knowledge of simple geography.

Hmm, wait a minute. I might be making a flub myself, here. Didn’t Obama make all those gaffes (and many, many more)? Why, yes, he did. So, why, amidst an ever growing list of Obama flubs and gaffes, did the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz just pen a story titled “Is McCain’s Age Showing? Tongues Wag Over Flubs”? It’s as if the Obamessiah has spoken in flawless, if not mellifluous, English with nary a gaffe uttered throughout the campaign.

Read the rest of the article here.

“Dawkins, Darwin, and the Battle of Worldviews” by Albert Mohler

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

The odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks is one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics — i.e. a miracle.
It is therefore safe to say, the odds of the necessary amino acids coming together in the correct sequence to form a “simple cell” are akin to blowing up an old fashion print shop and as the type rained down from the sky, it landed in the exact order to create the complete unabridged dictionary. Or as another author put it: “…the probability of spontaneous generation ‘is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.'”
In others words, it is virtually impossible. Now take the fact that we are not made up of simple cells, but of complex ones, and the fact that we are not single celled organisms, but made up of complex series of millions of cells and the odds of this happening by accident are so astronomical that it is completely impossible.
To date, no evolutionist has been able to disprove or find any flaws in my statistical evidence.
See these articles for further information:
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 1.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 2.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 3.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 4.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 5.

Dawkins, pleased to be known as “Darwin’s Rotweiller,” has been given a new three-part television series in Britain, known as “Dawkins on Darwin.” The British press is fawning in its applause, and Dawkins appears to be in rare form.

As reporter Kate Muir gushes:

Richard Dawkins is that rare specimen, a public intellectual, a knight of the mind who goes into battle against the ignorance and foolhardiness of the populace. Unlike the French, who worship their public intellectuals, giving them pet names such as les intellos, and airing them regularly on serious television and in print, the British like to shove academics into a musty corner, or laugh at them. This was not always the case: the Victorians, with their public lectures and royal societies, gloried in debate and celebrated the thrills of fresh knowledge.

That is a fairly representative understanding of the elite media. Those who do not accept the Gospel according to Darwin (or Dawkins) are simply ignorant, invincibly ignorant perhaps, and Dawkins is thus “a knight of the mind” who battles ignorance.

That approach is a blatant attempt to dismiss all debate over Darwinism or evolutionary theory. The methodology is simple to grasp — just reclassify all opposition to evolution as ignorance and establish evolutionary theory as the only acceptable worldview. Muir paints Dawkins as an apostle for atheism, rescuing the public from ignorance. “In these barren, thoughtless times, Dawkins gives people something substantial to chew on,” she writes. “His audience is surprisingly grateful, and also relieved to see someone slapping creationists about and tossing them into the primordial soup, as well as explaining atheism positively.”

This is the approach Dawkins himself admits taking, as Muir reports:

Dawkins says that natural selection is “the most important idea to occur to the human mind”, the slow change of species over millions of ideas disproving the religious theory of intelligent design by God.

That we are still trying to sell evolution to a large part of the public bothers him. “It is weird in many ways that natural selection is still debated,” he says. “But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it.” Indeed, Dawkins refuses to share a stage with creationists. “I don’t like giving them the oxygen of respectability, the feeling that if they’re up on a platform debating with a scientist, there must be real disagreement. One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein’s theory of relativity.

At this point Dawkins is characteristically helpful in exposing the real worldview of evolution. In his words, evolution disproves “the religious theory of intelligent design by God.”

Original Link.

‘Truth Truck’ Prevents Abortion in St. Louis

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

I wonder how many abortions could have been prevented in years past if the women had seen what REALLY happens to the baby………..

Operation Rescue’s “Truth Truck,” which sports large photos of aborted babies on its sides, was trapped in a situation in St. Louis that turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

Truck driver Mark Gietzen pulled the truck onto the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. Operation Rescue’s spokesperson Cheryl Sullinger picks up the story.

“Things went into complete bedlam, actually, at the abortion clinic,” Sullinger shares. “The guards ran over and shut the gates. They called the police and…actually, by shutting the gates, prevented patients from entering the abortion clinic for a considerable amount of time.”

Police pointed out there was no signage restricting the parking lot to abortion clinic staff and patients only. “After a little discussion, they opened the gates and released the Truth Truck, and everyone on the street cheered because they thought that was an amazing thing,” Sullinger notes.

According to Sullinger, the reality is that in trapping the truck behind a closed gate, more people saw it than otherwise would have, giving Gietzen additional time to minister to people entering the clinic.

“He was able to stay in the parking lot longer than he would have been able to, and women who were actually entering the clinic for abortions were checking the truck out and seeing the truth about what was going to happen to their babies in there,” Sullinger explains. “And so, what [Planned Parenthood] meant for bad ended up being a good thing — and so we’re happy about that.”

After police pointed out the driver had done nothing illegal, the gate was opened and the truck exited, only to be greeted by a rousing cheer from pro-life demonstrators.

Original Link

“Gore’s Plan Just a Dream” by Jack Kelly

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

Former Vice President Al Gore and his entourage arrived at Constitutional Hall in Washington D.C. July 17 for his speech on global warming in a caravan consisting of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevrolet Suburban — not the most fuel efficient vehicles Detroit ever made.

“The driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore’s wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left,” noted Mark Block of Americans for Prosperity.

Al Gore wants you to do as he says, not as he does. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported last month that Mr. Gore used as much electricity last year at his mansion in Nashville — one of four homes he owns — as 19 average American homes do. Mr. Gore frequently travels between his homes and to speaking engagements by private jet — which, on a per passenger basis, emits four times the greenhouse gases of a commercial jet.

In his speech at Constitution Hall, Mr. Gore called for a crash program to convert the entire U.S. electric grid to carbon-free sources of energy within ten years. That’s “ridiculous,” said Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH).

To get an idea of how ridiculous, consider this data from the Energy Information Administration. In 2006 (the last year for which complete data is available), 49 percent of our electricity was generated by coal-fired plants; 20 percent from natural gas, and 1.5 percent from oil. That is, more than 70 percent of all the electricity we have now is generated by the fossil fuels Mr. Gore wants to get rid of.

Of the remainder, two thirds is generated by nuclear plants (19 percent overall), but Mr. Gore doesn’t want to increase our reliance on nuclear power. He wants to rely on “renewables” which currently account for just shy of ten percent of electric power generation. But more than 70 percent of that is hydroelectric power, and there are only so many places where we can build dams. The “green” sources Mr. Gore prefers — solar, wind, geothermal — combined produced only 2.3 percent of our electricity. Mr. Gore didn’t mention that he’s invested heavily in companies which produce “green” energy. Neither did the journalists who covered his speech.

The power grid already is strained by the unwillingness of Democrats to construct electric power plants of any kind. On the day of Mr. Gore’s speech, CNN reported electric power costs in Maryland and the District of Columbia have risen 46 percent in the last two years. Experts fear there could be widespread brownouts within three years as the demand for electricity exceeds the ability to supply it. And this is without the additional demands that would be imposed on the grid by all electric or plug-in hybrid-electric cars, which in the intermediate term offer the only way (other than a hair curling depression) to reduce significantly our use of gasoline.

As Mr. Gore was urging his audience at Constitution Hall to forego the electricity he uses so lavishly, the Physics & Society Forum, an arm of the American Physical Society, an organization which represents nearly 50,000 physicists, published a paper by a prestigious scientist that attacked Al Gore’s thesis that man is responsible for global warming.

Lord Moncton of Brenchley, who was the science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, said the computer models the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “grossly overstated” the sensitivity of climate to increases in carbon dioxide.

Mars, Jupiter and Pluto warmed at the same rate as earth, Lord Moncton noted. Since they are not known to have factories or SUVs, he concluded the most recent warming was caused by the sun, not Man.

Lord Moncton’s paper details numerous exaggerations and extensive errors by the IPCC, said Larry Gould, professor of physics at the University of Hartford.

APS Forum Editor Jeffrey Marque said he was opening up his pages to global warming skeptics because of “the considerable presence within the scientific community” of people who don’t accept the global warming thesis. Previously, leaders of APS had said the evidence was “incontrovertible.”

Another scientist who’s changed his mind is David Evans, who constructed climate models for the Australian Greenhouse Office.

“When I started that job in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good,” Mr. Evans said. But “by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role.”

Original Link.

Al-Qaida Shopping eBay for Ambulances

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008

The latest terrorist tactics could include bomb laden ambulances.

LONDON — Members of Britain’s MI5 intelligence service have warned the nation’s cash-strapped National Health Services that dozens of ambulances — along with old police cars and fire engines — are being snapped up by al-Qaida operatives in the United Kingdom to mount suicide bomb attacks, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

So serious is the problem that counter-terrorism officials at the Home Office have written to eBay, the Internet auctioneer, asking them to stop selling emergency service vehicles, equipment and uniforms.

But eBay has insisted it can only halt the sales if a new law is passed by Parliament. That could take many months.

The use of ambulances is of particular concern to Britain’s anti-terror chiefs. They say the tactic has already been used in Iraq with devastating effects.

A report by Lord Carlisle — the government terrorist czar who last month warned about the possibility of private planes being used for an attack on London — has been issued to all of Britain’s 48 police forces warning of the danger of selling off emergency service vehicles.

Lord Carlisle, who works closely with the Terrorism Analysis Centre in London set up since the 9/11 attacks, said ambulances were the ideal weapon of choice for terrorists.

“It is almost rare that police will stop such vehicles on suspicious grounds. An ambulance rigged with high explosives could drive into any ultra-sensitive target like a nuclear power station or even Whitehall,” said a senior MI5 source.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that the risk could be “highly significant” if the law is not tightened.

Original Link.

Media Ignores McCain, in Overdrive for Obama

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008

More media bias…

Barack Obama was swarmed by media as he arrived in Baghdad Monday for a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The same day, Obama’s Republican presidential rival John McCain arrived in Manchester, N.H. As his plane taxied to a stop on the tarmac, he was greeted by just a single reporter and a photographer, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader.

McCain was in the state to speak in Rochester on Tuesday. Despite the media’s apparent lack of interest in the McCain campaign, spokesman Jeff Grappone said staffers were prepared for an “overflow” crowd at the Rochester Opera House.

Meanwhile in the Middle East, the press eagerly followed every step of Obama’s trip to Iraq.

After a stop in the southern city of Basra, his delegation traveled to Baghdad, where a red carpet was unfurled outside Maliki’s residence, The Washington Post and other papers reported.

The press covered Obama’s visit with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, and his meeting with Iraq’s Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi.

Obama later toured the U.S. military hospital inside the Green Zone and took a helicopter ride over Baghdad with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

McCain’s campaign on Tuesday lashed out at the U.S. media’s “fascination” with Obama.

“It’s pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama. Some may even say it’s a love affair,” the Arizona senator’s campaign said in an e-mail.

“The media is in love with Barack Obama. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be funny.”

Original Link.

“A Few More Thoughts on the ‘Swap'” by Michael at Oleh Musings

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008

As anger has cooled here, people have had time to reflect on the recent deal that brought Goldwasser and Regev home to rest, and, while we are glad to have our own back, no one likes the price. The guy at the makolet downstairs says it’s the government’s fault; that we need Golda back because she was more of a man that Olmert will ever be.

I can’t deny the truth of that.

My brother sent me an article by the Conservative Rabbi, and oleh, Daniel Gordis. I don’t have a link to the article yet (I will post it here when I do), but I do want to give you Gordis’s main point:

But if it was a mistake, it was a calculated mistake, a mistake well worth making. It was a mistake worth making when we think about what is the real challenge facing Israel. The challenge facing Israel isn’t to win the war against the Palestinians. The war can’t be won. We can’t eradicate them, and they won’t accept our being here. The challenge that Israel faces is not to move towards peace. Peace can’t be had. No – the challenge facing Israel is to learn how to live in perpetual, never-ending war, and in the face of that, to flourish, and to be a country that our kids still want to defend. And that is what we did this week.

Along similar lines, here is Snoopy the Goon’s take:

As an ex-soldier, I can safely say in the name of most of us that our unshakable belief that IDF and, indeed, the nation, will get us back from captivity, alive or dead, makes the service bearable. Without this belief IDF will not be what it is. The army that does not take care of its POWs is not worth serving in and the nation that forgets it sons is not worth fighting for.

There are a lot of things that could be said against and about the travesty of the current government, about the way the negotiations with Hezbollah were carried out, about the dirty politics and dirty politicians. One thing, however, should not be forgotten – it is not about politics, not about national pride and even not about the grieving families. It is about the soldiers.

I can’t deny that I agree with them; Israel’s devotion to her children is something special, and one of the reasons we wanted to raise our kids here. But let’s face it: it hurts. Giving the terrorists when they wanted (and by that I don’t mean Kuntar specifically, but rather a chance to rub all of Israel’s nose in it) hurts.

And it wasn’t necessary.

Why couldn’t our government, 2 years ago (heck, 22 years ago, when Ron Arad was lost!), not have demanded a real swap: one for one. Give us our man, or men, and get an equal number of yours back. Give us coffins, and get coffins back.

Wouldn’t that have been more dignified, for everyone, than the current game of ‘How many hundreds for Goldwasser and Regev? How many thousands for Shalit?’

Our enemies claim that we place no value on their lives, and only care about our own, but I would say that the opposite is true: By standing on unreasonable demands for prisoner swaps, aren’t they saying that each of their people is worth only a fraction of ours? As things are now, why shouldn’t we take their people for the value they put on themselves?

But if Israel stood on its self respect, and countered the insane demands from Hezbollah and Hamas with simple logic and dignity…. Imagine the strength of that! We are willing to trade, but only on a basis of equal value for all prisoners…. It’s heady stuff. But it’ll never happen, because our enemies have shown that they see reverence for life as weakness. And that’s why Gordis is right: This war has no end in sight.

Original Link.

Homosexual High School Clubs Increase Risk of Suicide

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

If the moral issues do not sway opinions on homosexual clubs being allowed in schools, then maybe the increase in suicides associated with them will. Anyone who reads this site knows our stand on homosexuality — hate the sin, love the sinner. Why hate the sin? Because Jesus hates sin and the Bible calls homosexuality a sin — an abomination, in fact. Why love the sinner? Because Jesus loves us all and we are ALL sinners.
The glorification of all things ‘gay’ has contributed to our young people becoming confused about their sexuality. Back in the 50’s there was no such thing as ‘gay pride’, but today society has allowed homosexuality to become almost ‘the cool thing to do’. It is no longer popular to be in the majority — an alternative lifestyle is the ‘exciting’ way to go. Because of this, our kids are confused sexually.

The increase in risk of suicide should cause us all to stop and think about the message we are sending to kids regarding homosexuality. I am sure there are many reading this who can’t wait to post your nasty comments about my being homophobic or a fundamental fanatic. Actually, my point here is that there is no need for high school clubs that are grouped according to sexual orientation. When you were in high school, did you join the “straight” or the “gay” club? No. These kids are too young to be placing themselves in a box. A confused kid who considers himself gay at 15, then decides at 18 he is straight, is going to have a hard time fitting in anywhere. Anyway, why does everything have to come down to sex nowadays? Can’t kids just be kids without being labeled gay or straight?

Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity — a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs.

The Washington Post recently ran a sympathetic article about a 15-year-old boy named Saro who described his homosexual feelings and how Gay Straight Alliance student clubs help such gay teens to deal with discrimination and bullying in high school and middle school. (See related article) “What the article failed to describe,” said PFOX Executive Director Regina Griggs, “is the danger of young sexually confused teens self-identifying as gays at an early age. Research has shown that the risk of suicide decreases by 20 percent each year that a person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling. Early self-identification is dangerous to kids.

“Schools should not be encouraging teens to self-identify as gays, bisexuals or transgendered persons before they have matured. Sexual attractions are fluid and do not take on permanence until early adulthood. Rather than affirming teenagers as ‘gay’ through self-labeling, educators should affirm them as people worthy of respect and encourage teens to wait until adulthood before making choices about their sexuality. If teens are encouraged to believe that they are permanently ‘gay’ before they have had a chance to reach adulthood, their life choices are severely restricted and can result in depression.”

Griggs also notes that schools with Gay Straight Alliance clubs are notorious for suppressing ex-gay organizations or individuals supporting tolerance for the ex-gay community. “GSA clubs and their teacher sponsors make schools unsafe for anyone who has rejected the ‘gay’ label in their lives or who believes in ex-gay equal rights. Our efforts to reach all students are typically met with hostility and violence. Time after time, we have faced hostile gay students and teachers ripping up our ex-gay materials or demanding that we be banned from distributing our materials on campuses.”

The National Education Association’s Ex-Gay Educators Caucus recommends diversity and inclusion of the ex-gay viewpoint in public schools, but this is seldom the case, according to Griggs. “What we find is that Gay Straight Alliance leaders and their school officials routinely suppress the ex-gay viewpoint and bully into silence anyone who dares to speak up for ex-gay equality and tolerance. If schools truly cared about diversity, they would include the diversity of the ex-gay community. Former homosexuals and their supporters should have the same kind of access to public schools that GSA clubs currently enjoy.”

Original Link

Dems Working to Foil Ban on Same-Sex “Marriage” in California

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

No surprise here…

The Democratic National Committee is actively working to foil the campaign to ban same-sex “marriage” in California.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) contributed $25,000 on February 28 to Equality for All for the purpose of opposing the proposed California marriage protection amendment known as Proposition 8. Equality for All is a homosexual group that pledges to defeat Prop 8 “one voter at a time.” According to the group, “a loss in November will dramatically slow, if not halt, progress toward full equality for LGBT Americans.”

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, argues that the DNC is slipping further outside mainstream America. He asserts the DNC is advocating legalization of same-sex marriage by “go[ing] against the majority of Americans who support the historical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and…donating a substantial amount of money to this radical homosexual organization that is promoting so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ ….”

Original Link.

Oil Prices Surge, Congress Responsible

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

Please contact your Congress person and Senator about this. Do not let them leave for the year in October with this issue unresolved. Command them to open up our domestic oil reserves.

The Institute of Energy Research says a dramatic increase in lease protests is threatening American energy supplies — and that the U.S. government is to blame in part for record-high oil prices.

Brian Kennedy is the senior vice president of public affairs with the Institute of Energy Research (IER). He says that despite the price of oil remaining at record highs, Congress has failed to do anything to increase domestic supplies.

According to the IER, lease protests have increased from 167 per year between 1997 and 2000 to 1,180 per year between 2001 and 2007. Kennedy maintains that instead of fixing the problem, “lawmakers are really just legislating some sound bites instead of really some sound solutions to help lower prices for consumers.”

Original Link.