“He couldn’t have picked a worse neighborhood or a worse house.” When career criminal Kevin Wayne Chapman targeted the residence of West Taylor for a home invasion, he chose the wrong house. Ginny’s report includes an exclusive interview with would-be victim West Taylor.
The following is a re-posting of a heartbreaking story, unlike the one above, where a gun could have saved many lives:
After each terrorist attack politicians in the West suddenly turn to theologians; they start defending Islam rather than dealing with terrorism itself. How politicians like Obama, Francois Holland, or David Cameron know that Islam is a religion of peace? I wonder how much time they spent reading the Quran and trying to understand it? Did they read the biography of Muhammed for example? I can assure you none of them did, but still they give statements About Islam.
~ Re-Posted ~
Had to post this from NewsBusters. The rhetoric from the media (MSNBC, CNN, and the like) has been mind-numbingly shallow. I also wish to say that I doubt Ball has ever mentioned any add as being backed by Soros. To wit, before getting to the NewsBusters piece, let me explain why people fear government via a post of mine answering a local writer:
And any person should acknowledge why someone should “fear” government more than business. In fact, I made this point on my FB outgrowth of this blog in talking to my liberal friend:
…this is to show how the Obama admin is stacking the books with GM. You see, when the government chooses winners-and-losers instead of getting contracts with private companies (like Ford, GM, etc.), they are invested to [i.e., forced to] only choose a government run business and stock their fish (so-to-speak) with GM fleets… leaving the non-government company to flounder.
This next audio deals with the differences of the Koch brothers, in comparison to the Left’s version of them, Soros. There are many areas that one can discuss about the two… but let us focus in on the main/foundational difference. One wants a large government that is able to legislate more than just what kind of light-bulbs one can use in the privacy of their own home. Soros wants large government able to control a large portion of the economy (see link to chart below), and he has been very vocal on this goal. The other party always mentioned are the Koch brothers. These rich conservatives want a weak government. A government that cannot effect our daily lives nearly as much (personal, business, etc) as the Soros enterprise wants. And really, if you think about it, what business can really “harm” you, when people come to my door with pistols on their hip… are they a) more likely to be from GM, or, b) from the IRS?
The possibility of them being from the IRS is even more possible with the passing of Obama-Care [i.e., larger government]. So the “fear” (audio in next comment) I think the Left has of “Big-Business” is unfounded, and the problem comes when big-business gets in bed with big-government. Here I am thinking of (like with the penalties that were found to be Constitutional in the recent SCOTUS decision) a government that can penalize you if you do not buy a Chevy Volt, or some other green car in order to save the planet. When this happens, guys coming to my door because of unpaid (hypothetical… but historical examples abound of the tax history of our nation) “fines” are likely to be IRS agents because of a personal choice made in the “free-market.”
Appendix: If the above example didn’t inspire any liberal fear (forced to go green or be penalized), maybe this one will?
…First, the government needs to issue a mandate that all households must own at least one firearm. We will need a federal agency to ensure that people aren’t just buying cheap BB guns or .22 pistols, even though that may be all they need or want. It has to be 9mm or above, with .44 magnums getting a one-time tax credit on their own. Let’s pick an agency known for its aptitude on firearms and home protection to issue required annual certifications each year, without which the government will have to levy hefty fines. Which agency would do the best job? Hmmmm … I know! How about TSA? With their track record of excellence, we should have no problems implementing this mandate.
Don’t want to own a gun? Hey, no worries. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says citizens have the right to refuse to comply with mandates. The government will just seize some of your cash in fines, that’s all. Isn’t choice great? Those fines will go toward federal credits that will fund firearm purchases for the less well off, so that they can protect their homes as adequately as those who can afford guns on their own. Since they generally live in neighborhoods where police response is appreciably worse than their higher-earning fellow Americans, they need them more anyway. Besides — gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution, unlike health care, which isn’t. Obviously, that means that the federal government should be funding gun ownership….
This is why people fear government, to answer John’s question.
Back to the excellent NewsBusters response to “Krystal Ball” on MSNBC:
Honestly, how does this woman have a job in a news division?
Oh. That’s right. MSNBC isn’t a news organization. How could I have forgotten?
Saying Republicans don’t want young people to buy health insurance is preposterous.
What conservatives don’t want is the government to force young people to purchase something that morbidity tables show will likely have absolutely no benefit for them until the distant future so that others who likely will benefit much sooner can get it either for free or far more cheaply.
Irrespective of what Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts foolishly ruled last year, this is neither Constitutional nor ethical.
As for these young people dying if ObamaCare is not enacted, that asininely assumes that people won’t have the money to pay for their care if they get sick or won’t purchase health insurance when they reach an age when they believe they need it.
For example, Ball mentioned prenatal care and tetanus shots. As a person that owns an insurance agency, I certainly would be telling a client looking to have children to purchase health insurance.
As for Pap smears, the Mayo Clinic recommends women over 21 do them every two to three years.
The cost varies state by state. In New York City, you can get one for as little as $150.
As such, a woman in that city doing it even once every two years would save thousands of dollars paying for it herself rather than buying health insurance.
As for cholesterol tests, these are now available online for as little as $40.
This great, short, update comes via The Lonely Conservative:
The short answer to the question posed above is “Not even close.” It’s not the Koch Brothers or ALEC. Nope. The biggest spender in the dark money game is the Tides Foundation. Oh and by the way, Tides is a big liberal group.
Whenever “ALEC” and “dark money” are mentioned in the media, however, there ought to be a third name given at least equal attention – the Tides Foundation. That’s because Tides, the San Francisco-based funder of virtually every liberal activist group in existence since the mid-1970s, pioneered the concept of providing a cut-out for donors who don’t wish to be associated in public with a particular cause. It is instructive to compare the funding totals for Tides and ALEC.
A search of non-profit grant databases reveals 139 grants worth a total of $5.6 million to ALEC since 1998. By comparison, Tides is the Mega-Goliath of dark money cash flows. Tides received 1,976 grants worth a total of $451 million during the same period, or nearly 100 times as much money as ALEC. But even that’s not the whole story with Tides, which unlike ALEC, has divided and multiplied over the years. Add to the Tides Foundation total the directly linked Tides Center’s 465 grants with a combined worth of $62 million, and the total is well over half a billion dollars. (Read More)
So there.
BIG versus SMALL
(You can enlarge the article by clicking it.) This is a local, small town magazine, and John Van Huizum writes a regular piece that I will critique here-and-there. Here is my first installment:
I wish to write a response to a recent Concepts article by John Van Huizum, entitled “What Does ‘Free’ Mean?” There are a couple issues worth responding to or in-the-least offering a differing viewpoint on. The first of Mr. Huizum’s positions that needs de”concept”ualizing is the idea of “greed.” Mr. Huizum spoke of history, something Dr. Sowell reminds us of in the telling of Richard Sears ferocious greed in wanting to overtake Montgomery Ward.[1] This type of greed leads to lower prices. Alternatively the Fords, Rockefellers, and the Carnegies found ways to offer goods at lower prices. This type of greed leads to Carnegie — for instance — becoming a “prodigious philanthrop[ist] – building more than 3,000 public libraries in 47 states…, founding Carnegie-Mellon University and the Carnegie Institute of Technology (C.I.T.), establishing Carnegie Hall in New York, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and much more.”[2]
In a wonderful response to Donahue’s 1979 challenge to Milton Freidman on the issue of greed and if greed has ever caused Dr. Friedman to doubt capitalism. Milton Friedman responded that “the world runs on individuals pursuing their own interests, the great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory from an order of a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of the grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and free trade.”[3] So I wish to proffer another history that maybe, just possibly Forbes is taking into account and Mr. Huizum is not.
Another point worth politely rejecting is the definition given to Forbes by Mr. Huizum on freedom: “free from ANY government regulation.”[4] This is a fallacy of straw-man.[5] Mr. Huizum does not show a full knowledge of Forbes understanding on this matter. Nor does the facile dealing with this complex issue and the putting forth of a false definition as if-it-were Forbes do this topic justice.
One last point, the most important. Unlike big business when it makes mistakes, big government cannot go out of business. Unlike corrupt government, corrupt business cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation’s currency. Businesses cannot coerce you by force (tax liens, garnishing of wages, or armed IRS officials, etc) into an action. So the “greed” of the corporation pales in comparison to the greed of government.[6] Which is why our Founders stated that, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government” (Patrick Henry); “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master” (George Washington).
Footnotes:
[1] Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2004), 361.
[2] Michael Medved, The 10 biggest Lies About America (New York, NY: Crown Forum, 2008), 132; see also, “What Did He Get for That Money?”
[3] youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
[4] John Van Huizum, Agua Dulce/Acton Country Journal, Vol. XXII, Issue 21 (May 26, 2012), 19.
[5] a) Person A has position X; b) Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X); c) Person B attacks position Y; d) Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
[6] Dennis Prager, Still the Best Hope (New York, NY: Broadside Books, 2012), 35-36.
The only way the “warmists” get the high temps they do, is when they use (and fudge) the very unreliable land temps at stations [most in fact] that are in areas that add an artificial heat to the real temperature.
REAL SCIENCE notes that before “the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.” Continuing RL says:
However, a stark contrast to now is still wrapped up in this graph:
NOAA/NASA use only land-based temps to claim 2015 hottest year ever
Using data from heavily adjusted land-based temperature readings, NOAA and NASA declared yesterday 2015 to be the ‘hottest year ever,’ even though they’ve excluded the satellite record, and worse, ocean temperatures. That’s important because “70 percent of the Earth is oceans,” and “we can’t measure those temperatures very well,” says MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen. “The ocean temps can also be “off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous.”
[….]
As for 2015? The satellite record shows it as being only the third or fourth warmest since satellite tracking began in 1978. The satellite data, which is compiled and maintained by the University of Alabama/Huntsville, found “2015 to be third warmest on record, and Remote Sensing Systems satellite data ranked 2015 as the fourth warmest in the nearly four-decade-old satellite record.”…
(Examiner)
In the above graph, you have lines showing GREAT warming… waaaay above the 30’s to 40’s. HOWEVER, these have been adjusted… that is, the red “raw” data is the ground stations temps… the two lines above it, the blue one (TOBs-Adjusted) and green one (Homogenized) have been monkeyed with. A researcher lightened those lines and put the bolder “pink” and “purple” lines showing data from satellites (NASA). (Much of that blurred out data is milked from measuring units discussed in my post after a Christmas discussion about 2014 being the hottest year on record)
…Just for grins, I plotted the UAH and RSS satellite time series on top of the Hausfather graph…. I think can see why the so-called consensus has become so obsessed recently with destroying the credibility of the satellite data.
(WUWT … read it all for better context)
Now the truth is revealed… in that these persons cannot dabble with the preciseness of the satellite data. And why recent attempts have been to discredit it because it discredits their pet theory.
Climate Depot continues the “heresy”!
NASA and NOAA today proclaimed that 2015 was the ‘hottest year’ on record.
Meanwhile, satellite data shows an 18 plus year standstill in global temperatures.
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen balked at claims of the ‘hottest year’ based on ground based temperature data.
“Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend. Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, told Climate Depot shortly after the announcements.
“All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations. Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity,” Lindzen continued.
“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.
Lindzen has previously mocked ‘warmest’ or ‘hottest’ year proclamations.
“When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said in November 2015.
Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”
“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he added.
[…..]
In this public lecture at the University of California, Irvine, Professor Phillip E. Johnson explains how ambiguous terminology, faulty assumptions, and questionable rules of reasoning have transformed a theory which explains minor evolutionary change into a dogmatic naturalistic religion.
Major topics include:
Some consider this to be one of Professor Johnson’s finest lectures based on his first book “Darwin on Trial.”
Lively audience Q&A session follows the lecture.
Video Description:
✦ “Today’s big puzzle is how so many otherwise rational people have become enamored of Donald Trump, projecting onto him virtues and principles that he clearly does not have, and ignoring gross defects that are all too blatant.” ~ Thomas Sowell on Trump
The first caller cannot understand Dennis’ dislike of Trump but like for Ann Coulter. Dennis explains why the two are different. The other call is by a strong Republican who gets Prager talking about people who vote based on emotion (yes, we got them as well) and those who vote based on reason.
We are really witnessing infighting between brothers… for instance, here is National Reviews anti-Trump special:
➤ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination
And here is American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord supporting article:
➤ http://spectator.org/articles/65271/trump-cruz-2016
He’s been a Ranger and a Green Beret, fought on multiple continents, and received numerous awards – and now he’s sharing his rules of a gunfight with you. (Tribunist)
Video Description:
Tim Conway ~ as only he and his crew can ~ discuss marital bliss in the Smith household. As you get into the 2nd half of the interview it gets downright humorous. Every married man has been where Will Smith is.
Funny!
For more of Conway’s style, see KFI’s site.
Video Description:
Once again “The Sage,” Larry Elder deepens his thoughts on an issue he merely scratched the surface of a couple of days ago (https://youtu.be/8S7ZExx24MM). In this newer edition from yesterday’s show (1-21-16) Larry talks about the recent viral attacks by the left against Stacey Dash saying there shouldn’t be a Black History Month. Prior to that he sets the stage with comparisons to how the media and the left attack Republicans but typically let Democratic political figures escape their wrath. Following Stash’s comment are those of Morgan Freeman’s similar comments.
Other topics dealt with are self-esteem, and the blatant double standards as well as putting all this in the “rich black elite crybaby” category. Great stuff, Larry at his best!
Once again “The Sage,” Larry Elder deepens his thoughts on an issue he merely scratched the surface of a couple of days ago (https://youtu.be/8S7ZExx24MM). In this newer edition from yesterday’s show (1-21-16) Larry talks about the recent viral attacks by the left against Stacey Dash saying there shouldn’t be a Black History Month. Prior to that he sets the stage with comparisons to how the media and the left attack Republicans but typically let Democratic political figures escape their wrath. Following Stash’s comment are those of Morgan Freeman’s similar comments.
Other topics dealt with are self-esteem, and the blatant double standards as well as putting all this in the “rich black elite crybaby” category. Great stuff, Larry at his best!
Listen To Larry On-Line at CRN-Talk Radio [LIVE: 12-2pm]:
★ http://crntalk.com/shows/1144-the-larry-elder-show
Re-broadcast on 870AM (The Answer) from 9-11pm:
★ http://www.am870theanswer.com/weekdayprogramguide.aspx
For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/ ~AND~ http://www.elderstatement.com/
Video Description:
This is a smaller excerpt from a larger film from the Nesch Brothers
Websites related to the Nesch Brothers:
Due to the length of the original file, which is worth watching in total, I will split a couple topics up for ease of watching and to continue to call the watchers attention both to the importance of the subject and to these excellent type of films.
I myself have written a bit on the topic. In fact, the longest chapter in my book deals with the topic:
★ Emergen[t]Cy – Investigating Post Modernism In Evangelical Thought
And I left a church due to its influence:
★ Leaving a Church of 12-Years ~ Tough Decisions for Faith
As well as not joining a church over its creeping influence when looking for a new home of faith for me and my family:
★ Book “Review” ~ A Seven Day Journey with Thomas Merton
I hope these smaller clips about the Emergent Church will help.