ZERO HEDGE has some info on this as well:
- During the great heatwave of July, 2016 – temperatures in Ada, Minnesota averaged 16 degrees cooler than during July, 1936… Aurora, Illinois was about 13 degrees warmer in 1936… Same story in Bloomington, Indiana. (The Deplorable Climate Science Blog)
NOAA has found it necessary to monkey with July temperatures by 1,000% in order to note that 2016 is the hottest July on record. (Ditto)
In 1924 the outback Australian town of Marble Bar recorded the longest ever heatwave, setting a record for the most consecutive days above 100F (37.8C). In 1976 the United Kingdom sweltered in temperatures exceeding 90F (32.2C) for 15 consecutive days. A further five days saw temperatures reaching 95F (35C). Parts of the country’s southwest went for 45 days without rain, prompting terrible heath and forest fires that destroyed trees and crops. The heatwave came to a dramatic end in August, with severe thunderstorms rolling across the country.
You can see more on my post about the 1930’s being the hottest, globally.
Climate experts say that July 2016 was the hottest month ever. In the United States, it was one of the least hot months ever.
2015 was also said to be the hottest year… 1936 had the most hot days on record, not 2015. Claims 2015 is the warmest year on record ignore satellite data, which shows 2015 only ranks as the third-warmest year on record (CFACT). May I add to the satellite data being ignored that bad readings from many ground sensors are used to prop up temperatures.
The touting of all these “hottest years” and scare tactics and the U.N. saying rising oceans will threaten the Statue of Liberty, are all power grabs. Period. The EPA says their most strict legislative acts to implement new regulations that will fight global warming, are ALSO A LIE! Like the Arctic for years being prophesied to be ice-free, and in fact setting ice-expansion records during month it was suppose to be ice-free.
The DAILY CALLER notes the EPA Chief’s admission:
Here is a great presentation showing the EPA to be full of B.S. Former Obama Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell eviscerates the President’s proposed Clean Power Plan regulation to fight global warming in testimony before Congress:
I said out-loud “AMEN” to the line, “I am no lawyer, but I AM a citizen!”
… that this monkey knows KungFu? Or that there is a CCTV camera in this Podunk third-world town?
The above is the drop in power produced by South Australia’s Snowtown wind farms.
Similar to the above issues in Germany, Australia is experiencing reality as well.
Is the U.S. tax system fair? Are the rich paying too little or too much? What about the middle and lower class? New York Times bestselling author Amity Shlaes answers these questions, and offers a tax solution that most Americans could get on board with.
Some must read articles…
STOP & FRISK FACTS (New York Post);
COURTS V. COPS: The Legal War On The War On Crime (The City Journal);
HILLARY’S DEBATE LIES: With her comments about crime, policing, and race, the candidate helps push a false—and dangerous—narrative (The City Journal):
HOW TO INCREASE THE CRIME RATE NATIONWIDE: A ruling against the NYPD’s successful ‘stop, question and frisk’ policy would be sure to inspire lawsuits in other cities (Wall Street Journal);
5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT “STOP-AND-FRISK” (The Daily Wire).
This is a part from the Judges brief in the Floyd v. City of New York case, and you can see the flawed thinking in it… as will be expanded on as we proceed in the post:
She notes elsewhere that the case she argued for — based on the 4th and 14th amendment — was this targeting minorities unlawfully: Judge Scheindlin ruled that stop and frisk, in practice, had a discriminatory effect on blacks and Hispanics, violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- “The Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition on selective enforcement means that suspicious blacks and Hispanics may not be treated differently by the police than equally suspicious whites…”.
She ruled against the city, declaring, among other things, that the idea that blacks have a higher crime rate than other groups is a “stereotype.” Please! In fact, her conduct on the bench [not just in this case] have been so egregious, that the Judge has “been repeatedly reversed—unanimously—by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on cases involving police authority, and even terrorism.” Continuing, BREITBART notes:
THE DAILY CALLER likewise references her horrible case precedence…
Here are two examples of the bad thinking the Judge used:
Here is a thoughtful challenge by someone a friend is in conversation with:
The very first thing that pops into my mind is the idea Dr. Clouser pulls from many positions taken by people who profess to “think well,”
We will venture into how this challenge is void of “thoughtfulness” — which is why I italicized this word in the first sentence at the top of this post. The main laws of logic will show that if the skeptics viewpoint is “true,” then “truth” does not exist. But I
In the challengers paragraph we find him inferring the classically and oft used syllogism that follows:
- Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent)
- Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent)
- Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist
- Conclusion: An all-good, all-powerful God could not exist since there is so much suffering and evil in the world. If he did, he would eradicate this evil.
However, not many atheists use this any longer since the excellent work of Alvin Plantinga in his book, God, Freedom, and Evil. This syllogism changes a bit and looks like this:
- An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God created the world.
- God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so.
- Therefore, the world contains evil.
Ronald Nash comments further, and a larger excerpt can be found in my detailing Greg Gutfeld’s agnosticism:
So we see that by using logic found in philosophical principles that the challenger alluded to, especially in his last sentence, saying “This conception of a deity is therefore either evil or impotent,” that the challenge is defeated.
Not only that however, is, HOW does the challenger come to a conclusion that he can judge something to be wrong, outside of his personal opinion that is. In other words, he is saying that an action or inaction constitutes evil. He uses this moral presupposition bound up in “evil” to insert into a syllogistic formula to disprove God (at least God in the Judeo-Christian sense… for “evil” being negative is absent from every other religious viewpoint).
He, the challenger, is saying that I, that my neighbor, someone in Bangledesh, or Papua New Guinea [etc.] should see this formula, understand what “evil” action or inaction is, and agree with him. He is – in other words – inserting an absolute principle in the formulation. This is where I want to challenge such an idea.
CS Lewis once reflected on himself doing the same thing as an atheist when he said:
To further draw out this idea, Ravi Zacharias responded to a questioner at Harvard where a moral principle was inserted into the premise of the question:
You see… when an absolute is brought into the equation, the challenger ceases being an atheist or skeptic. UNLESS they pause and explain to others why they should accept what they consider to be an “evil” act. ~These presuppositions also assume a goal or end to life, inserting meaning and purpose that the skeptic EXPECTS others to see and agree with.~ Let us see a little about what atheists consider to be “evil.” Again, these are people bringing their worldview to their logical ends (for references, see, 26 Brutally Honest Atheist Quotes Worth A Read):
- “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self—evident. . . Christianity is a system.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
- “…to say that something is wrong because… it is forbidden by God, is… perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong… even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable….” “The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.” ~ Richard Taylor
- “There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions….” | “The hard answer is it [moral decisions] is a matter of opinion.” ~ David Silverman
- “There is no purpose to life, and we should not want there to be a purpose to life because if there was that would cheapen life.” ~ Dan Barker
Here is my “AFTERTHOUGHT” to two examples proffered by myself in regards to a meme floating around the internet:
Again, even truth is called into question, as the many quotes in the above link show, if God is extant from our discussion about reality.
Do you see? If atheism is true, then these absolute statements entwined in these skeptical position vanish. In fact, “consciousness” is a problem for this discussion:
These are meta-narratives just assumed by the skeptic with no regard to how they arrived there. I liken it to an analogy of driving a car. The atheist thinks he has gotten in his car, backed out of the drive-way, and is a few turns into his trip to the market of reason. I am merely pointing out that the car is not starting when the key is turned. One may wish to go through another post of mine entitled, “Is Evil Proof Against God? Where Does It Come From?“
Remember, always ask yourself if the question or challenge is a proper one to begin with…
Classic Syllogism – Simple Change
This is how it is often presented:
★ If God is all-powerful, He can prevent evil.
★ If God is good, He would want to prevent evil.
★ Evil exists.
★ Therefore, there is no God. (Or: God is either not all-powerful, or He is not good.)
All that is really being done is this simple change, and it is sound:
★ If God is all-powerful, He can prevent evil.
★ If God is good, He would want to prevent evil.
★ Evil exists.
★ Therefore, the world contains evil.
The conclusion that the world contains evil has no explanatory power on why it does or even if this impacts the existence of God in any way.
I previously uploaded this… and then erased it. I am posting this again because my original premise is right. After watching these two video commentaries on the issue, I am correct that this was the gun.
Thank You Deputy Matt!
This is a small clip of the larger video (seen here). Shortly after this the officer picks the gun up, passes it to another officer, and it is dropped again (probably disarmed and cleared). You cannot see this clearly because the woman is shaking too much and takes the camera off the pistol.
➤ BTW… “The gun that Keith Scott had on him during the deadly shooting was reported stolen after a breaking and entering, police said.”
During the longer video the wife is saying he is not armed but in the next breath saying “Don’t you do it!” Do what? “Don’t open the book.” The wife clearly knew he had a gun “Keith Don’t do it” what else would she be referring to? Take note as well from one of the officer’s body-cams an ankle holster is clearly seen as well as him holding a weapon of some sort.
The officers repeatedly told the man to drop the gun, over a dozen times in fact. Are there people out there that actually think they’re just making that up? That they’re just saying he has a gun to have an excuse to shoot him? The man was given numerous opportunities to drop the weapon and to comply. And he didn’t.
But yet we have people like Hillary Clinton — in similar fashion to Obama — blaming the police. And creating more racial tension by finishing up that part of the debate by saying we are all racists:
With the recent no-show of the guy who set-up Hillary’s server, and the pleading of the fifth by her people… the pressure is back on Comey and what they hell he even does at the FBI.
This is a leftist video explaining how the left is in trouble.
Since Obama’s election, the Democratic Party has been obliterated at the state level.