Don’t be fooled by slippery language about the weather

We see a lot of misleading headlines and editorial cartoons equating “extreme” weather with human caused global warming / global climate change.  It is pure non sequitur.  We have a name for changes in temperature, rainfall, storms, etc.: Weather.  It can be unpredictable.  You may have noticed that people talk about it a lot, and did so long before Al Gore came along with his hypocritical money machine.

For starters, consider that if there are 10 tornadoes hitting remote areas, you’ll heard about it once.  If the same tornadoes happen to hit more populated areas, you’ll heard about it for months.  But the weather wasn’t different, just the locations where it hit.

 

See How to mislead with slippery language : Stop The ACLU for more examples of wordplay and data games used to advance the global climate change agenda.

We read:

“NOAA Makes It Official: 2011 Among Most Extreme Weather Years in History

Just past the halfway point, 2011 has already seen eight weather-related disasters in the U.S. that caused more than $1 billion in damages

The devastating string of tornadoes, droughts, wildfires and floods that hit the United States this spring marks 2011 as one of the most extreme years on record, according to a new federal analysis.”

The key, of course, is that little word “among” and his friend “one of”. To put some flesh on Mr. “among”, consider 1934:

All regions of the country were over 100 degrees.

80% of the US was experiencing drought.

I must be doing something wrong . . .

because my blog isn’t banned in China.  Check yours here: Great Firewall of China.

Clever invention for iPhone earbuds

I like the sound from my iPhone headphones but they are lousy for working out, as they often fall out.  But these little clips are a nice invention and are only $10 (I’ve spent way more than that on other headphones that don’t last very long).

I never get tired of this video.

This poor dog.

“The maple kind?”

“Yeah?  Yeah?”

“Awwwww . . . no! . . . you’re kidding me!”

“Yeah?  Yeah?”

“Covered it with what?”

Update: check out this link provided by Bill.  I’ve been taking ballroom dance lessons for 6 months but I think the dog is better than me.

Prenatal development: Not just a clump of cells

The “just a clump of cells” myth has been used many times to rationalize abortion, but it is illogical and anti-science.

As this video from Abort73.com  notes, “Abortion, at any and every stage of pregnancy, kills a rapidly developing, genetically-distinct human being.”  They do amazing work, so be sure to visit their site.

Hat tip: Stand to Reason

Said another way, if it isn’t a human being, she’s not pregnant.

The video notes how people are less likely to support abortion rights as the pregnancy advances.  However, the reasons given for that aren’t sound.  If abortion is wrong in the 3rd trimester then it should be wrong in the first.  For example, the ability to survive outside the womb isn’t what gives the unborn worth.

Always remember

It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.

Yet another passage that theological Liberals ignore or don’t understand

I often point out how false teachers abuse scripture to advance their religion-disguised-as-politics agenda.  Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution“ Wallis likes to point out how there are over 2,000 verses about money in the Bible.  That may be true, but it doesn’t mean he understands them.  False teachers like him and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie think that Jesus taught to ask “Caesar” (i.e., the government) to borrow from others to give away in the name of the oh-so-generous false teachers.

Here’s another verse they ignore or don’t understand, courtesy of  The Servility of the Religious Left « runlevel five(pointer).

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. Proverbs 22:7 English Standard Version

Chuck Currie and the United Church of Christ want to make a lot more slaves. In fact, if they have their way,  the entire nation will become further enslaved to foreign lenders, by insisting that we continue to raise the debt ceiling. Moreover, in response to calls for increased fiscal responsibility, they are demanding an increase in taxes.

The problem is, Currie is not alone in his views. He is joined by a host of other advocates for fiscal irresponsibility that reaches the level of forced servitude for the American people. Such deluded individuals consider spending beyond our means as a nation a good thing. Even elected officials such as Pete Stark go so far to say that the bigger our national debt, the wealthier we are.

Currie should know better. What is truly alarming is his willingness to sacrifice future generations, including his two children, on the altar of the idol of Entitlements and the long-discredited Social Gospel.

Indeed, people who can’t vote or haven’t been born yet will be saddled with the debt that these false teachers advocated in the name of Christ.  Just as God points out in Proverbs, they will be slaves to their lenders.  But at least the borrowers Solomon had in mind were directly responsible for their actions.  No one borrowed in their name and without their approval.

Worse yet, the false teachers’ use of the borrowings is nearly always counterproductive.  It is lose-lose with these guys.

Do you still think this issue won’t affect you?

Proponents of square circles (oops, I mean “same-sex marriage”) often mock their opponents by asking how it would hurt them.  Here’s another example of how the radical LGBTQXX agenda can impact you: Gay manager at Cisco Systems gets Dr. Frank Turek fired.  He wasn’t fired for anything he said at work, but because one person was offended that Turek had written separately that real marriage was the ideal.

Dr. Mike Adams explains how a gay manager at Cisco Systems got Dr. Frank Turek fired for opposing same-sex marriage. Adams explains what happened in a letter addressed to the President of Cisco.

Excerpt:

I want to bring to your attention a recent decision made by your HR team that I think does not reflect your leadership of Cisco.Dr. Frank Turek was fired as a vendor for his political and religious views, even though those views were never mentioned or expressed during his work at Cisco.

[...]In 2008, Dr. Turek was hired by Cisco to design and conduct a leadership and teambuilding program for about fifty managers with your Remote Operations Services team. The program took about a year to conduct, during which he also conducted similar sessions for another business unit within Cisco. That training earned such high marks that in 2010 he was asked to design a similar program for about 200 managers within Global Technical Services. Ten separate eight-hour sessions were scheduled.

The morning after completing the seventh session earlier this year, a manager in that session —who was one of the better students in that class—phoned in a complaint. It had nothing to do with content of the course or how it was conducted. In fact, the manager commented that the course was “excellent” as did most who participated. His complaint regarded Dr. Turek’s political and religious views that were never mentioned during class, but that the manager learned by “googling” Dr. Turek after class.

The manager identified himself as gay and was upset that Dr. Turek had written this book providing evidence that maintaining our current marriage laws would be best for the country. Although the manager didn’t read the book, he said that the author’s view was inconsistent with “Cisco values” and could not be tolerated. (Dr. Turek is aware of this because he was in the room when his call came in.) The manager then contacted an experienced HR professional at Cisco who had Dr. Turek fired that day without ever speaking to him. The HR professional also commended the manager for “outing” Dr. Turek.

This firing had nothing to do with course content—the program earned very high marks from participants. It had nothing to do with budget constraints—the original contract was paid in full recently. A man was fired simply because of his personal political and religious beliefs—beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by thousands of your very large and diverse workforce.

You don’t see straight people complaining to HR about the political views of other employees / contractors at companies when those views aren’t expressed in their jobs.  And you definitely won’t see anyone getting fired over that.  In fact, you would be likely to be reprimanded or fired for even complaining.  Why are we letting the sexual preferences of 3% of the population have so much control?  Grow a spine, people!

I saw the Cisco article several places but like the Wintery Knight’s commentary:

And that leads me to the question that gay activists often ask supporters of traditional marriage: “how would allowing same-sex marriage hurt your marriage?”. And now we know the answer. Same-sex marriage would likely,  criminalize free speech that promotes traditional marriage over same-sex marriage, as it has in other countries with same-sex marriage, such as Canada. If you are a working husband, and you are responsible for a family, you will be under a constant threat of termination should your pro-marriage views become known to your colleagues and supervisors. Also, if you teach you children to favor traditional marriage, you may be persecuted by the state.

I would like to be able to provide for my family if I choose to marry, and I would like my children to favor traditional marriage over cohabitation, or any other arrangement, because traditional marriage is best for children who need a stable environment with two loving biological parents (if possible). But if it becomes the law that my view is “offensive” and “discriminatory”, then that would affect my marriage. Sometimes, I am very glad that I am not married, because getting married in a society that is offended by marriage takes a lot of courage. It seems to me that many Christians, especially the uninformed emotional ones who would rather read vampire fiction and Dan Brown than peer-reviewed research, prefer to redefine Christianity to mean “affirming destructive behavior so that you feel good and more people like you”.

Let Dr. Turek’s story be a lesson to all of you who prefer traditional marriage. Don’t allow your opinions on marriage to be linked to your true identity, because some sexually immoral people will try to separate you from your livelihood if they can. It’s no longer safe to express a preference for traditional marriage in this society. If you do it, you are taking chances. Just look at the vandalism and stalking of Prop 8 supporters. If you want children to grow up with a mother and a father in this society, then you are a marked target to those who put adult hedonism above the rights of children – including many Christians who enjoy singing and schmoozing in the church. Just this week I got an anguished e-mail from someone who blogs under his real name who is now in the cross-hairs for expressing his preference for traditional marriage in public.

We are in this situation because fake or wimpy Christians stood by and didn’t stand up for the obvious: Homosexual behavior is a sin and churches shouldn’t be affirming it.  If we really love people, in the sense of having their long-term best interests at heart, we won’t encourage them to participate in physically, emotionally and spiritually destructive behaviors that God plainly spoke against in his word.  And we won’t let the public schools poison the mind of 5 year olds by telling them how “normal” gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender behavior is and how they really can’t tell if they are boys or girls.

We aren’t trying to regulate the lives of gay people. They are free to have whatever adult relationships they like, including getting “married” in apostate churches.  We just disagree that the government needs to be involved in those relationships and to give civil rights status to sexual preferences.  But the LGBTQX lobby is so thin-skinned that they demand not just tolerance but acceptance.

I was reading the Song of Solomon and noticed a couple things . . .

I just went through The Song of Solomon as part of my “read the Bible in a year” program and couldn’t help but notice that:

1. The love story involved one man and one woman.

2. The man seemed to know he was a man, didn’t question it and had certain manly traits and roles.

3. The women seemed to know that she was a woman, didn’t question it and had certain womanly traits and roles.

4. There wasn’t even a hint in this iconic book on romance of relationships between two men, two women, transgenderism, etc.

5. Despite their obvious passion for each other, the theme of waiting until marriage for sex was repeated at least four times:

Solomon 3:5 I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
by the gazelles or the does of the field,
that you not stir up or awaken love
until it pleases.

How politically incorrect!  I wonder how the theological Liberals deal with this work (other than immediately denying that it is God-inspired).  After all, they teach that homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender, etc. are preferences assigned by God.  It seems odd that He wouldn’t have been more inclusive.

And they also support the Planned Parenthood mantra of waiting to have sex until you are ready, and ignoring what your parents and religion have to say (Shockingly enough, kids tend to decide they are “ready” when they really, really want to have sex.  And then lots of disease and unplanned pregnancies happen.  Go figure!)

Seriously, it is a great book.  Sex is “God’s wedding present,” a truly great thing designed for a life-long relationship between one man and one woman.

The “blasphemy” of criticizing Darwinism

Alternate title: Don’t criticize Darwinsim because it will help the (other) critics of Darwinism.  Via Two views about how Darwinism stays in place, with but one difference …(emphasis added):

Some months ago an American philosopher explained to a highly sophisticated audience in Britain what, in his opinion, was wrong, indeed fatally wrong, with the standard neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution. He made it crystal clear that his criticism was not inspired by creationism, intelligent design or any remotely religious motivation. A senior gentleman in the audience erupted, in indignation: “You should not say such things, you should not write such things! The creationists will treasure them and use them against science.” The lecturer politely asked: “Even if they are true?” To which the instant and vibrant retort was: “Especially if they are true!” with emphasis on the ‘especially’.- Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, “It is now blasphemy to criticise Darwin,” Spiked Review of Books Online (26 March 2010)

Now that’s science!  At least what passes for it today.

World’s most famous Italian Greyhounds! Probably!

Admittedly it is a niche category, but I’ve got the evidence to back up my claim.  My all-time favorite picture of my dogs was used on a t-shirt sold by Aerie (a girls’ clothing chain owned by American Eagle).  Now they are all over North America!  My daughters were excited when the salespeople said it was their favorite shirt (without knowing it was our dogs).

Click the picture for a larger view.  A shot of the t-shirt is in the upper-right.  Wishbone and Xannie are in the back.

It was one of those rare shots where they actually look posed (seeing the other shots from that day will tell you that it was a random event to have them looking the same direction and to be positioned like that).  We just had the patio put in so it is perfectly white, and the lighting was just right.

They did turn Wishbone into a girl on the t-shirt, but he hasn’t noticed and I don’t plan on telling him.   Shhhhh . . .

P.S. Here’s another secret: We don’t think Xannie is all Italian Greyhound.  We think she is part stuffed animal or possibly part skunk.

Did he really say that?!

As if we needed more evidence that Liberals Liberals fail at basic economics, we have the President of the United States saying this:

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.  Barack Obama

That is an epic FAIL on so many levels.  It isn’t a structural issue, it is a foundational and wonderful element of our capitalistic economy.  The unemployment rate didn’t nearly double because of ATMs (and despite wasting a trillion dollars trying and failing to keep it below 8%).  It is a pathetic attempt for him to avoid responsibility.

Why is a “progressive” like Obama so opposed to progress?  Does he think that his beloved teleprompters pre-dated agriculture?  No, they exist because people took risks, worked hard and were rewarded for creativity and automation.

He should be embarrassed, and the media should mock him until their throats (TV and radio) and fingertips (print) are raw.  Using his “logic,” we’d have higher employment if it weren’t for advancements like ATM machines.  Ignoring the jobs of those who make, install, maintain, and write software for these machines, does Obama think that other countries won’t continue to automate even if we stopped?  If businesses don’t automate then costs go up compared to other countries and we lose even more jobs.  You could require that all cars be made by hand, but would anyone ever buy a U.S. car over an inexpensive and higher quality foreign model?

I say without exaggeration that I’ve taught Junior Achievement classes to 7th graders who understand basic economic principles better than him.  There was an exercise asking if you should automate your bike factory to save money and improve quality, even though it would reduce jobs.  Many kids initially opposed this because they forgot about the other bike makers.  When I pointed out that without automation everyone would eventually lose their jobs, they realized the benefits of progress.

As Stacy McCain adds in Pointing Out the Obvious: They Don’t Teach Economics at Harvard Law School : The Other McCain:

The president is attempting here to offer a simplistic explanation of the difference between cyclical unemployment and structuralunemployment. As important as that distinction is, however, it fails to explain many obvious things about this recession.

Unemployment isn’t at 9% because of out-of-work bank clerks and airline ticket agents. Unemployment is most severe in construction trades and other housing-related sectors. Whatever else Obama’s policies have done, they have not led to a meaningful recovery of the housing market and, one might easily argue, have made things much worse. Why? Because for two years, the administration and Democrats in Congress did everything possible to impede the foreclosure process, to keep deadbeats in homes they can’t afford. This has slowed re-sales, prevented mortgage lenders from cutting their losses on bad loans and, in general, hindered the kind of price “re-set” necessary to making the housing market efficient again.

Something else: The recession is not equally bad everywhere. Why is unemployment nearly 12% in California but less than 6% in Oklahoma? Don’t people in Oklahoma use ATMs and automated airline ticket kiosks?

I could go on and on, but it is such a shooting-fish-in-a-barrel topic.  If only the Left could see how intellectually bankrupt and counterproductive Obama’s economics are.  The youth who voted for him are starting to see it (their vision seems to be better when standing in the unemployment line rather than at his “hope and change” speeches).

—–

If you want to see something delusional, watch the head of the Democrat National Committee claim that Obama has turned the economy around.  Uh, yeah, sure, 9.1% unemployment, skyrocketing deficits and debt, gas over $4 a gallon (which was Bush’s fault when he was in office but apparently a good thing when Obama is in power, because it reduces global warming blah blah blah), etc.

Also see Obama Puts Unions Ahead of a Healthy Economy, Free Trade for an example of why it is hard to believe he even wants to reduce the unemployment rate.

Pro-lifers should be thrilled that Bachmann is running for President

In theory, real feminists should be thrilled that Michele Bachmann is running for President.   She has been successful in business and in politics and by all accounts is a terrific mother and extremely generous person. But the pro-choicers and the faux-lifers will hate her for this.  How dare she mention the Declaration of Independence?!   How dare she mention negative rights (i.e., the right to be protected from being destroyed just because you are unwanted)?!

Via Pro-Life Rep. Michele Bachmann Joins GOP Presidential Field | LifeNews.com:

During the debate, Bachmann defended her pro-life views and talked about the foster children she’s adopted.

“I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life,” Bachmann said.

“And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it’s a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take,” she continued. “And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general — genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.”

I love it when candidates speak clearly, especially on such an important topic.  She didn’t try to water things down.

And while the “pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born“ canard is easy to refute, her track record of caring for so many foster children serves as a “prebuttal” to the pro-legalized abortionists.

I’m glad she is running, and I would love to see her win or at least get the VP nod.

Hat tip: Jill Stanek

Jesus: Still the only way to salvation for everyone, including Jewish people

In Mohler to Weiner: Atone Through Jesus, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie is too ashamed of the Gospel to acknowledge that Jewish people need to hear it.  He loves himself and the world more than Jewish people, so he instinctively slams Al Mohler simply for claiming what is taught in the Bible over and over: Jesus is the only way to salvation.  If you can’t get that simple fact right, Christianity may not be your forte’.

Here’s the comment I left at the Huffington Post (which, of course, they didn’t post).

If Jewish people can be saved without trusting in Jesus, why did Paul say he wished he could give up his salvation on their behalf?

This isn’t about people being arrogant because they think they are right (that is, unless Chuck and all who agree with him are conceding to being arrogant just because they think they are right).

This is about what the Bible teaches.  And it couldn’t be more clear: There are over 100 passages in the New Testament saying that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  That isn’t what makes it true (Jesus’ rising from the dead does that), but it means that anyone claiming the name of Christ should hold that view.  Any other view is the opposite of what the Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches.

If you want to see the kind of people who find Chuck to be religiously enlightening, read the comments that they did post (Logic: They’re doin’ it wrong).  You could do a blog post on almost every comment pointing out their multiple logical fallacies and plain old ignorance.

Here are parts of Chuck’s post:

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a regular on cable television, had a message this weekend for scandal-plagued U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, which he sent, quite naturally, via Twitter, according to USA Today:

“Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective “treatment” for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.”

Weiner is Jewish.

Eek!  How dare Mohler share the Gospel with someone who is Jewish.  Oh, wait, isn’t that what Paul and all the early Apostles did?  (“first for the Jew, then for the Gentile . . .”)  Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, still always started off in the synagogues.

This isn’t the first time that Mohler has spoken strongly of his belief that Jews need Christ to be saved. He once compared Judaism to a tumor that needed to be removed. EthicsDaily.com reported in 2003:

While Jewish evangelism is controversial today, Mohler said Christians do Jewish people a disservice by failing to confront them with the gospel. He compared it to a person with a potentially deadly tumor, who would rather have a doctor give a truthful diagnosis than say all is well to avoid offending him.In the same way, telling a Jewish person she is in danger of hell “is the ultimate act of Christian love,” Mohler said. …

Notice how false teacher Chuck tries to make it look like Mohler said Judaism was a tumor, when he was merely pointing out that a doctor that won’t tell you what is really killing you isn’t much of a doctor at all — just like people like Chuck are lousy “reverends” and “Christians.”

In addition to his comments about the Jewish religion, Mohler has also described Catholicism as “a false church” teaching “a false gospel.” He says liberal Protestants have abandoned the Christian faith. …

Note to Chuck: The Reformation happened for a reason.  Actually, 95 of them.  If you don’t think the Catholic church is false you should join it.

And liberal Protestants like you have abandoned the faith!  You proudly deny that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

. . .

Mohler’s views are not shared by all Christians.

Correction: His views on the exclusivity of Christ are shared with all real Christians.

In 1987, The United Church of Christ adopted a resolution that stated in part:

We in the United Church of Christ acknowledge that the Christian Church has, throughout most of its history, denied God’s continuing covenantal relationship with the Jewish people expressed in the faith of Judaism. This denial has often led to outright rejection of the Jewish people and to theologically and humanly intolerable violence. The Church’s frequent portrayal of the Jews as blind, recalcitrant, evil, and rejected by God has found expression in much Christian theology, liturgy, and education. Such a negative portrayal of the Jewish people and of Judaism has been a factor in the shaping of anti Jewish attitudes of societies and the policies of governments. The most devastating lethal metastasis of this process occurred in our own country during the Holocaust.Faced with this history from which we as Christians cannot, and must not, disassociate ourselves, we ask for God’s forgiveness through our Lord Jesus Christ. We pray for divine grace that will enable us, more firmly than ever before, to turn from this path of rejection and persecution to affirm that Judaism has not been superseded by Christianity; that Christianity is not to be understood as the successor religion to Judaism; God’s covenant with the Jewish people has never been abrogated. God has not rejected the Jewish people; God is faithful in keeping covenant.

That is how Satan works: The mistaken and unfortunate persecution of Jews is compounded by fake Christians like Chuck deliberately withholding the Gospel from them.

Mohler’s advice to Weiner reminds us that there is still a powerful divide between some Christians and Jews. Christians like Mohler see their faith as superior to the Jewish faith and the Hebrew Scriptures of lesser value and importance than the Christian New Testament.

Well, duh.  Chuck obviously knows so little about the New Testament isn’t even funny.  Has he ever studied Romans?  Hebrews?  Anything besides Matthew 7:1 and Matthew 25, which he can’t even get right?

Mohler’s view of Judaism is obscene.

Then so were the Apostle Paul’s and Jesus’ views.  I know Chuck will dismiss all of Paul, saying he was a bigoted homophobe, but Jesus couldn’t have been more clear that He was the only way and that the Jews would die in their sins if they didn’t believe in him.   In short, Chuck disagrees with God, all the while parading as his representative.

And shame on the Huffington Post for giving space to an apostate “reverend” like Chuck who can’t even find a permanent job (his gig as “acting pastor for the interim pastor” just ended, and yes, that sounds a lot like Dwight Schrute’s “Assistant to the Regional Manager” title — only not as permanent).

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like Chuck Currie and denominations like the UCC which employ him.

Jesus is the only way to salvation.  I don’t care how unpopular that message is, it is the truth and I’ll keep sharing it for those who are authentically seeking the truth and desire to be reconciled with God and to live with him forever.

Michele Bachman wins debate. Waiting for the Left to try and destroy her in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1

Yeah, I’m re-using the 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 theme but it just seems to fit so well.  I like to use it when something is so utterly predictable.

See UK Telegraph pronounces Michele Bachmann the winner of the debate « Wintery Knight.  I’m hoping that when the Left tries to ridicule and destroy Bachman the way they did Sarah Palin that it backfires on them.  The 18-to-1 negative coverage worked to influence people to think Palin was stupid — even though the latest email analysis proved she was anything but, but hopefully the independent folks will catch on to what was really at work, namely the leftist theme that pro-life women are traitors and must be demolished.

Excerpt:

Tonight, she relentlessly pushed her experience as a tax lawyer, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, a decision-maker not afraid to buck her own party on TARP and a leader of the charge against Obamacare – not to mention being a mother of five and foster mother of 23.

There is often a herd mentality at debates. But I’ve never seen such unanimity as there was this time. In the spin room afterwards, almost everyone flocked initially to Team Bachmann to hear what they had to say.  Their game plan has been simple: 1. Grab the headlines by announcing she was running for president. It was gimmicky but effective. All the wires led with this “news” – I use inverted commas because we all knew she was running and she still hasn’t set a date for the actual announcement. 2. Push details of her broad experience and policy know-how.

Here’s the debate transcript:

• Part 1 of 4
• Part 2 of 4
• Part 3 of 4

She had a great response on Libya, pointing out things the state-run media should have been all over the last couple months.

To learn more about Bachmann, check out these profile pieces:

• Wall Street Journal profile of Michele Bachmann
• ABC News profile of Michele Bachmann

You can also see videos of Michele Bachmann interviews from a previous post.

These are both worth reading to understand her background, policies and voting record.

Bachman would make a great President or VP, but the faux-feminists will try to annihilate her first.

Waiting for the truth about “green” cars to be suppressed or ignored in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1

Via Electric vehicles not so Green after all « Truth in Religion & Politics:

The Australian, via The Week

ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found.

An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.

As someone who is serious about reducing, reusing and recyling and who drives a 30+ mpg car, I find the Green movement to be a big political power grab that destroys jobs and reduces your spending power.  My lifestyle is much more green than the professional climahypocrites.

It is sad that so many people have been duped by the global warming / global climate change fraud. Think of the millions of kids told by their trusted teachers that Al Gore had it right in his movie.  How many of those teachers ever went back to correct what they children learned?

Why do liberals agree with Ayn Rand?

No, not her economic views and insight into the problems of economic liberalism, but her pro-abortion views.  False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie, who is pro-legalized abortion and wants taxpayer-funded abortions but hypocritically mentions Jesus’ concern for the “least of these” in many of his posts, tries to put down the GOP for agreeing with Rand’s identification of our economic problems — see The GOP’s Love Affair With Ayn Rand.  But who really has the love affair with her godless worldview?

The irony of him agreeing with Rand on abortion is lost on a pro-abort like Chuck.  Legalized destruction of unwanted human beings is the opposite of social justice and about the love Jesus taught about, but it is the #1 goal of fake Christians like Currie and the un-believing liberals who agree with him.

This is a sample video by the deceptively named American Values Network.  They pretend to care about the Bible, but their real god is big government.  And even if they did care about the real Jesus, why aren’t the liberal ACLU-types criticizing them?  Oh, because the only oppose authentic Christianity and/or religious views they disagree with.

Friendly reminders: 1. Conservatives give more money and even blood than notoriously stingy Liberals.  2. Liberals fail at basic economics