Say, Would Jesus Accept Climate Change?

Personally, I have to wonder whether Jesus would care about “climate change”, what with all his teachings on tolerance, love, redemption, and, first, repentance as a path to God. Anyhow, it seems Warmists are using religion more and more as a means to push their pseudo-religion

Would Jesus Accept Climate Science?

Climate change is one of the biggest and most divisive environmental issues we’ve faced. Not only is the science scary and the challenge daunting, but it calls into question the very way we live our lives.

Perhaps that’s why climate science is causing a schism of sorts among American Christians. On one side you have Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative group, Cornwall Alliance, and former professor of historical theology and social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary, who claims that climate science is alarmist junk. Then on the other side, you have Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and an Evangelical Christian, who educates people on the dangers of climate change.

With all this rhetoric going back and forth, what’s a Christian in the U.S. supposed to believe? Do climate scientists lack ethics when they say climate change is real and dangerous? Or is there some truth to what they say?

Perhaps some of these Warmist religious leaders should be more worried about Godlessness and a loss of morals.

Whom should a Christian believe? Should they assume all climate scientists are just furthering a government agenda when they conclude that climate change is real? Or should they accept the science?

The answer to that question lies in the exercise of free will. God gave us brains to make good choices. It’s just important to remember that every choice has consequences.

I imagine sitting in a room. Next door I can hear my neighbor yelling for help. One person in the room with me says, “Oh don’t worry. They’ve shouted for help before and it’s turned out to be nothing. There’s no observable proof that they’re actually in trouble this time.” The other person in the room says, “Well, it might really be something this time. Maybe you should check it out.”

What would Jesus do? Would he go check on his neighbor? Or would he wait for blood before acting?

He’d probably wonder why religious leaders support abortion. More on the writer, Robyn Camparo Purchia

I’m an organic-eating, energy-saving naturalist who composts and tree hugs in her spare time. I have a background in environmental law, lobbying, and field work. I believe in God; however, I do not call myself a Christian or a Jew or a member of any religion. I am merely someone who finds a spiritual connection to all humans and the environment.

Spiritual connection. Um huh.

Read: Say, Would Jesus Accept Climate Change? »

If All You See…

…is a horrible rising sea coming to swamp all the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on a big D.C. gun carry ban ruling.

It’s purple week. Have any suggestions for photos?

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Happy Sunday! Another fantastic day in the Once And Future Nation of America. This pinup is by Bill Medcalf, with a wee bit of help.

What’s happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Legal Insurrection discusses Obama checking out
  2. Raised On Hoecakes covers the War On Work
  3. Rhymes With Right notes an alien Team O wants to keep out of the country
  4. The Astute Bloggers note Obama’s effectiveness
  5. The Daley Gator has the gun count
  6. The Jawa Report has young, uninformed Democrats
  7. The Lonely Conservative notes what Dems have tied in to Iron Dome funding
  8. The Other McCain notes the amnesty fine print
  9. The People’s Cube travels down War On Women road
  10. Victory Girls Blog has proof Obama lied about the Ocare tax
  11. Proof Positive is going solar
  12. Maggie’s Farm has praise for burkas
  13. Fausta has the aftermath of Obama’s Central America meeting
  14. Cold Fury has an open letter to Democrat socialists
  15. And last, but not least, American Power notes how anti-Israel protesters protested

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

When It Comes To Marijuana, The NY Times Is Suddenly A States’ Rights Advocate

You may have already seen the NY Times piece by their editorial board calling for the repeal of federal marijuana laws, referring to them as “prohibition”.

It took 13 years for the United States to come to its senses and end Prohibition, 13 years in which people kept drinking, otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals and crime syndicates arose and flourished. It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol.

The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana.

There is much to fisk and much to agree with in the article. I’ve made the case for and against marijuana in the past, and it really boils down to, in my case, that I really couldn’t care one way or another about marijuana. I’m not going to rehash those arguments here, but I will note that I’ve stated that it should be up to individual States to decide, though Los Federales would still have the ability to stop it from crossing state borders, both domestically and internationally. The editorial is part of a series the Times is running, because nothing else important is going on domestically and internationally, and they move on to this piece by David Firestone

Let States Decide on Marijuana

In 1970, at the height of his white-hot war on crime, President Richard Nixon demanded that Congress pass the Controlled Substances Act to crack down on drug abuse. During the debate, Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut held up a package wrapped in light-green paper that he said contained $3,000 worth of marijuana. This substance, he said, caused such “dreadful hallucinations” in an Army sergeant in Vietnam that he called down a mortar strike on his own troops. A few minutes later, the Senate unanimously passed the bill.

That law, so antique that it uses the spelling “marihuana,” is still on the books, and is the principal reason that possessing the substance in Senator Dodd’s package is considered illegal by the United States government. Changing it wouldn’t even require an act of Congress — the attorney general or the secretary of Health and Human Services could each do so — although the law should be changed to make sure that future administrations could not reimpose the ban.

Los Federales have also noted that marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence” (mentioned in the article, too). Though, there are virtually no studies which show either physical nor psychological dependence for marijuana. BTW, Thomas Dodd was a Democrat.

Repealing it would allow the states to decide whether to permit marijuana use and under what conditions. Nearly three-fourths of them have already begun to do so, liberalizing their laws in defiance of the federal ban. Two have legalized recreational use outright, and if the federal government also recognized the growing public sentiment to legalize and regulate marijuana, that would almost certainly prompt more states to follow along.

Firestone makes a good case, one which is well reasoned, rational, and doesn’t devolve into Left vs Right politics. I recommend reading the entire piece. Again, legalization doesn’t matter personally to me, as I wouldn’t use it if it was legalized. I find it boring, after years of use in high school and college, and a bit of usage afterwards. What interests me in this is that the NY Times is essentially calling for the repeal of federal laws regarding marijuana use and leaving it up to the States to decide, invoking federalism and the 10th Amendment (without stating them specifically), which is a very American Conservative point of view.

Virtually ever other issue pushed by the Times, as the leading (very liberal) paper in the nation (and the world, of course), invokes the use of federal power, and the primacy of the Central Government. The closest they’ve gotten to States rights is on gay marriage, but, of course, they flay any states that refuse to allow legal gay marriage. Immigration? They flayed Arizona and other states that passed strengthened laws. Voter ID? They flay non-Democrat states that pass those laws. Gun control? They’re thrilled when states pass tough laws, but want federal dominance for those that refuse to do the same, and want Federal law enacted.

So, yes, let the States decide. And be amused that the NY Times is suddenly all for States Rights. Next thing you know they’ll be flying a Gadsden Flag and attending Tea Party rallies!

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: When It Comes To Marijuana, The NY Times Is Suddenly A States’ Rights Advocate »

Follow Up On Acer Iconia B1-730 Tablet

I mentioned a week ago that I had purchased an Acer Iconia B1-730 tablet, and mentioned the pros and cons. One interesting thing in all the pro reviews was the mention that the Android 4.3.3 was stripped down. Having played with it, they weren’t kidding. It was missing several capabilities, including the ability for automatic screen brightness and battery control for shutting down certain aspects.

To deal with this, I added a few apps. First, since I already use Go Launcher EX, I added the Go Switch+ widget, which gives me (sort of) the ability to quickly change the brightness profile, including automatic. It’s so so, but that is more a reflection on the Android software/hardware, as other programs are so so. But, GS+ has lots of other functionality for turning on/off different aspects.

Second, I added JuiceSaver, which shuts off certain programs, and WiFi, when the tablet is placed in standby. Previously, if I went off to work it would be stone dead when I got home, because the WiFi never really shut off, which meant programs were also accessing the ‘net. Having used it for a few days, battery lasts a long time. I went to work at 8am, got home at 715, and the battery went from 84% to 70%. I’m really not concerned with it accessing Twitter, Gmail (I do not receive my regular email accounts on tablet), or anything else unless I have it turned on and using it. When I turn it on, WiFi comes back on quickly.

Overall, I am very happy with the tablet. I’ve tried a few games using the accelerometer, and work like a charm.

Read: Follow Up On Acer Iconia B1-730 Tablet »

Climate Change: What Would Jesus Do?

Warmists are working hard to link climate change with everything. Getting religion to be invested in the cult has been important (even while Warmists denigrate those who are religious). Katherine Hayhoe constantly imbues her climahysteria with religious overtones. Recently, we had the World Council of Churches playing the divestment game (even though they will use fossil fuels themselves). We’ve been told that Jesus would be a Warmist. They bathed the Rio statue of Jesus in green light. Earth Hour is like praying to Jesus. We’ve been told climate change is a moral issue many times (by the same people who believe in abortion). And there was an article along the same lines as the headline at the Huffington Post in February of this year

What would Jesus do (about climate change)?

Gordon College science professor Dorothy Boorse wants evangelical Christians to connect practicing their faith with caring for the environment.

At first glance, Dorothy Boorse’s office could belong to any science professor. The desk is strewn with papers. Office hours are posted on the door, alongside photos of Boorse and her students sloshing through Essex County marshes with nets. Shelves are crammed with textbooks, including one that Boorse co-wrote. But they also hold titles like The Genesis Enigma and Flesh-and-Blood Jesus as well as back issues of Christian Scholar’s Review. (snip)

For Boorse, scientific inquiry and religion are absolutely compatible. Raised in rural Pennsylvania by Christian parents (her father, a Baptist, was ordained but never served as a minister; he taught middle school, high school, and junior college biology), she attended several churches growing up and a Mennonite junior and senior high school. “Mennonites always make connections between living simply, using less stuff, doing justice, loving your neighbor, and caring for the environment,” she says. “It was a whole cloth for me.” (snip)

Loving the Least of These asks the reader questions. What does the Bible tell Christians about engaging with the world? What do we know about changes in the earth’s climate? How will climate change affect the poor, especially in countries that have few resources to help people cope with floods, drought, and displacement? And what should people in rich nations do? It offers options: Christians can pray for insight, change their own lifestyles to use fewer resources, and help vulnerable communities adapt — ideally, by preparing them for climate change, not just responding after disasters.

Read: Climate Change: What Would Jesus Do? »

If All You See…

…is a ridge collapsed because of climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sister Toldjah, with a post on an epic pro-Israel rant by Joan Rivers.

Grog for anyone who can guess the model in the picture above. And, ending Yellow Week with a double-shot of throwback goodness below the fold

Read: If All You See… »

Pelosi: Illegals Are Like Moses Or Something

Um, OK?????

(Breitbart) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi doubled down on her comments that Americans should view the flood of children crossing the border while claiming refugee status just like baby Jesus.

Pelosi reminded reporters that it was the National Conference of Catholic Bishops that used the baby Jesus analogy. She then suggested that if Moses hadn’t have been accepted by the Egyptians, then there wouldn’t be the Ten Commandments.

“You could even speak about, if it’s your tradition, Moses,” she said. “What would we do if Moses had not been accepted by the pharaoh’s family? We wouldn’t have the Ten Commandments for starters.”

Video available at the link

Read: Pelosi: Illegals Are Like Moses Or Something »

Dem Eleanor Holmes Norton: ‘You Don’t Have a Right to Know Everything’ Government Does

She was saying this in terms of her Congressional collegues. Anyone want to guess what she thinks the citizens should know?

(The Blaze) Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) lectured her colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives that they “don’t have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government.”

“That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,” she said.

Her outburst came during a Friday House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing where Republicans criticized the Obama administration for defying a subpoena calling on David Simas, director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, to appear before Congress.

Ms. Norton has missed the fact that separation of powers is about enforcing checks and balance, not hiding activities from neither Congress nor the Citizens. Obviously, certain things are, in fact, secret, such as some military and intelligence programs. However, those are supposed to be discussed with certain Congressional committees or elected officials behind closed doors.

Can you imagine a Democrat making that kind of statement if a Republican was in the White House?

Read: Dem Eleanor Holmes Norton: ‘You Don’t Have a Right to Know Everything’ Government Does »

Obama Weekly Address: Companies Which Flee High Taxes Are Un-patriotic

Another Saturday, more populism attacks. Interestingly, he does suggest a Good Idea amongst his populist rhetoric

Weekly Address: Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes

In this week’s address, the President continued his call for our nation to rally around an economic patriotism that says rather than protecting wasteful tax loopholes for a few at the top, we should be investing in things like education and job training that grow the economy for everybody. The President highlighted the need to close one of the most unfair tax loopholes that allows companies to avoid paying taxes here at home by shifting their residence for tax purposes out of the country. The President has put forth a budget that does just that, and he has called for business tax reform that makes investment in the United States attractive, and creates incentives for companies to invest and create jobs here at home. And while he will continue to make the case for tax reform, the President is calling on Congress to take action and close this loophole now.

Wait, he put forth a budget that includes this? Would that be the budget that Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Majority Leader of the Democrat controlled Senate refused to even bring to the floor for a vote? And that all but 2 Democrats rejected in a House vote, which was called a stunt by Democrats? And was submitted late, yet again?

But there’s another trend that threatens to undermine the progress you’ve helped make. Even as corporate profits are as high as ever, a small but growing group of big corporations are fleeing the country to get out of paying taxes. They’re keeping most of their business inside the United States, but they’re basically renouncing their citizenship and declaring that they’re based somewhere else, just to avoid paying their fair share.

Says the guy who takes advantage of every tax loophole, to use his own words, to avoid paying his full rate.

I want to be clear: this is only a few big corporations so far. The vast majority of American businesses pay their taxes right here in the United States. But when some companies cherrypick their taxes, it damages the country’s finances. It adds to the deficit. It makes it harder to invest in the things that will keep America strong, and it sticks you with the tab for what they stash offshore. Right now, a loophole in our tax laws makes this totally legal – and I think that’s totally wrong. You don’t get to pick which rules you play by, or which tax rate you pay, and neither should these companies.

There is so much in that statement to fisk I’m not sure where to start. He’s possibly the last person in the country to discuss adding to the deficit. His investments have often been monumental failures.

And then there’s the part about getting to pick the rules you play by…oh, wait, he means Other People can’t pick, because Obama sure does this on a constant basis, even changing the rules which have no latitude within them.

The best way to level the playing field is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate, closes wasteful loopholes, and simplifies the tax code for everybody. But stopping companies from renouncing their citizenship just to get out of paying their fair share of taxes is something that cannot wait. That’s why, in my budget earlier this year, I proposed closing this unpatriotic tax loophole for good. Democrats in Congress have advanced proposals that would do the same thing. A couple Republicans have indicated they want to address this too, and I hope more join us.

The first sentence is fantastic. This is something Republicans have been trying to do for quite some time. Unfortunately, every piece of legislation the Republican led House has passed along these lines has featured a majority of Democrats voting against it, and, in a few cases, has featured a veto threat from Obama. And none of them ever get taken up by the Democrat Senate.

I’ve yet to see a proposal by Congressional Democrats, nor can I find one on the web. Republicans have advanced several, so this “a couple Republicans” thing is just more Obama nastiness, but, should we expect different from him? Well, we should, of course, but then reality intrudes.

There is a problem, though, when discussing dealing with the “corporate tax inversions”, as The Economist points out

The real solution is to lower the corporate rate, eliminate tax breaks and move America from a worldwide system to a territorial one. Barack Obama has proposed a reform that cuts the rate to 28% but keeps the worldwide reach. Dave Camp, a Republican congressman, has plumped for 25%, the OECD average, and a shift to a territorial system, instead.

It should be possible to bridge the differences. But both sides have tied the subject to other issues. Mr Obama insists that corporate-tax reform must also raise more money to spend on things like public infrastructure, which the Republicans oppose; they, in turn, want to package it with cuts in personal tax rates, which Mr Obama is loth to accept. Thus, nothing happens.

Sadly, that’s the way Washington works, trying to package other things with the main thing. That’s how we ended up with student loans “reform” in Obamacare. Even if both drop the other stuff, they still have to deal with the rates and reach. And then deal with recalcitrant Senate Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Weekly Address: Companies Which Flee High Taxes Are Un-patriotic »

Pirate's Cove