30,000+ Scientists Declare “Climate Change Hoax”

light and darkness97% of Scientists DON’T Agree With “Climate Change”

By Dr. Tom Barrett

Obama and the Liberals have claimed for years that 97% of scientists believe in the fake science of “Climate Change.” It turns out that is just another big lie, as recent surveys prove. In fact, over 30,000 scientists, 1/3 of them Ph.D.’s, have signed a document declaring that they DON’T buy in to “Climate Change. In fact, they say it’s a hoax!APTOPIX Lightning Weather

“Climate Change” is a huge, profitable business. Al Gore has gotten rich from this junk science industry. In fact, his personal net worth has grown 500% since he became the spokesman for climate change.

American’s have such short memories. Many of the same scientists who are on the climate change bandwagon today used to call it “Global Cooling” in the 1970’s. A new ice Age was upon us, and mankind would be eradicated by freezing to death. Unfortunately for their credibility, we’re still alive and have not turned into Popsickles. Interestingly, several thousand articles about “Global Cooling” were mysteriously erased from Wikipedia and other sites in the past few years.

sunWhen “Global Cooling” was debunked they switched the name to “Global Warming.” The polar ice caps were going to melt, the oceans would rise, and we would all drown. We didn’t drown. And the same historical revisionism was brought into play again. Articles about “Global Warming” were deleted. And many scientists who corrected the record on Wikipedia found their changes deleted over and over again.double rainbow

The attempts to alter history and erase all links to the thousands of articles and records of the hundreds of “Global Cooling” and “Global Warming” conferences is very well documented here: http://notrickszone.com/…/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-pa…/…

Temperatures don’t always rise, as they claimed in “Global Warming.” Nor do they always fall (“Global Cooling”). Tired of defending the indefensible, they changed the name to “Climate Change.” That was safe – because the climate is always changing!

distant sunThe problem for the Liberal climate change fanatics is that – according to an eminent scientist – the reason the climate regularly changes is because of solar flares. Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey has revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity.

So what’s next? Some of the climate weirdos want to change the name of this fake “emergency” to “Climate Disruption.” But the main reason* the Liberal Left is so intent on blaming humanity for changes in the climate is that they hate petroleum energy. So some have proposed calling any change in climate – whether warming or cooling – “Carbon Pollution.” Al Gore, who has become a laughingstock for his many false predictions, reportedly likes this name because it conjures up a picture of a huge black cloud of carbon hanging over the earth.firecooking

Real science has documented that the climate has changed in both directions since the beginning of time. So it is obviously not human activity that has caused it – unless someone can explain how the cooking fires of ancient nomadic tribes could cause massive shifts in the earth’s climate.

Scientists as far back as Benjamin Franklin have documented the massive effect of volcanoes of our planet’s climate. In fact, one group of scientists found that the eruption of just one volcano – Mount St. Helens in 1980, which spewed ash over 11 states – had far more impact on our climate than ALL human activity that year. And there are hundreds of volcanic eruptions every year.

lightning strikeWhether the real cause of the regular shifts between cooler and warmer weather is caused by solar flares, volcanoes, or other natural phenomena, one thing is certain. The puny human race has next to no impact on climate when compared to the massive power of the sun or multiple volcanic eruptions.

It would be nice if all the climate freaks spent their time doing something useful – like discouraging their fellow Leftists from rioting, burning, looting and attacking innocent bystanders and police officers every time they don’t approve of a new law, a presidential order, or the way a court ruled.

*****

Dr. Tom Barrett has been a pastor for almost 40 years and currently oversees ordained ministers in South Florida. He has always been a bi-vocational minister, working in the financial services arena as a Branch Manager and National Vice President. He is a Patriot who has studied and taught the Constitution in both church and secular settings. A prolific author he has written a book on Conservative principles (The Best of Conservative Truth) and has written over a thousand feature articles that have been published in local and national newspapers as well as on the Internet. He speaks nationally on the Christian foundations of or our nation and its Constitution, and internationally on Biblical financial principles. He has lectured at seminaries, universities, economic summits, churches, and the International Money Shows. His websites are http://www.ConservativeTruth.org (writing); http://www.ChristianFinancialConcepts.com (ministry); and http://www.DrTom.TV (personal).

Article from iPatriot: http://ipatriot.com/97-scientists-dont-agree-climate-change/

  • It is the opinion of GospelBBQ that “Global Warming” and/or “Climate Change” are merely tools used by Globalist-minded leaders to extract (steal) as much capital as possible to use for (anti-Christian) “worldwide wealth redistribution” from the so-called richer nations to the poorer nations.

 

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Worldview/Culture, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Immigration: A Biblical Perspective

church-entryWhat is God’s Perspective on Immigration?gustave courbet

By Rick Lanser, MDiv

In seeking timeless truths and timely topics, it is always valuable to look at areas which intersects both biblical studies and political issues. Herewith, then, for your consideration is an investigation that attempts to discern God’s perspective on the subject of immigration. All Scripture references are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

“Illegal Immigration”

It’s best to unambiguously define some terms before continuing. What exactly is “illegal AAAimmigration”? At its simplest, it is the movement of people from one area into another, such that this movement violates laws and regulations in place at any given time at the destination—laws intended to govern such movement and enforced by the political powers holding sway over the area. These laws can change with time, depending on who is in power and whether their governing philosophy has a globalist or nationalist flavor, so they are not set in stone. But regardless of whatever policies are in effect, immigration is always the moving of people from an area of certain characteristics, to another that is distinctly different. For immigration to be an issue, there have to be borders. To have a national identity means having established boundaries which mark the transition from one political entity’s rules and regulations to another’s. Such borders can be either imposed by outside sources—witness how the Great Powers of World War I partitioned up the Middle East into separate nations, with little attention paid to the fact that these borders sometimes artificially lumped together disparate people groups—or they can arise from a recognition that people groups tied together by ethnicity or religion inhabit a certain area rather than another, often constrained by geographic features such as mountains or rivers. But at their root, however they are set up, borders recognize points where political power over an area changes from one source to another. With those definitions in mind, let’s try to discern what light the Word of God can shed on whether borders, together with the imposition of laws that they entail, are justifiable, and if so, how they impact the status of people who move from one area to another.

Borders in the Bible

AADThe early chapters of Genesis tell us about the spread of mankind throughout the world after the Flood. At the dawn of civilization we find the extended clan of Noah’s family, perhaps excepting a few adventurous souls Scripture is silent about, more or less staying together. We know this situation existed because when sufficient time had passed after the Flood for Noah to have taken up sedentary farming and planted a vineyard (Genesis 9:20 ff), all three of Noah’s sons and their families were still living in close proximity; Ham saw his father drunk and naked in his tent, and Shem and Japheth were right there to cover Noah’s inadvertent nakedness. Thus, an indeterminate period of time passed which could have spanned a couple hundred years, before the bulk of humanity moved westward into the plain of Shinar (Gen. 11:2). After the migration into Shinar we see the beginnings of discrete nations. Genesis 10 — which provides an overview of how various people groups were derived from patriarchal progenitors — largely follows chronologically the details discussed later in chapter 11, which focuses on how those nations arose in the aftermath of the Tower of Babel incident. At the time of this great division, God expressed His concern: “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this [building the city and tower, which apparently concentrated the effects of sin in one place] is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them” (Gen. 11:6). To address this problem, the LORD confused their languages, with the result that He “scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city” (Gen. 11:8). The language used in Genesis 10 informs us that the concept of borders to divide one people’s territory from another existed from the dawn of civilization. For example, verse 19 is very specific: “The territory of the Canaanite extended from Sidon as you go toward Gerar, as far as Gaza; as you go toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha.” We also have the LORD specifying the borders of the area which the Israelites were to inhabit in Genesis 15:18-21, and confirmed in detail in Numbersearth 34:1-12—despite the fact that other peoples had gone into the land of Canaan first! What mattered was who God wanted to live there, not merely who had first dibs. (Some generalities might be drawn from this about the settling of the Americas by Europeans, but that’s something for another day…) One more thing to note about borders in the Bible is that, during the Conquest period, the migrating Israelites respected defined borders as they existed at the time. When they came to the territory of the Amorites, they did not simply go tromping into it, but first asked permission to cross: “Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon, king of the Amorites, saying, ‘Let me pass through your land. We will not turn off into field or vineyard; we will not drink water from wells. We will go by the king’s highway until we have passed through your border’ (Num. 21:21-22). The Israelites thus recognized the reality of national borders at this early point in history, and treated them with respect. Although it is not our purpose here to examine in detail what the New Testament has to say on the subject, we should note in passing the NT teaching on borders confirms they are ordained by God. ., the Apostle Paul specifically affirmed: “and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation…” To wrap up this part of the study, we can affirm from Scripture a few things about borders: (1) that their establishment is sanctioned by God; (2) that outsiders who peaceably cross them are expected to first ask permission; and (3) that to cross them without permission is at least a violation of accepted practice, and at worst tantamount to an act of war. (That’s controversial stuff to much of modern political thought!) But, it is what it is. The primary takeaway is that, biblically speaking, people should not simply cross a border without first getting an okay from the authorities.

Immigrants in the Bible

evening crossThat last statement immediately turns our thoughts to the controversial subject of illegal immigration. Immigration involves not merely moving from one area to another, but also entails the crossing of a border by people into a foreign land. Although English translations of the Old Testament—for brevity’s sake, we will limit our discussion to the OT—do not use the specific word “immigrant” to describe such people, their existence was recognized as early as the days of Abraham and Moses. Several different Hebrew terms affirm the reality that, from earliest times, people often lived in a land they were not born into. These words are variously translated “sojourners,” “strangers,” “foreigners,” and “aliens.” (No, ‘aliens’ does not refer to extraterrestrial beings!) Let’s look at the key terms lying behind these words, and see if we can draw some general conclusions about their significance, if any, to understanding how God views immigrants and how we should deal with them.

The Sojourner

The first term to look at is the Hebrew word גֵּר, ger (Strong’s Concordance H1616), which occurs 92 times. A slightly dated (1979) copy of the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon (BDB) informs us that ger is a noun derived from the closely related verb גּוּר, guwr (Strong’s H1481), used 194 times, which has the primary meaning of “sojourn,” to “dwell for a (definite or indefinite) time, dwell as a new-comer…without original rights.” The “original rights” stipulation is to be understood as rights belonging to a full-fledged citizen of the land, rights which can be inherited from the parents. These rights (and obligations!) of Israelite citizens are dealt with in intricate detail in the precepts laid down in the Pentateuch. The thing to take away here is that the “stranger”—the word most commonly used to render the term—is someone who is not a native of the land, yet nevertheless is granted rights on a par with the native. We see the concept of the ger extant as early as the time of Abraham. When Sarah died at Kiriath-arba (Hebron) in the land of Canaan, Abraham besought the native sons of Heth for a burial place thus: “I am a stranger (ger) and a sojourner (תֹּשָׁבֵי, towshab, Strong’s H8453, used 15 times) among you; give me a burial site among you that I may bury my dead out of my sight” (Gen. 23:4). Abraham and those with him all recognized his status as not being native to the land, and this is reaffirmed by the distinction between him and the Hethites noted in 23:12: “And Abraham bowed before the people of the land(emphasis added). He was not one of them, irrespective of the fact that he had lived among them for many years and had become, as the Hethites themselves testified, “a mighty prince among us” (23:6). He had all the privileges of a native, yet was not one. As an aside, the word rendered “sojourner” in the above verse is towshab rather than the more frequent guwr, the difference being, according to BDB, that it represented a sojourn of a more temporary and dependent kind than the ger (see Leviticus 22:10 and 25:6 for other examples of this term). It may have been used in Genesis 23:4 because Abraham’s stay specifically among the sons of Heth may only have been a relatively brief part of his total sojourn in the land of Canaan. Similarly, we can jump ahead to Genesis 47:4-6, which relates the story of the entry of Jacob and his clan into Egypt during the time of Joseph:

They said to Pharaoh, “We have come to sojourn (guwr) in the land, for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks, for the famine is severe in the land of Canaan. Now, therefore, please let your servants live in the land of Goshen.” Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Your father and your brothers have come to you. The land of Egypt is at your disposal; settle your father and your brothers in the best of the land, let them live in the land of Goshen; and if you know any capable men among them, then put them in charge of my livestock.” Then Joseph brought his father Jacob and presented him to Pharaoh; and Jacob blessed Pharaoh.

There are a few things we can derive from this passage. First, the Israelites describe what they wish to do: “sojourn” in the land of Egypt. They want to live there, but the duration of the stay in unclear. They next describe why: “the famine is severe in the land of Canaan.” Reading between the lines, it seems the best modern English word to describe the status of Jacob and his sons would be “refugees,” immigrants driven into another country due to flight from unlivable conditions in their homeland. Next, we see that they formally request of the highest authority, Pharaoh, permission to live in his foreign land: “please let your servants live in the land of Goshen.” Finally, we see that this permission is granted, although with a responsibility laid on the sojourners: the able men among them are to be put to work minding Pharaoh’s livestock—a government work program, if you will. (Of course, by the time of Moses that program’s stipulations had gotten pretty onerous…) Putting together the hints in just these two passages, we conclude that the dominant characteristics of the ger, “sojourner,” make this person roughly equivalent to a modern-day refugee—a legal immigrant who has received official government sanction to cross the border and take up residence in another land, with all the normal rights and privileges thereto.

Description Versus Prescription

Before we continue, I think it is important to make an observation about how we apply certain passages in the Bible to modern situations such as the immigration debate. In our study of Scripture, most of us want to know not merely what happened in the distant past in the outworking of salvation history, but more particularly what affects us in the here-and-now: what God prescribes for us. We seek to lay hold of the lasting principles and specific stipulations that transcend times and cultures. We want Him to reveal His ongoing will to us so that, in doing it, we can rejoice in knowing that He is pleased to bless us and our efforts. The above passages from Genesis just reviewed, however, are descriptions of what the actors did in the situation they found themselves in, rather than prescriptions from God which we can affirm with high confidence as applying to all times and cultures. Because no “thus saith the LORD” is invoked, we cannot confidently assert that what Abraham or Jacob experienced presents us with lasting principles we should follow. We may sense there are universal principles exhibited here, since the LORD was clearly superintending over the affairs of men in bringing the nation of Israel into Egypt as part of His plan to bring the Messiah into the world, but we cannot prove that based only on these passages. To confidently know that something is the will of God for us today, we must look for declarative statements of that Divine will. These we find later in the Pentateuch, after Moses is given God’s instructions for His people Israel. Before this, we find other intimations of what God looks for in Genesis and Exodus, but that’s all they are—intimations that give us a sense of where God is going. But in the laws of God given to Moses, we have express warrant for finding lasting principles. Exodus 12:48, for example, tells us, “But if a stranger (ger) sojourns (guwr) with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land…” (emphasis added). Similarly, Exodus 12:49: “The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger (ger) who sojourns (guwr) among you.” Finally, we have Leviticus 19:34: “The stranger (ger) who resides (guwr) with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens (ger) in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God ” (emphasis added). To summarize on this aspect, the clear biblical teaching is that there is a particular kind of immigrant or sojourner who has taken a vested interest in the land he moved to and is willing to assimilate into it, has official sanction to live there, and in return has rights on a par with the native. A legal immigrant, if you will. These teachings may have specific application to the nation of Israel, but due to their prescriptive nature, there appear to be timeless general principles about how people should relate to each other that can be drawn out.

The Foreigner

Another key term is נָכְרִי, nokriy (Strong’s H5237), found 47 times. It appears to carry a rather negative connotation when contrasted with the ger. Among the English words used to render it are “stranger,” “strange,” “alien” and “foreigner.” “Sojourner,” with the many positive connotations it carries, is never used to translate nokriy. Although Abraham recognized that he lived in a foreign land, he never called himself a “foreigner,” nor did Jacob. The word is used for someone who has a lower status than the ger. One example is seen in Genesis 31:14-15: “Rachel and Leah said to him, ‘Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father’s house? Are we not reckoned by him as foreigners (nokriy)? For he has sold us, and has also entirely consumed our purchase price.” There is a very obvious disrespect for the nokriy exhibited in that dialogue. Further, we find in Scripture that the ger is to be treated better than the nokriy: “You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the alien (ger) who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner (nokriy), for you are a holy people to the LORD your God…” (Dt. 14:21). The ger, the alien “sojourner” among the Israelites, is treated better in that he receives at no cost what the “foreigner” has to pay for.

One more passage shows that the foreigner has further financial disadvantages: “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts. This is the manner of remission: every creditor shall release what he has loaned to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the LORD’s remission has been proclaimed. From a foreigner (nokriy) you may exact it, but your hand shall release whatever of yours is with your brother” (Dt. 15:1-3, emphasis added). It is noteworthy that the ger is not mentioned for such treatment. It is the same way in Dt. 23:20-21, where the charging of interest on loans is discussed: “You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest. You may charge interest to a foreigner (nokriy), but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess” (emphasis added). Looking over the characteristics of the nokriy, it is not perfectly clear what his essential difference is from the ger, because Scripture does not explicitly spell it out. He is treated differently…but why? I suspect the answer ties into having a homeland to return to if need be, so his allegiance to his adopted land is not wholehearted. The ger does not see himself as having this fallback option, either due to oppressive circumstances in his homeland or powerfully motivated choice (Abraham does not seem to have been obligated to leave Ur of the Chaldees for any reason other than God laying it on his heart); the nokriy, however, does have such a fallback. The ger is all-in and has a commensurate loyalty to the adopted land, while the nokriy apparently has a more temporary outlook and perhaps a quite selfish perspective—“what’s in it for ME?” This contrasts with the attitude epitomized by Ruth the Moabitess, expressed in these memorable words to her mother-in-law Naomi in Ruth 1:16-17:

Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me.

Truly, for Ruth there was no turning back. So, perhaps the “foreigner” in the Bible is best understood as someone who does not intend to be a full participant in the life and culture of the foreign country in which he resides, to fully identify with it. I am not sure we can perfectly equate the nokriy with one who today is labeled an illegal (or at least undocumented) immigrant, but it is at least fair to say that both have a “what’s in it for me?” attitude, so they warrant being treated differently from the ger. Being unwilling to follow the customs and regulations put in place by the authorities on the other side of the border has practical effects. And one last observation: in the Bible, people apparently knew who were the ger or nokriy, otherwise it would not be possible to treat the individuals appropriately as their status deserved, or to identify them with different, mutually exclusive terms. This strongly implies that government policies should not purposely shield the public from knowing if one is an immigrant of either class.

Odds and Ends

A few miscellaneous observations came out of this study which don’t neatly fit into the above headings, but do apply to a big-picture view of immigration policies. The references that follow are from the NASB, the takeaways are my off-the-cuff comments… Leviticus 25:23: “The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are but aliens (ger) and sojourners (towshab) with Me.” TAKEAWAY: In God’s eyes, whether for a longer or shorter time, we are ALL reckoned as immigrants into His domain. We enter His promised land not by inheritance, but individually. God has no grandchildren who inherit His Kingdom privileges, but they must be individually granted by the King. Leviticus 25:35: “Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger (ger) or a sojourner (towshab), that he may live with you.” TAKEAWAY: This gives explicit biblical warrant for some form of governmental safety net for those who are legal immigrants, regardless of how recently they came. Note that the nokriy is not included in this privilege. Numbers 15:16: “There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien (ger) who sojourns (guwr) with you.” TAKEAWAY: Justice is not to be a respecter of persons or immigration status. Numbers 35:15: “These six cities shall be for refuge for the sons of Israel, and for the alien (ger) and for the sojourner (towshab) among them; that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there.” TAKEAWAY: “Cities of refuge” apply only to those guilty of an accidental capital crime, regardless of whether they are natives or immigrants. Cities of refuge are not just designed to shield immigrants. Interestingly, the nokriy is not mentioned as eligible for this privilege. Deuteronomy 10:18-19: “He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien (ger) by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien (ger), for you were aliens (ger) in the land of Egypt.” TAKEAWAY: A just society will provide the basics of life to immigrants just as to other economically disadvantaged people. Deuteronomy 24:19: “When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien (ger), for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.” TAKEAWAY: Again, we should willingly exercise charity toward the economically disadvantaged, including immigrants. 2 Chronicles 2:17-18: “Solomon numbered all the aliens (ger) who were in the land of Israel, following the census which his father David had taken; and 153,600 were found. He appointed 70,000 of them to carry loads and 80,000 to quarry stones in the mountains and 3,600 supervisors to make the people work.” TAKEAWAY: Although this passage is descriptive rather than prescriptive, here we find biblical warrant for identifying and keeping track of numbers of immigrants, rather than shielding them from being documented. As well, it offers justification for governmental work programs to help immigrants get established in their new land. Ezekiel 47:22: “You shall divide it by lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the aliens (ger) who stay (guwr) in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel” (emphasis added). TAKEAWAY: The children of immigrants born in the country will be reckoned as citizens from birth. Note that this is not applied to the nokriy, so seeking biblical sanction here for so-called “anchor babies” is dubious. Ezekiel 47:23: “And in the tribe with which the alien (ger) stays (guwr), there you shall give him his inheritance,” declares the Lord GOD.” TAKEAWAY: Immigrants can become landowners where they live and work. It is extremely pertinent to observe that in all of the positive prescriptions just given, the recipient is invariably the ger, not the nokriy! Simply crossing a border does not, as far as Scripture is concerned, entitle an immigrant to certain rights and privileges. Something more is expected of the one who will be given a full social safety net…manifested loyalty and fealty, demonstrated by respect for and submission to the regulations and laws of the land.

Conclusions

The basic message we get from this study is that there are two basic kinds of immigrants in Scripture: the ger who, though not natives of a nation, have all the rights and privileges of the native citizens; and the nokriy, who have a second-class status because they are unwilling to take the steps the fully privileged immigrants were. In addition, it is clear that a great majority of the passages dealing with the ger are of a prescriptive nature, being based on explicit instructions from God. It is thus safe to view them as being of enduring pertinence for basing policy decisions on. Regarding those termed the nokriy, it is clear that although they, like the ger, have crossed a country’s border, they are distinct and separate from the ger in terms of the rights and privileges they are granted. That they are not mentioned in many passages where the rights of the ger are clearly delineated strongly implies that, in God’s sight, they do not warrant receiving these privileges. This study thus offers biblical support—i.e., God’s sanction—for policies which preferentially give immigrants who show a willingness to do what it takes to integrate into and fully participate in the life of a society, rights and privileges which do not accrue to those who do not. The claim that it is unjust or unloving to withhold any privileges from those unwilling to do certain things appears to be a gross misapplication of “social justice.” The Apostle Paul said, “For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). This principle can easily be seen to apply to immigration issues. Privileges come to those who do what it takes to warrant them, a truism that applies to a biblical perspective on immigration as well as to so many other things in life.

And it should be added that, since the Church is to obey the civil authorities (Rom. 13:1-8), Christians should not be advocating people from foreign nations to break laws when they attempt to cross into another country. We who claim to be the Lord’s children have an obligation not only to follow His principles ourselves, but to encourage others to do the same. Since the loving God we serve is not wishy-washy but has definite opinions about how we should live, we should make every effort to line up our opinions and policies with His.

*****

Article from Bible Archaeology: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2017/01/28/What-is-Gode28099s-Perspective-on-Immigration.aspx#Article

 

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Church and State, Law of Christ, Theology/Philosophy, Worldview/Culture, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘CLIMATE-GATE 2’ — The Myth of Global Warming Exposed?

cropped-colorado-sunset.jpgExposed:

How World Leaders were Duped over Manipulated Global Warming Data

  • The ‘Mail on Sunday’ can reveal a landmark paper exaggerating global warming.
  • It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change.
  • America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.
  • The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

Data Science, Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates blew the whistle!greenland

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organization that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower, John J. Bates, has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

APTOPIX Lightning WeatherThe report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data. It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised.desert

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

The PM, the Prince and ‘the pause’: David Cameron and Prince Charles attended the historic 2015 Paris climate change conference with 150 world leaders. Cameron committed Britain to an EU-Wide emission cut as a result. And Charles, writing in this paper last month, stated there was no pause in global warming, influenced by the flawed NOAA paper that made this claim”

earthIn an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.’ A blatant attempt to intensify the paper’s impact. Dr. Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

LED TO THESE GREEN COMMITMENTS

Data published by NOAA, the world’s top climate data agency, claimed global warming was worse than previously thought. The information was published to coincide with the Paris climate change conference in 2015, where world leaders agreed that…

$100bn be given yearly in extra ‘climate-related’ aid to the developing world by rich nations.

2 degrees C be set as the limit for maximum temperature rise above pre-industrial times.

40% of CO2 emissions would be cut across the EU by 2030.

£320bn… what the UK’s pledges will cost our economy by 2030.

NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’. The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.

A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.

Dr. Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records.’ Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr. Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.

The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.

Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.

OBAMA’S GREEN GURU WILL MAKE TRUMP SEE RED

NOAA’s climate boss Thomas Karl, had a hotline to the White House, through his long association with President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren.

Karl’s ‘Pausebuster’ paper was hugely influential in dictating the world agreement in Paris and sweeping US emissions cuts. President Trump, has pledged to scrap both policies – triggering furious claims by Democrats he is a climate ‘denier’ and ‘anti-science.’ Thanks to today’s MoS story, NOAA is set to face an inquiry by the Republican-led House science committee.

Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project future warming were ‘running too hot.’ However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause, it concluded, ‘was no longer valid.’

The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data.’ One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on sceptics. Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the basis of the evidence.’

Data changed to make the sea appear warmer

The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr. Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr. Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.

Dr. Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’

ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr. Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’

Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.

The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.

The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used ‘unverified’ data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures.

The ‘adjusted’ sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys. But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is notoriously unreliable. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was no ‘pause.’”

This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.

In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr. Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr. Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records. This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.

However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.

Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr. Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr. Karl and his co-authors.

Dr. Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr. Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’ The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr. Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.

Although they are offset in temperature by 0.12°C due to different analysis techniques, they reveal that NOAA has been adjusted and so shows a steeper recent warming trend. They were forced to correct it: 18 months after the ‘Pausebuster’ paper was published in time for the 2015 Paris climate change conference, NOAA’s flawed sea temperature dataset is to be replaced. The new version will remedy its failings, and use data from both buoys and satellites which some say is the best data of all. The new version will show both lower temperatures and a lower warming trend since 2000.

Mr. Holdren was also a strong advocate of robust measures to curb emissions. Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed’ and called for ‘a binding legal mechanism’ to ensure the world got no more than 2C warmer than in pre-industrial times.

President Obama stressed his Clean Power Plan at the conference, which mandates American power stations to make big emissions cuts. President Trump has since pledged he will scrap it, and to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Whatever takes its place, said Dr. Bates, ‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.’‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’

He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.

Dr. Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’

NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

Last night Mr. Smith thanked Dr. Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.’ He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’

Professor Curry, now the president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said last night: ‘Large adjustments to the raw data, and substantial changes in successive dataset versions, imply substantial uncertainties.’ It was time, she said, that politicians and policymakers took these uncertainties on board.

Last night Mr. Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’

He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper.’

As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr. Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper.’ NOAA declined to comment.

It’s not the first time we’ve exposed dodgy climate data, which is why we’ve dubbed it: Climate Gate 2

Dr. John Bates’s disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the ‘Pausebuster’ paper is the biggest scientific scandal since ‘Climategate’ in 2009 when, as this paper reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a ‘trick’ to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.

Both scandals suggest a lack of transparency and, according to Dr. Bates, a failure to observe proper ethical standards. Because of NOAA ’s failure to ‘archive’ data used in the paper, its results can never be verified.

Like Climategate, this scandal is likely to reverberate around the world, and reignite some of science’s most hotly contested debates.

Has there been an unexpected pause in global warming? If so, is the world less sensitive to carbon dioxide than climate computer models suggest?

And does this mean that truly dangerous global warming is less imminent, and that politicians’ repeated calls for immediate ‘urgent action’ to curb emissions are exaggerated?

*****

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4Xxc2rMFm

Posted in Z-Uncategorized, Theology/Philosophy, Worldview/Culture, All-Encompassing Gospel | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

 Navigating the Deceptive Terrain of Propaganda Territory

 

michelle-and-georgeTruth or Propaganda?

Stella Morabito

If you can’t ask a candid question of a professor or fellow students without fear of retribution, you aren’t in a place of learning. That’s because real knowledge can be fueled only by free and open inquiry.

The process of learning for the high school or college student is the same as it is for a child: a give-and-take with others through which we verify reality by asking straightforward questions of varying complexity. The more open and free the exchange, the greater our knowledge and awareness of what is true.

Political correctness, however, is by nature deceptive and psychologically manipulative. It therefore serves as a major roadblock to inquiry, as do all other forms of propaganda.Al Gore Devil

Understanding Propaganda

We need to fight propaganda constantly, fearlessly, and shrewdly if we want to preserve our ability to learn and to think independently. Deception is the key ingredient of propaganda, but it is always seasoned with the lure of truth, or half-truths.

But first we have to learn to recognize propaganda. I define it this way: propaganda is the process of psychological manipulation by which power elites—politicians, academics, marketers, media players, celebrities, and so on—condition people to adapt to an agenda.ObamacareQuoteDoctorPIX

Propagandists deploy this process in three basic stages. First, they lay the groundwork for conditioning by impeding independence and clarity of thought. Second, as many people become more conditioned and isolated from each other, propagandists can reshape and mobilize them into masses who agitate for the agenda. The final stage is the enforcement of conformity across the board. In the end, propaganda amounts to mind hacking. (You can read more about this in my Federalist articles “How to Escape the Age of Mass Delusion” and “Ten Resources to Hack Proof Your Mind.”)ObamacareQuoteDoctor2Lies2

The common denominator of agenda items enforced by political correctness—from Common Core to gender politics to climate change and down the list—ends up being the consolidation of state power, or the power of elites.

Ten Questions to Help You Distinguish Propaganda from Truth…University1

With rare exceptions, college campuses have become propaganda-saturated environments. But even off-campus, there is little relief from the climate of political correctness that stunts independent thought. Hollywood, the media, and the Internet are all heavy movers of propaganda.

In response I’ve compiled a list to help you sort fact from fiction whenever you are stumped by a questionable assertion or an uneasy situation—whether in the classroom, on social media, in your neighborhood, or at a party. Stop and ask yourself the following. Any “yes” answer means you are being manipulated by propaganda.

1. Is your natural curiosity being suppressed? Whether the debate is about global warming or gender-neutral bathrooms, or anything else, if you have a nagging question or concern that is being cut off or shouted down, this is a clear sign you are being force-fed propaganda.

2. Are you being threatened with slurs or labels? Might you risk being called “bigot” or “hater” or “flat-earther” or worse if you simply express a personal preference? If so, you are in propaganda territory. Name-calling serves two purposes for propagandists: (1) it shuts down free inquiry and debate, and (2) it psychologically manipulates you through a fear of being “tarred-and-feathered.”

3. Do you feel you will be ostracized if you ask a question or express a politically incorrect view? The threat of ostracism is probably the oldest manipulative trick in aid of mind control. We are hardwired from infancy to avoid social isolation, which is why peer pressure is such a powerful force. This is also why solitary confinement is among the most dreaded of punishments. Political correctness depends on inciting the primal human fear of loneliness.

4. Do you notice a “herd effect” as people shift their opinions to adapt to a politically correct opinion? When others don’t feel comfortable having a real conversation with you, you’re living in a propaganda stew. Perhaps you see a classmate whom you were able to chat with earlier in the year but who has “evolved” with the program to the point that you can’t talk earnestly anymore. Maybe you notice how another classmate is excessively tentative in her speech and tone, a precautionary measure to avoid saying something “unacceptable.”

5. Are you being pigeonholed as a result of your question or opinion? Today’s propaganda often deconstructs your humanity by way of a scorecard that rates your level of privilege or oppression, based on skin color, class, family make-up, sexuality, “gender identity,” and a whole host of “intersectionality” components. Sadly, officials who promote “diversity and equality” are trained to ignore your humanity as an integrated individual so they can view you as a composite of bits and pieces of identity politics.

6. Do you sense that if you express ideas freely, you will be labeled a nutcase?Do you sense relational aggression at play? Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse that is used by wife beaters as well as cult leaders. It is a natural byproduct of unchecked propaganda, too. The tactics of gaslighting are basically twofold. First, to get you to doubt your sanity, or at least get you to think you are utterly alone in your perceptions of the world. (Consider the constant use of the term phobia by today’s propagandists.) Second, gaslighters make a point of regulating and controlling the personal relationships of their victims so they feel even more isolated and dependent.

7. Will others be “triggered” by your opinion? If so, you are likely in a propaganda pocket: an “inquiry-free zone.” Emotional maturity has a lot to do with an individual’s ability to adapt. But propagandists see such maturity as a threat to their agendas. In fact, anything that enhances friendship or real understanding gets in the way of propaganda. Those who are “triggered” by a different opinion—who shut down emotionally by it—tend to be both the victims and the purveyors of propaganda.

8. Are you expected to trade-in reality to prop up somebody’s illusion? One common example is the requirement that you adhere to pronoun protocols, even those that insist you refer to an individual with the plural pronouns they and them. This is a prime example of propaganda messing with your mind by messing with everybody’s language. No common language, no common reality, no communication. People end up even more isolated, unmoored in alternative realities that destabilize a sense of self.

9. Are you tempted to self-censor to avoid social punishment? Or, are you tempted to falsify what you believe to gain social rewards? These two reactions build something called a spiral of silence that facilitates propaganda by creating the illusion of an opinion shift. It separates and isolates those who hold the politically incorrect opinion by inducing them—through fear of social rejection—to engage in self-censorship or to pretend to be on board with the program.

10. Do you sometimes feel like you’re stuck in a cult? Unchecked propaganda is cult-like in nature because it suppresses free inquiry and pushes utter conformity of thought. It also incorporates a lot of features of cults, including the use of deception, psychological manipulation, behavior modification, mind-hacking, divide-and-conquer tactics, social polarization, relational aggression, gaslighting, language control, and much more.

Perhaps the best way of fighting propaganda is one friendly conversation at a time. As Jacques Ellul wrote in his classic 1965 book Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, “Propaganda ends where simple dialogue begins.”

*****

Article from Intercollegiate Review.

* See more at: https://home.isi.org/truth-or-propaganda?utm_source=ISI+Website+Subscribers&utm_campaign=fb52a8b2c7-IR+Weekly+February+2&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3ab42370fb-fb52a8b2c7-93378965#sthash.9Y1uIoeA.dpuf

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Worldview/Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Muslim Ban by Trump is a Misleading “Fake News” Narrative

The Hysteria Over Trumps Nonexistent ‘Muslim Ban’ Grows by the Minute         Democrats go bat-shit-crazy over negligent Fake News Story

expressionismBy Warner Todd Huston

The left and their minions in the media are losing their collective mind over President Donald J. Trump’s temporary halt to immigration from a list of terror-sponsoring nations and it appears that they are trying to bully him into withdrawing his order. Thus far they are not winning… and that’s a good thing, too.

First of all, the 90-day moratorium on immigration fromanti-trump-hate certain troubled nations is not a “Muslim ban,” nor is it something that Trump just dreamed up out of nowhere. After all, Trump merely strengthened an Obama policy with this whole deal.

The order specifically maintains that “The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who would place violent ideologies over American law,” and goes on to list the several nations Obama already flagged several years ago. That’s right, the list of nations, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Syria, Iraq and Sudan, were already signaled out by Obama in 2015. Obama called them countries of concern. As Tad Cronn noted;

We already had a de facto “ban on Muslims” under Obama, since December 2015, and virtually nobody complained. Well, some groups complained back in May 2016, but to no media fanfare, and certainly not to the vast, left-wing conspiracy-inspired hoopla going on now at our national airports…And since those seven countries were chosen by the Obama Administration, that further means that the meme (you’ve probably seen it) about the countries being chosen because of Trump’s business interests is pure, unadulterated bull crap. Note that this also is not a “Muslim ban” because of all the Muslim-majority countries not on the list, which means Muslims from those countries, from most of the world in fact, are still free to come and go. Another media lie.

As an aside, speaking of other presidents, the left’s favorite anti-American ex-president, Jimmy Carter, also banned certain Muslim immigrants when in 1980 he banned Iranians from entering the U.S.A. after Iran’s Islamic revolution and the Hostage Crisis.

So, before we even get into this topic, you must understand that this is not that “new” nor is it a “Muslim ban,” and the liberals making these claims are simply lying.

On ABC’s This Week, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer reminded the host that “the Obama administration put these first and foremost” and also noted that this isn’t a “Muslim ban” despite what the critics keep claiming. Spicer pointed out that there are “46 Muslim-majority countries” not on the temporary immigration moratorium.

Spicer is 100% right. The three largest Muslim nations in the world, Indonesia, India and Pakistan, are completely untouched by this action.

Furthermore, the caps Trump put in place are only temporary. David French explained it well:

First, the order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year. Outrageous, right? Not so fast. Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms.

It is also obvious it isn’t a “Muslim ban” as the left keeps claiming. The word Muslim doesn’t even appear in the order.

But what about the legality of the order? Liberals also keep claiming the temporary ban is “unconstitutional” and “illegal.” Is that true?

Let’s dispense with all this business that what President Trump (and Obama, for that matter) did with this action is somehow “unconstitutional.” It is not.

The ability of the president of the United States has the power to make these policies. The power is clearly delineated in U.S. Code, Title 8, § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens.

That statute in question reads:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

And if that doesn’t satisfy you, there’s the U.S. Constitution which acts to maintain the rights of all Americans in particular and in some cases people here on our soil. The Constitution does not, however, apply to all peoples outside this jurisdiction.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, empowers Congress “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This gives the President and Congress the role of crafting immigration policy. According to a case in 1976, the Supreme Court said of this power, “The Court without exception has sustained Congress’ plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens.”

In this case, the government could shut off all immigration for a period of time if it felt the need and this still wouldn’t violate the Constitution.

Others worry over “discrimination” against Muslims. But the religious test only prevents government from denying American citizens from being discriminated against over their religion. It doesn’t cover foreigners.

So, now that you have this background, let’s review the left’s hysteria on this business… and that is all it is; hysteria.

Firstly, many on the left claim that a ban on Muslims immigrating into the U.S. is a “great gift to extremists” and “creates more terrorists.”

One has to wonder why liberals are so upset that there might be a Muslim ban, though. Muslims and their handmaidens in the media constantly say Islam is a “religion of peace,” and that it is “racist” to say they are prone to terrorism. But one wonders, if Muslims aren’t prone to terrorism, why would a temporary immigration ban create more Muslim terrorists?

The left also insists that a ban on Muslims is “racist.” This is yet another hysterical claim. The fact is “Muslim” isn’t a “race” to be “racist” against.

But the hysteria is taking other forms, too. Senate minority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, characterized the action as nothing short of un-American. Schumer melodramatically blathered, “Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight.”

The screaming mimis in the media were by far, worse than the partisan liberals in Congress. Newsweek’s Rula Jebreal was so ignorant as to call Trump’s order an act of “white supremacy.” And The New York Times’ Maggie Habberman lied outright saying that foreign-born terrorists don’t attack Americans here at home.

There are plenty more than that, of course. But instead of wasting time relaying the stupidity of the leftist media, let’s give some reaction by some of those affected by Trump’s action.

Take Hameed Khalid Darweesh, one of the refugees who was temporarily held at New York’s JFK airport. You might think that Darweesh would have been incensed that he was held for a few hours while the Trump administration gave him closer vetting to make sure he wasn’t a danger to the U.S.A. But you’d be wrong.

After being held an additional 19 hours, Darweesh was asked by the media what he thinks about Donald Trump. He said… “I like him.”

Another person who should know is former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle’s Iraqi interpreter, Johnny Walker. He recently spoke to IJReview.com and told them that Trump was doing exactly the right thing.

“All President Trump is doing is ensuring that people can go about their day without living in so much fear. Women won’t have to worry about walking around the mall; kids won’t have to worry about going to the school,” Walker said.

But let’s see how those in lands that are dealing with wave after wave of Muslim “refugees” are experiencing was they are inundated with these invaders.

After several years of “refugees” the Germans were rewarded when literally thousands of migrants coursed through Cologne on New Year’s Eve in 2016 raping women and attacking bystanders by the hundreds.

You don’t even have to go back a year. Just this week a women’s center in France was burned down because a bunch of “refugees” were offended by the center.

That is what you invite into your country by untrammeled Muslim immigration.

It appears from polling data from Rasmussen that 33% — only 33% — oppose the ban. Only 33% or about one-third. So, that means that two-thirds (2/3) or two out of three, are supportive of Trump’s policy. Now, compare that with the way the media has portrayed the protesters and the movement and the supposed national outrage to this.

*****

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and BigJournalsim.com along with all Breitbart News sites, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, and many, many others. He has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs across the country to discuss his news stories and current events and has appeared on TV networks such as CNN, Fox News, Fox Business Network, and various Chicago-based news programs. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com.

*This is an edited version. Original version at http://constitution.com/hysteria-trumps-nonexistent-muslim-ban-grows-minute/

 

Posted in Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The “Sacred Work” of Sacrificing (Black) Children

black infantWhen The Church Gives Approval of Evil: Abortion

Pastor Stephen E. Broden

The number one cause of death among black Americans is abortion. It is an odd and unusual report that religious leaders in Washington, D.C., are celebrating the opening of a death clinic right in the middle of the black community. A multi-ethnic gathering of so-called spiritual leaders blessed Planned Parenthood’s newest mega-facility and affirmed that the work of the abortion clinic is “sacred” work.picassos lover

What we are witnessing is a gross insensitivity to the almost 1,500 abortions of black babies a day that occur in America. When these spiritual leaders should be resisting the culture of death that has so adversely impacted demographics of black America, they have join forces with the one organization that has targeted the community under the directive of its founder, Margret Sanger. Ms. Sanger said of our community: “Negroes are like weeds, we need to get rid of them.”

identify yourselfThese so-called “spiritual leaders” bring a whole new meaning to the term “turncoats.” Our community is suffering from many challenges and pathologies, which are devastating our children, families, and general well-being. Abortion kills more black people than heart disease, cancer, diabetes, gang violence, and car accidents combined. How can it be that our so-called spiritual leaders affirm this evil practice in the light of these horrifying statistics? Their support of this corrupt institution should call into question whether they represent the spiritual perspective on the sanctity of life.

Over 20 religious leaders representing black, white, Jewish, Muslims, Hindu, and other religious groups blessed Planned Parenthood and called it a “sacred work.” This event is another indication that we are living in a time of great deception. The Bible warns us that deception would typify end times events. Romans 1:22 reads: “Professing to be wise they became fools.” The actions of these leaders express an open rejection/rebellion of the Bible’s view concerning the sanctity of life. Their support of abortion is clearly foolishness at the highest level. According to Romans 1:32, “Although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” This is precisely what these leaders have done; they have essentially given their approval of the systematic destruction of our babies and the continual dismantling of our families.

Although many of these spiritual leaders claim to be Christian, their actions here are antithetical to the teachings scripture. Christians now more than ever need to know the difference between what I call Culture Christians, and Bible-believing Christians. To be sure, a clear line of demarcation must publicly be made to distinguish Biblical Christianity from Cultural Christianity. Cultural Christianity subscribes to and seeks first the philosophies of men above the divine perspectives as revealed in the inerrant word of God. Social justice and moral issues are processed through the filter of current philosophical analysis above “what saith the Lord.” The Bible warns us of these false prophets in 2 Peter 2:1: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.”

Here we see two groups we need to pay attention to — false prophets and false teachers. They are the source of destructive heresies that promote doctrines of demons in the church. For these spiritual leaders to bless Planned Parenthood and suggest to the Christian community that their work is “sacred” is an abomination to Jesus Christ and all that is Christian. Their support of Planned Parenthood contradicts what the Bible teaches concerning the sanctity of life in God’s word. Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, seeks first the divine perspective and employs it as an evaluation of man’s philosophies. Social justices and moral issues are seen and defined through the lens of scripture. The biblicist considers first “what saith the Lord” above the opinions of men.

It is scurrilous what these so-called leaders have done that is clearly deceptive and misleading to the body of Christ. The responsibility to protect ourselves from this kind of deception begins with us through a right relationship with God through His word. Notice in Colossians 2:8 Paul warns the church at Colossus: “See to that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world rather than according to Christ.” Paul calls us to know the difference between Christ’s teaching verses that of men.

*****

Stephen E. Broden is the senior pastor at Fair Park Bible Fellowship, founder of Protect Life and Marriage Texas, and member of the National Black Prolife Coalition.

Article from Black Community News; www.blackcommunitynews.com. The views expressed in opinion articles are solely those of the author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by Black Community News.

 

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Church and State, Law of Christ, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Abortion, Science, and Common Sense

When Pro-Abortion Sentiments Trump Science and Common Sense

By Dr. Michael Brownanti-abortion

There is a reason why many women contemplating abortion decide not to abort when they see an ultrasound of their baby. There is no denying the humanity of this tiny creature, which is anything but a clump of cells. As the baby grows in the womb and is seen by ultrasound imaging, it’s common to hear parents exclaim, “Look at those little hands! Look at that adorable nose (it looks like Grandpa’s nose, doesn’t it?)! And look – it’s a girl! (Or, It’s a boy!)”

black infantHow amazing it is to see the ultrasound of your baby, especially when it’s your first child. Not surprisingly, both of our daughters, now in their late 30’s, had the identical reaction when they saw the ultrasounds of their first babies: How could anyone abort their child?

It is for good reason that pro-abortion legislators fight against laws that would require abortion clinics to show an ultrasound of the baby prior to the decision to abort. They know it would be bad for business (plus, they argue, it adds to the inconvenience of the mother wanting to dispose of the contents of her womb).

It is hard to deny the personhood of the fetus when you see an ultrasound, which is why,women during last year’s Super Bowl, Dorito’s incurred the wrath of NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) when it aired an innocent, light-hearted, commercial featuring a very pregnant woman, her husband, and an ultrasound of their baby. According to NARAL, Dorito’s had committed the cardinal sin of “humanizing fetuses.” Oh, the very thought of it!

But there is something even worse than that Dorito’s ad. According to a bizarre article in The Atlantic, pro-life groups are being devious and deceptive when they use ultrasounds to convince women that their babies are human. How low will these pro-lifers go?

The article, written by Moira Weigel and posted on Tuesday, was originally titled “How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea That a Fetus Is a Person” with the subtitle, “The technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.” (Its current title is, “How the Ultrasound Became Political.” The subtitle remains the same.)

Weigel’s article, which was marred by embarrassing errors (as pointed out by Alexandra DeSanctis on the National Review), not to mention being marred by bizarre claims, denied the reality (and significance) of fetal heartbeats as early as five or six weeks old, downplayed the evidence of ultrasounds and claimed that – gasp! – the pro-life movement was yet another example of patriarchal overreach. Yes, the science of “ultrasound made it possible for the male doctor to evaluate the fetus without female interference.” Those dastardly, duplicitous males! They are at it once again.

For good reason Sean Davis of the Federalist wrote that, “Moira Weigel took a sledgehammer to basic science and then did her best to vacuum its brains out before anyone could figure out what just happened.” The title of his article was as accurate as it was snarky: “Abortion Science: Heartbeats Are Imaginary, Unborn Babies Aren’t Alive, And Ultrasounds Are Just Tools Of The Patriarchy.”

Further underscoring the absurdity of Weigel’s article was this tweet from Denise Russell, which Davis reproduced: “Before ultrasounds, a woman had to wait until delivery to find out if she was getting a puppy, a goat, or a human.” How did we forget that?

Responding to the Republican-led effort to pass the “Heartbeat Bill,” which would prohibit doctors from aborting a baby if a heartbeat was detected (in the words of its sponsor, Congressman Steve King, “If a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected”), Weigel asks, “What is a fetal heartbeat? And why does it matter?”

Her answer to these questions can be summed up, respectively, in three words, “Nothing” and “It doesn’t.”

Forget the fact that doctors check the baby’s heartbeat during each pre-natal visit, since this is an indicator of health, or the fact that they carefully monitor the baby’s heartbeat during delivery to be sure the child is OK. And forget the fact that doctors look for a pulse to see if someone is still living or the fact that a person is declared dead when their heart stops beating for good.

No. When it comes to abortion, all those facts conveniently disappear, and the heartbeat of that tiny pre-born child is of no significance at all. Indeed, Weigel opines, “Doctors do not even call this rapidly dividing cell mass a ‘fetus’ until nine weeks into pregnancy.” (I must be getting old, but somehow, I don’t recall my wife, Nancy, saying to me decades ago, “Honey, I just got the test results back and I have a rapidly dividing cell mass inside of me!”)

But it is not just fetal heartbeats which have no meaning for Weigel. Ultrasounds also have no meaning for her since…well, since she doesn’t believe they should. (If you think I’m exaggerating, read her article.) She notes that posting pictures of ultrasounds on social media has “heightened the social reality of the unborn,” as if this was somehow a bad, misleading thing.

And she points to an American couple who “posted a video of their sonogram fast-forwarded so that their fetus appeared to be clapping in time as they sang, ‘When You’re Happy and You Know It Clap Your Hands.’” The implication is that because the video was sped up, giving the false impression that the baby was clapping to the beat, that the more basic impression was also false, namely that there was a little human being in that mother’s womb who was putting its two little hands together. Pretty good for a clump of cells and a mass of tissue!

Although Weigel cites those who claim that pregnant women who see their ultrasounds are less likely to abort, she disputes these claims, pointing to a “2014 study published by the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, which drew on the medical records of nearly 16,000 women seeking abortions” and “found that viewing an ultrasound had a negligible impact on whether they decided to proceed.”

Other studies I have read have come to very different conclusions (see here, for examples), and a pro-life ministry that offers ultrasounds to women considering abortion has also seen tremendous results. But I doubt that all the studies in the world would convince Weigel right now, since her objections seem to be based on ideology more than science. As observed by Alexandra DeSanctis, “The reason that progressives such as Weigel denounce ultrasound technology is…because they want to continue denying the humanity of the unborn child, a humanity that is undeniable whether or not the mother wants the child.”

Yes, “Pro-life activists and parents who want to keep their unborn children will acknowledge this humanity. We all know it. Abortionists know it. Mothers aborting their babies know it. Planned Parenthood executives know it. Perhaps many are able to dull their consciences and convince themselves that it’s ‘just a clump of cells.’ But deep down, they must know. We all do. And that’s why the Left has to work so hard to deny it.”

And the harder the Left works to deny the humanity of the unborn child, the more it exposes its moral and scientific bankruptcy. In that regard, Weigel’s article does a great service to the pro-life cause, and for that, we should be glad. Truth is sweeping away the lies.

*****

Article from afa.net: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/sanctity-of-life/2017/01/when-pro-abortion-sentiments-trump-science-and-common-sense/

 

Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Church and State, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment