Eze13v11 Warmists Absurd

Ezekiel 13:11 KJV Say unto them which daub it with untempered morter, that it shall fall: […]

_ To be blunt, the mythology promoted the warmist conspiracy of self-interested pols and apparatchiks fails to convince the rational and knowledgeable. It is unproven that warming is occurring or that if occurring man could have caused any of it or that if occurring man could slow it. Lots of links available upon request, from me or from Google. Try “Mann hockey stick Mark Steyn”.

_ In the meantime, if you cannot trust mathematicians, who, among the generality of men, can you trust?

French Mathematicians Blast UN’s ‘Costly & Pointless Crusade’ Against Global Warming

cnsnews.com [/] By Barbara Hollingsworth | October 29, 2015 | 1:19 PM EDT [/] http://j.mp/0NoWarm or http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global

(CNSNews.com) – As the United Nations gears up for its next international conference on climate change in Paris next month (COP 21), a scathing white paper released by a society of French mathematicians calls its fight against global warming “absurd” and “a costly and pointless crusade”.

“You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human…history to find [such a] mad obsession,” according to a translated summary of the document released in September by the Paris-based Société de Calcul Mathématique SA.

The mathematicians harshly criticized a “crusade [that] has invaded every area of activity and everyone’s thinking," noting that "the battle [against] CO2 has become a national priority.

"How have we reached this point in a country that claims to be rational?” they ask, adding that mathematicians “do not believe in crusades. They look at facts, figures, comments and arguments.”

“There is not a single fact, figure…[or] observation that leads us to conclude the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed,” the paper states. “It is variable, as it has always been. … Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet’s overall temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.”

Noting that concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have “always” varied, the French mathematicians also said that after processing the raw data on hurricanes themselves, they verified that “they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.”

“We are being told that a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees C[elsius] by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences and absolutely has to be prevented.

"When they hear this, people worry. Has there not already been an increase of 1.9 degrees C?

“Actually, no. The figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1 degree C every hundred years! Of course, these figures, [which] contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention,” the white paper stated.

(Google)

The French mathematicians also said that the UN’s climate models have failed to take into account natural phenomena that affects climate far more than human activity.

Human impact on the climate is “tiny, quite negligible in comparison with natural causes,” they point out. “Human beings can do nothing about solar activity, the state of the oceans, the temperature of the Earth’s magna, or the composition of the atmosphere.”

Furthermore, the work done by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not meet the basic standards set by reputable scientific journals because its “conclusions go [contrary] to observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty); and the variability of natural phenomena is passed over without comment.”

Even if there were such a thing as global warming, “then we should celebrate,” the mathematicians said. “And if it does not exist, then we simply shall have to carry on switching on the central heating.”

“French policy [on] CO2 is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector,” the white paper pointed out, slamming “virtuous” policies that have resulted in a significant loss of industrial activity and the resultant loss of jobs that has left three million French unemployed even as global CO2 emissions continue to rise.

“If we were in France to stop all industrial activity (let’s not talk about our intellectual activity, [which] ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all traces of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, noticeable way,” they said.

The authors also lamented the abandonment of “the adversarial principle” that distinguishes democracies from dictatorships:

“People who do not believe in global warming have been told to shut up. No public debate, no contradictory discourse. No articles in scientific journals. They simply have been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action… We are simply required to keep quiet and do what we are told. No second opinion is permitted.”

“It is on the debris of the fundamental principles of the law and of democracy that this white paper has been written.”

Related: Sierra Club Says Satellite Data is Wrong: 'Our Planet is Cooking Up'

Related: Climatologist: We Have a 'Moral Imperative' to Burn Fossil Fuels

I2C 151030aa Eze13v11 Warmists Absurd | I2C | 151030 1120 et

Rom3v23 Answering CNBC

Romans 3:23 KJV For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Genesis 1:27 KJV So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Proverbs 3:5-6 KJV Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. (6) In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

_ The Bible gives a clear answer to the first question in the CNBC presidential candidate debate (as reported by the UK Daily Mail, link at bottom).

The Colorado debate began with a round of navel-gazing as CNBC host John Harwood asked the 10 assembled candidates, job-interview style, to describe their biggest weaknesses.

_ The Biblical answer (as recorded in Rom 3.23, Gen 1.27, and Prov  3.5-6, all quoted at top) is:

_ I have fallen short of that glory which the Creator prescribes for a creature made in His image.

_ As for details, God is my judge, I do not lean on my own understanding. Others may judge on the basis of my words and deeds which are a much more reliable basis than my self-assessment.

_ The report linked at bottom gives some details of candidates disclosures and non-disclosures of their “biggest weaknesses”:

Just two of the group, businessman Donald Trump and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, articulated anything approaching self-criticism.

'I am, by my nature, impatient,' Bush confessed, a admitting that running for the White House 'is not an endeavor that rewards that.'

Trump took his turn soon after, saying that he holds grudges too long.

'I think maybe my greatest weakness is that I trust people too much,' the billionaire said. 'I'm too trusting. And when they let me down, if they let me down, I never forgive.'

Most of the rest of the field took the opportunity to praise themselves.

'I don't really have any weaknesses that I can think of,' former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told the panel of CNBC moderators.

'But my wife is down here in the front,' he added, saying she could probably think of a long list.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio polished his own apple shamelessly.

_ I expect that the most favored of begotten-again Christian politicians might give a proper profession of faith in such circumstances. Ian Paisley, Baron Bannside, PC, of Northern Ireland comes to mind.

_ N.B. The article linked below gives an extensive summary of both the CNBC debate and the election campaigns. Real biographic data on all candidates of both parties is included toward the end.

Republican debate runs off the rails as CNBC's moderators lose control

dailymail.co.uk [/] By David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com In Boulder, Colorado [/] [/] http://j.mp/0e16r3d or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3294016/Republican-debate-runs-rails-turns-war-Donald-Trump-bashes-John-Kasich-Jeb-Bush-hits-protege-Marco-Rubio-hammers-CNBC-s-moderators-losing-control.html

I2C 151029aa Rom3v23 Answering CNBC | I2C | 151029 0909 et

1Co14v20 Hil 9 admissions

1Co 14:20 KJV Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

Top 9 New Revelations from the Benghazi Committee Hearings

breitbart.com [/] by Joel B. Pollak22 Oct 20150 [/] http://j.mp/0Bengh9revs [/] or http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/22/blue-state-blues-top-9-revelations-from-the-benghazi-hearings/

The media declared that she “won” because she largely retained a placid demeanor. The Democrats declared that she won because they had already decided her political survival mattered more than the truth.

Yet there were nine key revelations that emerged from the Benghazi committee.

1. Hillary Clinton told the prime minister of Egypt on Sep. 12, 2012 that a video was not responsible. It is now clear beyond any doubt that Clinton knew the Benghazi attack was carried out by a terror organization, not because of a spontaneous demonstration. As Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) stressed repeatedly, we now know that what Clinton told foreign governments and what she told her daughter were different from what she told the American people.

2. Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have Clinton’s personal email address, but Sid Blumenthal did. After stressing how deeply Clinton cared about her friend, and mourned his loss, it was striking to hear her admit that he did not have her private email address, but that Blumenthal–who had been denied a post at the State Department–did, and was her most frequent email correspondent. The contrast struck even some liberal observers as important.

3. Clinton and the State Department broke the law in failing to sign a waiver for security at Benghazi. Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN), who was outstanding throughout, forced Clinton to admit that she had not complied with the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA), passed after the embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Clinton’s extremely weak defense is that the consulate at Benghazi was “temporary.”

4. Clinton believes that Chris Stevens was joking when he asked about security at the Benghazi compound. It was certainly the hearing’s most bizarre moment: “Well, Congresswoman, one of the great attributes that Chris Stevens had was a really good sense of humor and I just see him smiling as he’s typing this because it’s clearly in response to the e-mail down below talking about picking up a few ‘fire sale items from the Brits’,” she told Brooks. The “fire sale items” were barricades left behind by the British, who were leaving Benghazi because it was unsafe.

5. Contrary to her claims to have done “everything” possible, Clinton decided not to send help to Benghazi. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)’s gentle manner was disarming, his questions exemplary. And he forced Clinton to admit that she decided not to send the FES [Foreign Emergency Support] team to rescue Americans in Benghazi.

6. Clinton solicited intelligence from Blumenthal but claims not to know where he was getting it. After he dismantled her claim that emails from Blumenthal had been “unsolicited,” committee chair Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) asked Clinton whether she knew Blumenthal’s sources. She says she did not, but had to admit she was careful to remove his name from emails sent on to the White House. If Blumenthal’s source was the late CIA official Tyler Drumheller, as Eli Lake and Josh Rogin suggest, Clinton may have broken the Espionage Act, as Ace explains.

7. Clinton has no explanation for why she installed a private server, and failed to reveal its existence. At first, Westmoreland appeared to go easy on Clinton, saying that her private e-mails were not a problem–her server was. Then he asked her whether she had revealed the server to her own attorneys before they met in August with the State Department: “Did you tell them you had a private server at that time?” Clinton could not answer clearly.

8. Clinton believes that “90 to 95 percent” of her emails were on the State Department email system. Even if that were true, it leaves out hundreds of emails. Regardless, Gowdy countered that the State Department could not verify that claim when he checked it with them, and that less than one percent of her emails were on the system. Clinton later said that she had turned over every email she had–but of course the problem is that she had them.

9. After all this time, Clinton still blames a YouTube video for the Benghazi attacks. “Congressman, I believe to this day the video played a role,” she told Jordan. She and the Democrats repeatedly stressed the video’s role in demonstrations elsewhere, such as Tunisia (which happened Sep. 14, three days later). She did not want to admit what the evidence clearly showed–namely, that she lied–so she tried to spin a context in which the lie made sense.

I2C 151023aa 1Co14v20 Hil 9 admissions | I2C | 151023 1135 et

1Co14v8 O retreats

1Co 14:8 KJV For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

Annals of Retreat

townhall.com [/] by Paul Greenberg [/] http://j.mp/0retreatO or http://townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/2015/10/22/annals-of-retreat-n2069001/page/full

"For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"

-- 1 Corinthians, 14:8

As it turns out, our president and commander in chief can face reality -- if he absolutely has to, and for the shortest time he can stand. Like a patient in the dentist's chair who just wants out.

So even while announcing that he was going to reverse course in Afghanistan (again) and keep American troops there after all, The Hon. Barack Obama let the world (and the enemy) know that our forces would stay in that country only until 2017. That way, the Taliban can time their next offensive to coincide with the next American withdrawal. It's getting to be a familiar script after all these repetitions.

The president added that the United States would be keeping less than 10,000 American troops there -- 9,800 to be exact -- instead of the at least 20,000 our generals say it would take to provide a credible deterrent. Long story short: Once again this president is adopting a "strategy" of too little, too late. And publicizing it.

You would think someone as bright as Barack Obama would have learned better by now. Since the last time he announced that this country was pulling out its troops from Afghanistan, that country's own fledgling forces promptly collapsed.

Much the same thing happened in Iraq when the president withdrew all our troops to much fanfare, and succeeded only in giving a whole new terrorist army (the Islamic State) a vacuum to fill. Yet he's proving a remarkably slow learner no matter how many times the lesson is repeated.

Can you imagine Harry S. Truman or Dwight D. Eisenhower declaring that American forces -- whether in Europe or Asia -- would man the frontiers of freedom for only a limited time? Harry Truman learned his lesson when his secretary of state, Dean Acheson, declared South Korea beyond America's "defensive perimeter" -- and North Korea proceeded to invade it. And the Korean War was on. Up to 30,000 American troops have stood guard there ever since the armistice, while others provided a credible deterrent against Soviet aggression in Europe during the Cold War.

It is only now that a resurgent Russia under its new tsar has begun to seize one country after another or parts thereof -- Crimea, Ukraine -- and now has established a beachhead in Syria, leapfrogging NATO defenses and resurrecting the old Russian empire as its European neighbors shudder, awaiting Moscow's next advance.

As usual, weakness has invited aggression. His admirers describe this American president as leading from behind, though it would be more accurate to say he's not leading at all but sounding retreat all along the line as he abandons one old ally after another.

It was Margaret Thatcher who once told a different American president -- George H.W. Bush -- that "now is no time to go wobbly." On another occasion, the redoubtable Iron Lady observed that the trouble with socialism is that its supporters eventually run out of other people's money. The trouble with appeasement is that those who practice it tend to run out of other people's countries to sacrifice. And when they do, America must finally take a stand and fight, whether in Afghanistan today or in Korea and Vietnam decades ago.

Those tragic and costly wars might not have been necessary if we had maintained our vigilance. Not just in Asia but in Europe -- and not all that long ago. Remember when bombs were dropping on Belgrade during the supposedly peaceful Clinton Years? Now they're falling again, delivered by drones. And we're falling asleep again.

These are the years that the locusts have eaten, as Winston Churchill said of the 1930s, when another aggressor was on the march. But our president, in his ahistorical way, seems to have learned nothing from the past.

To quote Jonathan Tepperman, managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, there's no way to guarantee success in foreign policy, but there's one sure way to guarantee failure -- "for the United States to waffle." And our president seems to do little else but waffle when it comes to foreign affairs. His is less a foreign policy than an improvisation. Call it an ad-hoc series of changeable positions with only one factor in common: drift.

Not since a president named Jimmy Carter has this country had a more irresolute foreign policy. Mr. Carter began his less than successful tenure in the White House by denouncing Americans' "inordinate fear of communism," and didn't wake up till the Soviets invaded Afghanistan some three years later. Only then did he see what the Soviets' "ultimate goals" were. As if Communist aggression had been some kind of well-kept secret till then.

Let it be said that Jimmy Carter did finally take note of Moscow's mischief-making all over the globe. Barack Obama still sleeps on. Even this late in his presidency he seems curiously incurious about Russian ambitions in Europe, the Middle East and points beyond. Or the role that regimes like Iran's play in fulfilling them. Nor does he seem aware of the high cost of vacillation when it comes to dealing with friend or foe, ally or enemy. Instead he continues to add only to the Annals of Retreat.

I2C 151022aa 1Co14v8 O retreats | I2C | 151022 1553 et

Joh1v1 Wordsmith Beta

John 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

_ "Just requested access to the Wordsmith Beta from @AInsights. #wordsmith #NLG http://automatedinsights.com" – My post on Twitter, Google+, Facebook

_ My notion is to generate exegetical commentaries from existing or regenerated Bible databases. Text and/or hyperlinks from/to different versions, dictionaries, commentaries, grammars, might be generated with variations for diverse target audiences. (If I do not get access to Wordsmith-beta, I would appreciate feedback from any friend that does.)

Introducing Wordsmith: Using Data to Reinvent How We Write

automatedinsights.com [/] Written by marketing [/] wordsmith-beta-blog470 [/] Posted on October 19, 2015 at 12:17 pm. [/] Robbie Allen, CEO and Founder of Automated Insights — [/] http://j.mp/0Wordsmith or http://automatedinsights.com/blog/introducing-wordsmith-using-data-to-reinvent-how-we-write/

With the rapid rate of innovation in virtually all areas of our lives, it’s surprising that the way we write remains largely unchanged. Sure, we use the keyboard instead of the quill. But our actual writing process–crafting a single narrative one word at time–would be familiar to Shakespeare, Shelley, and Salinger. Until now.

Today we launch the public beta of our Wordsmith platform. Wordsmith is a new way to write and develop content using data. The process is part writing text and part writing logic, with data as the glue that ties everything together. Instead of writing a single story at a time, you create a story structure that can generate an unlimited number of articles. Wordsmith updates the writing process for the era of Big Data–and helps customers boost the return on their data investment.

It’s an exciting time at Automated Insights because we are sharing parts of our platform that have automated earnings reports for The Associated Press, fantasy football recaps for Yahoo!, sales summaries for Allstate, and many others.

It’s Time for a New Way to Write

When it comes to writing, most innovations have centered on the distribution of content, not the creation of content. The printing press let publishers produce text in large volumes. The web and email enabled low cost digital content delivery. Finally, social platforms have created a “pull” environment where content finds interested users. Content distribution has come a long way.

In terms of the actual writing process, there has been far less innovation. Typewriters and word processors have been evolving slowly since the late 1800s, but even the most popular word processing software, Microsoft Word, hasn’t really changed the writing process in its 30-year history. Newer platforms like Medium have made it cool to get out of the way instead of giving writers new (or even traditional) capabilities.

On top of that, the availability of data should be a great asset in the writing process, but it largely goes unused. Big Data’s impact on writing has been hampered by the lack of integration with easy-to-use, widely accessible writing tools. As a result, many data-driven insights are hidden in complex charts and graphs that require additional – and manual – narrative explanations.

Why We Need to Create More Content

Automated Insights has been working on a platform to automate writing since 2007. In computer science terms, this is referred to as natural language generation (NLG). We call our platform Wordsmith. It can take a story structure and a dataset and generate numerous pieces of content that sound like a person wrote each one of them individually. For the last couple of years, Wordsmith has generated more content than any other company in the world. In fact, we create more content in a week than all the large media companies combined create in a whole year. Last year alone, Wordsmith generated over one billion pieces of content with a team of just 50 employees.

Some may argue that there is already too much content floating around. I agree. The problem is that it’s generic, untargeted content. At Ai, we focus on personalized content. Instead of writing one story and hoping a million people read it, Wordsmith can create a million stories targeted at each individual user and their preferences. It’s a story that is totally unique to each user because it is powered by their data. You can see a variety of examples on our website. We apply the same technique for large enterprises by creating individualized reports that go to everyone in a sales force, as we’ve done for Allstate, or monthly bill statements that go to every customer, as we’ve done for Comcast.

Early on it became apparent that instead of having only Ai employees configure Wordsmith, we needed to get it in the hands of more users. If a 50-person company can create more than a billion stories, what if anyone who wants to communicate insights around their data had access to the technology? I resisted opening up the platform earlier because it’s very difficult to create a new data-driven writing interface that is intuitive for business users. But if it was easy, someone else would already be doing it.

Thinking About Writing in a New Way

Writing fueled by data presents myriad opportunities for creative expression and driving business outcomes. There are a few prerequisites. You have to think about structuring your content to embrace variables. You have to understand your data at a basic level. Over time we will be releasing new tools and features that make data-driven writing easier and more automated. What you see today with Wordsmith is just the beginning.

When we first went to market with this technology in 2010, our goal was to get people to understand the possibilities. When I’m asked, “What are the limits of Wordsmith?” I often respond, “Your imagination.” With Wordsmith, the cost of content is an order of magnitude less than any other option. Meanwhile, the scale of creation is orders of magnitude greater. You have to use your imagination to explore what’s possible.

Be Part of the Beta

The Wordsmith Beta is now officially open. I invite you to request access today and start revolutionizing the way you write and benefit from content. We’re excited to see how you put Wordsmith to use.

I2C 151020aa Joh1v1 Wordsmith Beta | I2C | 151020 1453 et |

Rom3v1to2 Leftie evil

Romans 3:1-2 KJV What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? (2) Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Gen 3:4-5 KJV And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (5) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

‘Progressive’? New Book Reveals What Left Doesn’t Want You To Know About How Old Their Ideas Are [/] pjmedia.com [/] by David Steinberg [/] http://j.mp/0LeftieDeviltry or http://pjmedia.com/davidsteinberg/progressive-new-book-reveals-what-left-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-how-old-their-ideas-are/?singlepage=true

Perhaps the greatest trick Evil ever pulled was not convincing Man that Evil does not exist, but convincing Man that none of his forebears had learned anything worth knowing about it.

In The Devil’s Pleasure Palace, author Michael Walsh exposes “Critical Theory,” the foundational philosophical movement of the modern left. The ideology came to prominence among post-WWII Central European academe, primarily explored within the faculty of the Goethe University in Frankfurt, as an attempt to explain away the horrific inhumanity that the 20th Century’s embrace of statism — whether in the form of Fascism, Nazism, Communism, or resurgent Islamism — had so far brought to the modern world. Failing to recognize their attempts to redefine morality as being the cause of all the suffering, the Frankfurt School scholars instead theorized that statism had bloodied half the Earth simply because Man had not yet discarded enough of his history to be ready for it.

The culture needed to go, not just the rule of law.

Critical Theory taught that the act of criticism itself — burning each pillar of Western society, be it bulletproofed reason, simple economic law, and even (and especially) the notions of family, marriage, and the risk calculations of casual sex — made for a moral code of life. Burying the wisdom of the past — and nevermind bothering to replace it with new decisions, just simply destroy — was the future.

Writes Walsh:

At once overly intellectualized and emotionally juvenile, Critical Theory — like Pandora’s Box — released a horde of demons into the American psyche. When everything could be questioned, nothing could be real, and the muscular, confident empiricism that had just won the war gave way, in less than a generation, to a fashionable central-European nihilism that was celebrated on college campuses across the United States.

Seizing the high ground of academe and the arts, the new Nihilists set about dissolving the bedrock of the country, from patriotism to marriage to the family to military service; they have sown … “destruction, division, hatred, and calumny” — and all disguised as a search for truth that will lead to human happiness here on earth.

Had the West held firm by championing its foundational artistic and literary accomplishments, perhaps we would have resisted the Frankfurt School’s challenge, which led directly to the administration of Barack Obama. For of course, the answers are there in our canon already.

We are profoundly lucky to be alive and able to review the great cultural works of recorded history that predicted the inevitable terror which Marxism would bring. We additionally have the historical accounts. But in defeating the Frankfurt School’s challenge to the culture, our foundational artistic commentary, from John Milton back to Genesis, holds the key. Nihilism is dead, not G-d, but again we failed to identify its embrace.

Walsh’s book aims to defeat Critical Theory with an indefatigable defense of Western culture, a rather thrilling approach to those of us who — unlike Walsh, a classical music and opera expert and critic — never received a proper education in these works precisely due to our coming of age following the Frankfurt School’s invasion of American academia.

What an idea from Walsh — us dullards, whom Progressivism places with the cavemen, can confront the left with proof that actual cavemen had the left all figured out already.

Out of necessity, the bearers of totalitarian ideology must convince potential followers that everything they thought they knew about morality is wrong. Evil needs to become Good — or at least subjective – for one to trade in the Golden Rule for the all-powerful state, and that’s how one would relay the story of all human history while standing on one foot, from the Garden of Eden to the Democratic Party. The rest is just commentary.

Walsh implores us to reexamine our greatest cultural works, to confront the Left with them, and perhaps they will understand that good and evil are not up for “criticism,” but have necessarily held the same definition for humanity since the first men and women to be in possession of sufficiently advanced nervous systems. We aren’t four-footed, clawed predators, for whom good is Genghis Khan and evil is submission, as submission causes the end of those creatures. We aren’t ants, for whom good is self-destruction in service of the queen and evil is liberty, for ants die if they could embrace, say, John Locke. Instead, we successfully presumed that human good has something to do with the protection of each’s life, liberty, and property, and that evil must always be the violation of those. And we managed to figure this out the first time a human undertook the act of self-defense, or felt empathy and revulsion upon seeing another victimized.

Eventually, we wrote and made music about it. The species, the nature of Man, defines Good and Evil for us in the very structure of our bodies: omnivores, bearing the ability to reason, built to comprehend its own laws of Good and Evil like no other creature. As such, presuming that the lives and works our forebears — of every single forebear — has value in this pursuit of knowledge is rational.

Luckily for the progressives, the obsession with “smashing” the past has successfully prevented the leftist flock from not only learning that their ideas are dead on arrival, but that, as their ideas come 200,000 years after the first person to understand good and evil, they are as far from “progressive” or “post-modern” as any word can be from its intended meaning. So, up until now, Critical Theorists have not been able to suffer the fate they ironically established as their own new definition of hell: to be exposed as foolish, and worse — as dated.

I2C 151019aa Rom3v1to2 Leftie evil | I2C | 151019 1302 et

Joh20v31 Bible vs Big Education

John 20:31 KJV But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Degeneration of American Schools: From Revering the Bible to Reviling the Bible

townhall.com by Michael Brown [/] http://j.mp/0BibleVsBigEd or http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2015/10/09/the-degeneration-of-american-schools-from-revering-the-bible-to-reviling-the-bible-n2063517/page/full

Did you know that in 1647, early American settlers passed the “Old Satan Deluder Act” to encourage children’s education so they could learn to read the Bible?

According to Christian educator Tim Hoy, “One of the earliest education laws in our country was passed by the early settlers in 1647, called the ‘Old Satan Deluder Act.’ The settlers came to America to escape religious and political persecution in Europe. They believed that the persecutions (acts carried out under Satan’s delusion) were allowed to take place because of the populace’s illiteracy in general and biblical illiteracy in particular. To combat a possible repeat of history in the new land, the settlers mandated that communities with at least 50 families must sponsor a teacher; they must establish a grammar school when the population reached 100 families. The purpose of the school was to teach the children to read, particularly to read and understand the Bible.”

Not only so, but, “The 1690 Connecticut Illiteracy Law was passed with the same motive in mind: in order to equip the citizenry for ‘reading the Holy Word of God and the good laws of this (State).’”

But when Focus on the Family sponsored a national “Bring Your Bible to School Day” on October 8, the idea was met with concern in some school districts. The Bible, brought to our schools? How could this be?

It’s no problem to advocate every kind of godless philosophy in these same classrooms.

It’s no problem to teach every kind of profane sex-ed curriculum to these same students.

It’s no problem to exalt Islam and other world religions (but not Christianity) in their religion textbooks.

It’s no problem to distribute condoms, to advertise Planned Parenthood, and to promote homosexuality in these same hallways.

But to bring the Bible to school and talk about it?

How dangerous!

As reported on the Sacramento Bee website, the real rub was that parents in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District were upset that the district “would send information to their inboxes publicizing ‘bring your Bible to school day.’,” even though the email “included a disclaimer that said the school district was not a sponsor of the program.”

Indeed, “some parents were furious that the district had allowed a religious entity to promote itself via the district email system,” with one parent claiming that, “It’s unbelievable the district is supporting something that blurs the line between public education and religion.”

But according to Daniel Thigpen, spokesman for the district, “the district has a policy that allows the distribution of some fliers by email from organizations that want to publicize activities for students and families.”

Why all the uproar over this particular event?

One vocal protester, Ashley Slovak (a Jewish woman married to a Christian), kept her daughter home that day, saying that school “should be a safe place. She would feel ostracized. She would feel like an outsider among her peers.”

Really?

But how do committed Christian kids feel every day in school districts across America when their views are ridiculed, when they are called bigots and haters because they cannot endorse the latest PC trend, when carrying a Bible with them is considered a sign of fanaticism?

Young people – and I mean pre-teens – have said to me (with tears), “We are under so much pressure at school!”

A 15-year-old tweeted me and said, “Thank u for helping me walk through the valley of the shadow of death with your wisdom and teachings! . . . There aren't many of my generation who agree with our beliefs so it's a mental battle everyday at my school. U help!”

No wonder it has become so controversial for a school district to announce a “Bring Your Bible to School Day.” The Word of God has become toxic to our children’s “education.”

It was the exact opposite in the beginning.

As Hoy notes, “Shortly after establishment of our country, the founding fathers passed a federal law that required all existing and incoming states to establish schools that will teach ‘religion, morality, and knowledge.’ Many of the founding fathers advocated that the Bible be the primary text in these schools.”

Hoy explains, “As our country continued to grow, so did our schools. The American school system was the best in the world, and the Bible was central to its curriculum. In the early 1840s, an attempt was made in Philadelphia to establish a school that would be free of the Bible and any Christian influence. A legal battle ensued that would reach the highest court in the land.”

What was the result of this legal battle? “In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court upheld the centrality of the Bible in US schools,” penning these remarkable words:

“Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a Divine revelation in the (school)—its general precepts expounded…and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?...Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the Sacred Volume?” (US Supreme Court, Vidal vs. Girard’s Executor, 1844)

Today, instead of the Bible being read or taught in our schools, our young people are addicted to cell phones, not just texting mindlessly through the day but sharing the most vile gossip, the most hateful (and even murderous expressions), and engaging in sexting (sharing naked pictures of each other) as early as Middle School.

Yet the same parents who let their kids run wild on social media and the internet are concerned about Bibles being brought to school.

May God have mercy on America, and may Christian kids be encouraged to bring their Bibles to school every day, to talk about the Word and pray with one another, and to be bold and unashamed witnesses for Jesus.

This is just what our schools need most.

I2C 151018ba Joh20v31 Bible vs Big Education | I2C | 151018 1719 et

Luk22v36to38 Arms and Man

Luke 22:36-38 KJV Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (37) [...] (38) And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

_ In modern terms, if one in six has concealed carry training and license and practice, that is enough.

Oregon and Our Post-Constitutional Republic

pjmedia.com [Oct. 8, '15] by Andrew C. McCarthy [/] http://j.mp/0FreeInArms or http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2015/10/08/oregon-and-our-post-constitutional-republic/?singlepage=true

Are you embarrassed by the reasons why we have the right to keep and bear firearms? Democrats think you are and, in this, they could not be more right.

That is why last week’s mass-murder shooting at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College has led to the same tired political act we witness each time a gun tragedy or atrocity occurs: The shooting is politicized by the Left to advance gun restrictions; the timely and false suggestion is made that gun crime is on the rise (it has actually decreased dramatically in the last generation); regulatory proposals are advanced that would have had little or no chance of preventing the just-occurred shootings; gun-rights advocates point out the flaws in both the proposals and the premise that guns cause more violence than they create; and we have a stalemate in the gun policy debate while ignoring mental illness (the wayward policies on which contribute more to mass-shootings than does the availability of firearms).

Why are we debating policy? After all, gun rights are explicit in the Second Amendment. In general, there is not supposed to be much policy debate where our fundamental rights are concerned. We would not, for example, abide a suggestion that we reconsider whether the government may break into your home and poke around for evidence without a warrant. That is not to say there may not be logical reasons to allow a police officer to act unilaterally on a strong hunch; it is to say that a constitutional right is supposed to be a guarantee – something the government has to respect, not something the citizen has to justify.

So why is that not the case with guns? When pushes for more regulations and restrictions come along, as they inevitably do, conservatives and libertarians counter that these would violate the Constitution. But the claim is a muted one because the people asserting it are uncomfortable with (and sometimes uninformed about) the rationale for the constitutional right. Instead, our gun debate proceeds from the premise that the federal government is simply trying to protect Americans from gun violence. Thus, most people reason, the government deserves a fair hearing because its motive is noble, and it deserves a degree of deference because, by performing its essential police functions, it has developed expertise in balancing concerns about community safety and personal security.

It all sounds perfectly reasonable … except for being so wrong, historically speaking. Our Constitution – the debates during its drafting, the rationale for the Second Amendment – portrays government as the force to be feared, not heeded.

For the framers, the central government was the main reason the citizenry should be armed. They believed nothing more threatened individual liberty – the value the Constitution most promotes – than an all-powerful central government. Consequently, they prohibited Congress from providing for a standing army for more than two years’ duration. Standing armies, they calculated, can be turned against free people by an abusive government, leading to tyranny.

Obviously, if the country were not to have a standing army, that would encourage other countries to attack and conquer it. At that point, Congress’s power to raise an army would be cold comfort since the conquest might already be accomplished. The framers addressed this problem by encouraging the citizenry to remain armed. That way, each state would continue to have a militia that could defend the state but also could be pressed into the service of the nation if a threat or exigency required it – thus protecting the whole country while a national army was being raised.

Meanwhile, citizens would maintain the right to protect themselves. Since the framers and American culture regarded state power as primarily a threat to liberty, not the ultimate guardian of liberty, they would have rejected the notion that citizens should completely delegate to state police the obligation of protecting citizens from crime. The reasoning here is not along the lines of the public policy quip that “when every second counts, the police are only minutes away.” It is illustrative of the conceit that there was as much cause to fear the state’s use-of-force capabilities as to take comfort in them.

Do Americans still believe these things? I don’t think so. Americans do not exactly like government, but most do not see it as a forcible threat to liberty. Unlike eighteenth century Americans, we moderns tend to assume our liberty as a given, not as something we need to fight for – especially against our own government. We have lower expectations about liberty: we concede the government a wide berth to regulate our lives; we tend to see even burdensome regulation as a nuisance, not an existential threat.

Moreover, we tend to appreciate rather than dread our police forces (movements like Black Lives Matter notwithstanding). And given that many of us live in dense metropolises, we seem to assume that the visible presence and activity of sizable state and municipal police forces are adequate to discourage crime and keep us reasonably safe. Many of us do not own guns – we’ve grown comfortable with delegating the duty of safeguarding ourselves to the government. Many Americans are more fearful of the prospect of armed private citizens than armed police officers.

My point here is not to judge whether these assumptions and beliefs are right or wrong. It is to acknowledge that they are the ingrained in most Americans – including most Americans who support private gun rights.

The Left grasps this. And while leftists don’t have much sense of humor about themselves, they fully understand the power of ridicule. When they hear a vigorous claim that, “You can’t take away my guns because the Constitution guarantees my right to them,” they are apt to snicker, “Yeah, because you just might have to shoot at the invading U.S. army when the government declares a police state, right?”

Few people are willing to answer that mocking question with, “Well, yes, that’s right.” People who frame government as the perilous threat rather than the admirable “public servant” are lampooned as nutters by the media and many of their fellow citizens.

Whether they should or shouldn’t be is beside the point. What matters is that you cannot make a compelling constitutional claim about gun rights unless you believe in the Constitution’s rationale for those rights. By and large, the public lacks that conviction … and that is why our debate is about struggling to limit the Left’s antigun agenda rather than asserting our own gun rights.

Full Disclosure.

_ I understand that the U.S. Militia has been defined in federal law as all males of military age.

_ The Second Amendment is the ultimate protection, established as a God given right, against tyranny and lawlessness at any level, particularly at the central level.

_ In response to the terrorism of John Brown and his associates and impending federal tyranny, the intensified organization and training of militias in several states was entirely proper.

_ Concealed carry by women is necessitated by the particular evils of our times.

_ Open carry by women is a symbol of response to extreme lawlessness and distrust.

I2C 151018 aa Luk22v36to38 Arms and Man | I2C | 151018 1644 et

Joh12v19 Carson vs Media

John 12:19 KJV The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

Why Carson Scares the Media

spectator.org By David Catron – 10.12.15 [/] http://j.mp/0CarsonVsMedia or http://spectator.org/articles/64323/why-carson-scares-media

The media, having failed to stop Ben Carson’s steady rise in popularity by treating him like Ralph Ellison’s “invisible man,” are now going nuclear on him. The number of press attacks launched on Carson has recently increased exponentially. And, significantly, the barrage has been far more vicious than any criticism directed at Donald Trump or the other GOP presidential aspirants. The GQ assault titled “F*ck Ben Carson” is only exceptional for its vulgarity. Countless columns, articles, broadcasts and blog posts have portrayed him as “stupid,” “insane,” and even “racist.” The media clearly fear Carson more than the other Republicans. Why?

The answer is in the latest polls of registered voters. It’s not just that Carson has closed the gap on Donald Trump in the race for the GOP nomination. What really scares the media is that, in hypothetical general election match-ups, Carson consistently beats the probable Democrat nominee—Hillary Clinton. According to Real Clear Politics, most surveys of registered voters conducted since the beginning of September show Clinton losing to Carson in the general election. One shows Carson winning by 7 points. The opposite is true for Trump. Most polls covering the same time period show Clinton beating “the Donald” with ease.

This would be less frightening to the “reporters” of the MSM if their 24/7 coverage of Trump had been successful in preventing him from being overtaken by Carson in the race for the Republican nomination. The latest Fairleigh Dickenson survey of registered voters, released last Thursday, shows Carson at 22 percent with Trump clinging to 26 percent. The findings of this survey are consistent with other respected polls. In fact, a recent survey from IBD/TIPP—which enjoys a stellar reputation for accuracy—showed Carson 7 points ahead of Trump. A recent NBC/WSJ survey showed the two candidates in a statistical tie for the lead.

All of which means that it is becoming increasingly plausible that Carson will beat Trump in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, and that he will go on to defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election. This would make him, to paraphrase Rupert Murdoch, our first black President. For the establishment media, which is for all intents and purposes the public relations branch of the Democratic Party (i.e. the party of white supremacy), this is a terrifying prospect. Even worse, he would be the first real conservative to occupy the Oval Office since Ronald Reagan. And, like Reagan, he would reverse many of his predecessor’s idiotic policies.

This is why these “journalists” have changed their strategy. Now that they know Carson won’t go away if they simply ignore him, they will try to bring him down with a classic campaign of personal destruction. And they will not temper their “reporting” with the truth about his character or his beliefs. Thus, they have deliberately misrepresented Carson’s positions on Obamacare, Islam, the Second Amendment, Planned Parenthood, the Holocaust, illegal immigration, ad infinitum. Meanwhile, they have studiously ignored the racial slurs to which he has been subjected, including being called a “coon” by an Ivy League professor.

But Dr. Carson could not have risen from poverty to the pinnacle of a very select profession, much less become a serious contender for the presidency, if he didn’t possess a pugnacious streak. Thus, last Friday, he took the fight to the media at the National Press Club. And, in a refreshing change from the usual pusillanimous Republican approach to the press, he didn’t equivocate. Using the way his own words have been repeatedly distorted as an example, he told the scribblers that they are destroying their own credibility: “I got to tell you guys, that’s why people don’t trust you anymore. I mean you're down there with used car salesmen.”

He also reminded them of the “sacred obligation that they have to the people to be honest,” pointing out that journalism is the only business explicitly protected by the Constitution and why: “It was because the press was supposed to be an ally of the people. And they were supposed to expose and inform the people in a nonpartisan way. When they become partisan, which they are, they distort the system as it was supposed to work.” He went on to say that the American people increasingly resent partisan journalists: “I mean the good thing is that a lot of the people in America are onto them and… that’s one of the reasons we’re doing well.”

In other words, the more the media pile on, the more favorably Carson is viewed by voters. But the geniuses of the press have no intention of taking advice from a mere brain surgeon. In fact, they have responded to Carson’s speech as if he had launched an unprovoked attack on them. The event was reported in the Hill, for example, under the following Orwellian headline: “Carson Declares War on the Press.” And the article goes on to suggest that Carson’s remarks, which were calmly delivered in his usual circumspect style, amounted to little more than paranoia: “Carson lashed out at the press… he believes his views have been misrepresented.”

And the beat goes on. Saturday, the Boston Globe ran a piece titled, “Carson proves daft, disturbing—and darling of the GOP,” which offered this brilliant insight: “If not for his amazing, up-from-nothing story, his career as a neurosurgeon, and his race… Carson would be dismissed as a crackpot.” This is the kind of stupidity that sometimes causes him to chuckle when talking to reporters. Only a media dunce could fail to see that his “amazing” success story is what makes it obvious that he isn’t “daft.” That Carson, whose IQ is probably twice that of the average journalist, exhibits such patience with these people is added proof that he’s no crackpot.

Nonetheless, that’s the party line, and the media will continue to push it hard. These people are worried. They know that, if Carson gets the GOP presidential nomination, he will almost certainly beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. So, they will try to keep Donald Trump afloat until the primaries with lots of free media and softball questions, while continuing to crank out the “Carson is Crazy” stories. But, as Carson pointed out at the National Press Club, the voters are onto them. This time, they’re not going to let the media pick our next President.

I2C 151012ba Joh12v19 Carson vs Media | I2C | 151012 1614 et