The Threat from Islam is Real

Here is a chilling exchange between a Muslim student and David Horowitz.  We have to give her points for being honest!

But if this doesn’t demonstrate the threat urgency of the threat we face from Islamic terror, nothing will.  When a Muslim (a self-proclaimed religion of peace) is able to stand up and agree with another Muslim that all Jews need to congregate in Israel to make it easy for Muslims to kill them all without batting an eye—that is a sad day.  However, this video also demonstrates the greatness of our country where this exchange can take place!

Islamic State flag Image credit Wikimedia Commons.
Islamic State Flag

Changing the Variables

For the sake of argument, lets change the variables.

Lets say that a Muslim speaker was speaking on a topic and during the question and answer session a Christian stood up and asked the Muslim why they wanted to kill all Christians.

And in so doing the Muslim responded by asking a follow-up question: Do you believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven or Paradise and that all other religions are wrong?

And the Christian answers yes.

Political Correctness Run Amok

Can you imagine the outrage that would be levied at the “intolerant” Christian that was simply answering a question posed to him/her by another.  Those who claim to be “tolerant” of other views would show their true colors and demand the Christian apologize for “imposing” their beliefs on another, when that is exactly what Muslims want to do.  They want to conquer the world by force.

The fact that this does not get media play is not surprising.

The fact that there was no outrage in the audience when she answered coldly and simply, “Yes.” is surprising.

First, this non-response by the audience is political correctness run amok.  Like the neighbor in San Bernardino who saw something suspicious but was afraid to report it due to not wanting to be called “racist.”

Second, wanting to see all Jews killed means that it shows the lie to their mantra that Islam is a religion of peace.

Political Hypocrisy Demonstrated through Climate Change

I just watched this video here and I wanted to point out the “hysteria” language being used to “sell” the idea that climate change is a threat.

Note at around 0:50 the UN Climate Chief, Christiana Figueres, says that there is “more risk” in not doing anything rather “than doing something.”  There is the hysteria and crisis.  However, I am sure that her definition of risk has to do with the impact on the planet rather than the impact that trapping carbon will impact those who are going to have to pay for it—rich humans, i.e., the United States and the Western “developed” countries while developing nations, including China and India, are still going to be exempt from “stopping” what they are most responsible for “causing.”

Developed countries are going to be charged $100 BILLION dollars to help developing countries “adapt” to climate change by 2020.

Note the hypocrisy here:  The whole point of the hysteria of climate change is to enact more government and erode more liberty on faulty science to STOP climate change.  If we are going to stop climate change, why do we have to pay developing countries to adopt to it?  Thus, here in one speech, in about twenty-one seconds, the UN Climate Chief exposes the illogical nature of the argument of climate change.  It is not about the climate.  It is global hysterics centered on a global redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots.

Further, the implementation of all the climate change plans would only lower the projected warming by 1 – 3.3 degrees Celsius (deg C) NOT stop it completely.  But lets look at these actual numbers.  Figueres says that warming is projected to increase without climate change restrictions to be from 4 – 6 deg C.  With the climate change restrictions she says the earth “could” only warm 2.7 – 3 deg C.  She seems more confident on the 4 deg C than she does on the 6 deg C.  But lets take the 6 deg C rise without restrictions and the 2.7 deg C with them.  That gives a net change of 3.3 deg C.  In looking at this page, we see that the temperature increase actually starts before the increase in CO2-levels in the atmosphere.  More description of this phenomenon can be found here.

But these same articles and charts show that around 18,000 years ago the Earth was around 9-10 deg C COLDER than present time and that for probably 800 years prior to today the Earth’s temperature has been statistically stable!

Thanks to the excellent analysis by geocraft.com and co2science.org for presenting facts in the debate.

“I really don’t think these guys know what they are talking about.” (Richard Feynman)

The environmental movement has done with the whole global warming/climate change hysteria they are creating, and sadly, governments, as we see with the IPCC report just released, are colluding under the assumption that carbon dioxide is causing global warming (or as its now been called, climate change, just in case the temperature does go down, it can be blamed on anthropogenic [man-made] sources as well.)  This fits the characteristics of a Big Lie and extortion because it is undertaken to achieve a policy goal that people would not normally agree to i.e., giving up economic prosperity  to stop something that humans have no control over.

Statistically Speaking

Looking closely at the IPCC report, we see that they consider it very likely that anthropogenic (human produced) carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing global warming. But there is a footnote to that very likely and looking at that we see it is the definition of “very likely.” The report defines “very likely” as “>90% chance of occurrence.” Now that still leaves 10% chance that it won’t occur, which means that there is a 10% chance that the experts are wrong and that their data has been contributed to chance.

What does all this mean? Well, as a student of the political science field, whenever there is a survey, they always quote those numbers at the bottoms of polls saying “+-4%, 95%” What they are saying is that they are 95% certain that the results can be within plus or minus of the number on the screen–the margin of error. So, as you hear the talking heads on TV state that it is a dead heat, that usually means that both candidates or issues are within the margin of error, so, either one could be leading. Well, the IPCC report leaves a 10% chance that they are wrong.

Being that political science has to be held to the 95% confidence interval to taken seriously, why then are we basing drastic economic and policy change on a 90% confidence interval? This question bears acute examination since the hard sciences have always been held to a higher standard. The FDA would not allow a drug on the market that kills 1 person out of every 10 that takes it. They consider that too great a risk. They might allow 1 in 100 and probably 1 in 1000, since the chance of death is 1% and O.1%, respectively, but certainly not 1 in 10 except in rare circumstances.

As Richard Feynman said when the TTAPS report came out about a nuclear war causing nuclear winter: “I really don’t think these guys know what they are talking about.” I echo the same sentiment towards the global warming scientists.

The Christian Response

After the creation of Adam and Eve, God told them to “fill the earth and subdue it.”  Similarly, Adam’s first work in the Garden was the name all the animals.  So, early in the creation account mankind has authority over the earth and is supposed to use the earth to his purposes for food and water, life, shelter and clothing.  At the Fall, we see a merciful God (with foreshadowing that a payment is needed for sin) crafting animal skins to cover Adam and Eve instead of their leaf attire.  So, certainly the picture presented in Genesis and the whole Bible is one of order and one of creatures worshiping the Creator instead of creation.

Further we see in the New Testament that as our bodies are the holy temple of the Lord, we are to take care of them and use them in service fitting to the Lord.  Thus, sinful and destructive activities that do not present the glory of God to others and give Him praise should not be practiced.  Some in the Christian history have said that this prohibits smoking; I do not see this as the case.  However, I certainly do not recommend it nor thing that we can smoke to give glory to Jesus!  I apply the discussion that Paul had with the Corinthians regarding meat sacrificed to idols—do as the Holy Spirit convicts.

The key word here is stewards.  A steward is one who takes care of something for another.  God has given us the ability to use the earth for our benefit but expects us to do so responsibly.  Technological advances in the last 50 years make a lot of the environmental issues moot.  However, a line from Casting Crowns echos the current environment Christians, in our response to presenting the truth, have to fight against:

As we’re sung to sleep by philosophies
That save the trees and kill the children

liberal extortion: an overview

So, in my previous post on the movement of college extortion, I started off by saying that liberals are the party of extortionists AND that extortion is a crime.  I won’t re-hash that here, but my thinking is that this is a good way to draw a dichotomy between the liberals and conservatives.

Liberals want power from the people and conservatives want to en-power the people.

Liberals Advancing Their Power

There are multiple topics where we see liberals extorting—i.e., using the threat of fear to get one to do that which they would not normally do—Americans to implement their agenda that give them power.  Ozone controversy in the 1980s.  Global warming of the 1990s and when that didn’t happen, now its climate change.  Affordable Care Act passage to read the bill.  Debt crises–we have to extend the debt or default and we’ll talk about the “solution” later.  These are plenty of examples we can learn from, but to understand how liberals extort the American public to gain power, lets look at Rahm Emmanuel’s favorite saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

This is the essence of liberal extortion.   Continue reading “liberal extortion: an overview”