An Oregon court recently ruled against a Christian bakery that had refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.  The couple has been ordered to pay $135G to the lesbian couple that filed charges against the bakery.  This ruling is a travesty and a violation of the Christian couple’s rights of religious freedom and free speech.  Before I go further let me establish a premise on which I base my statement here.  First, if one believes in God and believes in the Bible as the Word of God as conservative Christians do, one also believes that God and God’s word is immutable, it is final and does not change according to the whims of man.  A Christian who has dedicated himself or herself to trying to follow a godly life, based on the word of God, does not change his or her lifestyle and practices to fit the values of those who do not believe in God if those practices are not aligned with the teaching in the Word.  This is not a matter of hate.  I do not hate anyone.  I may not approve of a lifestyle, but not approving does not equate to hate.

Freedom of religion is one of the first rights articulated in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.  It existed as a constitutional right long before gay rights became an issue in our society.  The placement of the right to religious freedom in the Bill of Rights is evidence of the importance that right had to the founding fathers of our nation.  Among the reasons we declared independence from the King of England was so that we could worship and practice our faith freely, without dictates from the governing power.  The Oregon court has now said that the right to religious freedom must be subordinated to the right of a gay couple to order a wedding cake to celebrate their wedding.

What is the significance of the wedding cake? The Christian couple would have gladly sold the gay couple a generic cake off the shelf.  A wedding cake is a celebration of the love of the couple being wed and the wedding itself.  It is a work of art, as much, or more, as it is food preparation.  It is the artistic expression of the celebration of the event, in the form of a cake.  Because the baker is the artist, asking  a Christian baker to make a wedding cake is asking that baker to participate in the celebration of that event. A Christian baker, who does not approve of the gay lifestyle, does not want to participate in the celebration of a gay wedding, or be known as a participant in such an event.  They should not be asked to do so nor required by the government to do so.  The government is thus requiring the Christian to violate a core belief.

The couple could have gone to a different baker to get their cake made.  Rather than do this, they chose to flaunt their lifestyle in the face of the Christian baker and Christians throughout the country, and caused the government to take sides against religious freedom.

There are more rights at stake than freedom of religion.  There is also the right to freedom of speech and freedom of association, both of which are protected by the constitution.  Because a wedding cake is an artistic expression, it falls under the free speech protection.  Protected is the freedom of speech or the freedom to not speak.  The government should not be dictating the content of our speech.  In like manner, the freedom of association is also the freedom to not associate with those with whom we do not desire to associate, especially when such association implies condoning of a lifestyle with which we do not agree on religious grounds.

The bottom line is that this court ruling is an erosion of our constitutional rights.  The gay couple would not have been denied their rights under our laws if the court had ruled in favor of the baker, because they still had the option to go to another baker.  The rights of both parties could have been preserved by ruling in favor of the Christian baker.  Instead the court chose to trample on the rights on one in favor of the other.  The question arises,  “where will this erosion of our rights stop?”  It is a dangerous path the court has chosen, one that regards faith as being as being nothing more than a belief in a myth that is not worthy of consideration.



I am amazed at the lengths to which liberals will go to twist words around in an attempt to demonize a GOP candidate.  I just read an article headlining that Senate Candidate Judge Roy Moore once praised the era of slavery and also said in a speech that drive by shootings occur because students are taught evolution in school.  While this sounds bad for Judge Moore, when viewed in context, it isn’t so bad.  The headline made it seem as though Judge Moore was praising slavery.  Judge Moore was not praising slavery.  Judge Moore was merely using slavery to identify the era, i.e. pinpoint a time frame.  He was actually saying America was great during that era because we had strong families.  Slavery was merely used as a time marker.

On the subject of drive by shootings and evolution, Judge Moore was simply saying that when you teach students that they come from animals and are nothing more than animals, they will start acting like animals.  When you stop to think about it, logically, that is what evolution teaches.  We came from simple organisms that emerged from the primordal ooze and developed through accidents of mutation and natural selection, into what we are today.  To acknowledge the possibility of God and divine or intelligent design in creation leads to recognizing the possibility of absolute truths and accountability for one’s actions, rather than societal norms are nothing more than codified principles of survival of the fittest.

I would agree that Judge Roy Moore has been controversial in some of his rulings and actions.   And, he has his enemies out there.  He is a man of strong beliefs and convictions.  That does not make him a bad person.  He is conservative to the core and will make a good Senator for Alabama.



It has begun.  The global warmists are swarming around Harvey and Irma like sharks in a feeding frenzy attempting to link these storms to global warming, aka climate change.  One article I read said that “denying climate science is literally killing us.”  Another writer called for jailing “climate deniers” because they are guilty of crimes against humanity.  What is missing in all of their hype is evidence.  They do not have a shred of evidence linking the existence, the size, or strength of these storms to CO2 or global warming of any kind.  All they have are assumptions that if it is severe weather and destructive, it must be due to human-caused climate change.  They have bought into the story that CO2 emitted by humans controls everything about weather and climate.  Thinking that we can control weather or climate by simply controlling CO2 is madness.

Lets put this into perspective.  There are hundreds of factors that contribute to weather and ultimately climate, because climate is the average weather for a given area.  Such factors are the rotation of the earth around its axis, the tilt of the axis, the rotation around the sun, solar activity itself, the pull of the moon, vegetation, topography, and many more.  To hear the pundits like Al Gore speak, you would get the impression that CO2 is blanketing the earth like a thick layer of ooze.  But the reality is that CO2 is only four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere.  To visualize this to get an idea of the relative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, consider 10,000 tennis balls are on your living room floor.  These 10,000 tennis balls represent the entire atmosphere of the earth.  How many of those balls would represent the amount of CO2?  The answer is four.  CO2 is only 4/10,000 of our atmosphere.  Now lets apply this little bit of information to what the warmists want you to believe.

In theory, the sun’s rays warm the Earth and the Earth’s heat is radiated back to space where it hits molecules of CO2 and is re-radiated back to Earth to warm it some more.  This much is true.  But how much additional warming can be realized when CO2 is only 4/10,000 of the atmosphere?  Very little.  So little as to be insignificant.

The warmists also want you to believe CO2 traps heated air next to the earth, much like air is trapped in a hot car.  There are several problems here.  A car is enclosed with impermeable glass and steel.  Open the windows or remove the top and what happens?  The hot air escapes.  The atmosphere and CO2 will not keep the hot air inside the car.  CO2 is a gas and cannot trap anything.  How much trapping can be done when it is 4/10,000ths of the atmosphere? Again, very little or none.  It would be like trying to trap butterflies using a net made of hula hoops tied together.

Another visual is helpful.  Consider a thermos bottle with its mirrored lining designed to keep liquids warm.  Pour boiling water into the thermos and put the stopper on.  Wait 24 hours and check the liquid.  Will it be hotter than when you put it in the thermos?  No.  It will have cooled considerably.  The reflective surface of the liner did not cause reheating by reflecting the heat back into the liquid.  And, there is more of that reflective surface relative to the thermos than there is CO2 relative to the Earth’s surface.



In my last Musings, I addressed the claim of government scientists that 2016 was the warmest year on record.  In my writing I said that the fact that it was government scientists making the claim should give us all reason to be skeptical.  It now appears that my skepticism of government claims was well placed.  A former NOAA scientist has now come forward as a “whistle-blower” to state that government scientists altered data to make it show warming  and then rushed a report so that it would be published with strategic timing to support the Paris global warming accord touted by President Obama.  The government scientists then hid or destroyed the altered data so that independent researchers could not confirm the accuracy of the data.

It appears that a number of the Republican “elite” have bought into the climate change hysteria, because it has been reported that these GOP elites have approached President Trump with a proposal for a carbon tax to “confront the problem of climate change.”  One of these elites is reported to have said that he was not certain he accepted the notion that we are on the precipice of doom from climate change but it does not hurt to be proactive in dealing with the problem.  What utter nonsense.  He wants to take more money from Americans to fund a solution to a problem that does not exist.  This is further evidence that the U.N. has been successful in selling the world a ‘bill of goods” based on a science that does not exist.  We keep hearing people like Bernie Sanders tell us to “believe the science” when it is clear that they have not even bothered to read the “science” for themselves.  They are only reacting to what they are told the “science” says.

The reality is that there is no science behind global warming.  All that exists are hypothesis, altered data, and computer models based on the altered data.  That is not science.  The “science” says there should be a hot spot in the upper atmosphere because of heat “trapped” by CO2.  After three decades of searching, scientists have never found the “hot spot”.    Furthermore, a gas cannot trap anything, especially in the upper atmosphere.  In the upper atmosphere the molecules are much further apart because they are dispersed over a wider area.

There is no empirical evidence that CO2 is linked to global warming or any catastrophic climate event in the recent past.  Those of us who are skeptics do not deny that the earth could be warming.  But we attribute the warming to natural events, such as solar activity, the tilt of the earth, the earth’s rotation around the sun, etc.  Walk outside on a sunny day with dark clothing and what do you notice?  You start warming because your clothing is absorbing the solar energy.  What happens when a cloud gets between you and the sun?  You start to cool because the water vapor in the cloud blocks and filters the solar energy.  Water vapor is a “greenhouse gas” as is CO2.  There is more water vapor in the air, even on cloudless days, than CO2, in fact 96% more.  The moral of the story is that the greenhouse gases prevent the planet from over heating, because they filter and block harmful solar radiation..

CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is an essential element for all life on the planet.  Plants require CO2 to live and thrive.  We require plants to live and thrive.  At 400ppm, the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, plants are almost starved for CO2.  If we reduce CO2 back to 290 ppm, we will be retarding the yields of food plants.  This is not a good idea while the world population is growing.

Back to the “science.”  In science one does not alter the data to fit the hypothesis.  If the data do not fit the hypothesis, the proper thing to do is change the hypothesis.



During the senate confirmation hearings, the Democrat senators seemed more focused on climate change than the real issues the cabinet picks will face.  Some of the questions asked are rather meaningless on their face.  For example, one senator asked a nominee if he believe climate change was real.  The nominee said “yes.”  That answer, in itself discloses nothing.  Certainly climate change is real.  Climate is always changing and has been doing so as long as the planet has existed with a climate.  It is a natural occurrence.  The real issue in the debate is whether humans are causing climate to change by creating more CO2.  The answer to that may seem muddled but the truth is that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that increasing CO2 levels have impacted climate.  None.  Regardless of that fact, the obsession climate change is approaching irrational hysteria.  Much of the public is accepting unfounded statements as truth, from public figures like President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Al Gore.  These public figures are fueling the hysteria with predictions of irreversible doom for the planet unless we act immediately.  We are being told we are at a point of no return.  People say they “believe the science.”  The problem is that they are not believing science but rather believing what they are told the science says.  There is no science in which to believe.  Skeptics do not “deny science” because there is no science to deny.  What is denied are the phony claims posing as science.

As evidence of “climate change”, government scientists have just come out heralding 2016 as having set a new record in global warmth, breaking the records of 2014 and 2015.  The fact that it was government scientists should cause anyone to question the accuracy of the claim.  Government scientists are protective of their jobs and will not present “findings” that run counter to the dogma presented by those at the top.  NASA has been known to consistently alter data in order to show warming.  The government scientists at NASA are using measurements taken at ground locations around the world.  What is not mentioned is that these ground locations are often in what is called urban heat islands (UHI), locations that are known to retain a lot of heat because of the near proximity of heat absorbing structures, such as asphalt roads, concrete/brick buildings, etc.  The measurements taken tend to reflect the retained heat from those structures rather than the normal atmospheric heat.  The scientists must then apply what they believe to be the correct “adjustments” to reflect more accurately the atmospheric and ground temperature.  What is also not mentioned by the government scientists is that about 70% of the Earth’s surface is not covered by any ground measuring station.  Temperatures for those areas are merely guesstimated and included in the average used to claim as a “record” year.  Therefore, the government’s numbers lack the precision to be meaningful.  NASA claims 2016 was .07 degrees warmer than 2015.  Climate scientists using satellite data, which are considered more comprehensive and accurate, tell us that this data shows only a .01 degree difference.  That is 1/100th of a degree.  The difference is meaningless because there are so many variables as to say that the level of precision is not adequate to make 1/100th of a degree statistically significant.  Besides, no one can feel the difference.

Satellite measurements are regarded as more comprehensive and more accurate.  Climate scientists, using satellite measurements, say that the global average temperature for 2016, as well as 2014 and 2015 were not records because they fell within the range of the statistical 95% confidence level.  Which means they were not statistically significant in the variation because they fell within the range of normal variability.

What is being passed off as “science” are projections of catastrophic warming by computer models fed with data that have been corrupted by NASA alterations.  The computer programs themselves are programed with a bias toward showing more warming and catastrophe.  The old saying “garbage in garbage out” applies here.   I offer, as evidence, several facts.  First, none of the predictions of catastrophe have occurred.  Al Gore predicted that by 2015 New York would be under water, Las Vegas would be wiped out, gasoline would be $15 a gallon and the price of milk would approach $9 a gallon from global warming.  None of this has occurred.  Secondly, meteorologists often cannot predict accurately the weather one or two days out.  How can we realistically predict the climate 10 years from now?  Nature is too variable and subject to things beyond our control and ability to predict, such as Sun spots and Sun cycles, cloudiness, etc.

Also passing as “science” is the media reporting of climate events that tend to be nothing but hyperbole.  Those that keep records of such things tell us that the number and severity of tornados has decreased in the last decade, as well as the number and severity of hurricanes, floods, forest fires, and drought.  Yet, to hear the media report it, each severe climate event is the most severe ever recorded, and they attribute it to climate change or global warming.  The media go out of their way to portray the event as catastrophic, using such words as “unprecedented”.  One reporter, during a flood, was filmed in a rowboat in the middle of a city street, giving the impression the flooding had great depth.  The fallacy of the report was shown when an unaware citizen was seen walking down the street behind the boat in ankle deep water.  Reporting on catastrophe sells TV ratings and newspapers, so the media will milk each weather event for all of its ratings value with ethical reporting set aside.



I watch with dismay, the news coverage of Donald Trump in recent days.  It is clear that the media is doing their best to take down Trump to prevent him from getting the GOP nod and winning the election for President.  Take the most recent flap regarding abortion.  It has been a media feeding frenzy trying to paint Trump as some kind of anti-woman monster or ill-prepared dummy pretending to be qualified to be a presidential candidate.  The truth of the matter is that Trump was set up to answer the way he did.  One could get almost anyone to answer in a specific way by structuring the sequence and rapidity of questions, because the sequence and rapidity prepares the mind to follow a pattern.  Note that Matthews asked the more general question of whether there should be punishment for the hypothetical crime of abortion.  Trump, being a law & order believer, said yes, there should be punishment for the commission of the crime, to which Matthews quickly said for women?  Trump’s mind was already programmed to think of punishment for the crime and without thinking said yes.  The structure and rapidity of the questioning programmed Trump to respond in that manner.

It is also laughable that the media would try to portray Trump as anti-woman by going back to some of the things he has said about and to some of the women who have attacked him. The few comments that are on the record now do not make him anti-woman.  The comments made about Carly Fiorina were not made in a public manner but in private.  Therefore it does not rise to the level of an attack.  The comment about Megyn Kelly were responses part of the on-going feud he had with her.  She attacked first and he responded.  His feud with Rosey O’Donnell is well documented.  His comments, therefore, were not against women in general but directed toward specific women who had attacked him.  He has consistently demonstrated that he respects women, but this does not get much press attention because it does not fit the media agenda.  He puts women in high positions in his organization.  He hired a young, black, female, on-the-spot, at an event last week.  A terminally ill woman made it a point to go to the town hall in which he appeared so that she could express her appreciation for the care and concern he expressed to her in her time of need.

It is also laughable that women want to have equality with men but then want to use their womanhood to protect themselves from barbs that men may throw their way.  That is hypocritical.  Women spend lots of money to look good, even sexy.  They get their hair styled.  They paint their faces to accent the eyes or lips,.  They wear shorter and tighter dresses and skirts with high heels to accent their legs.  They lift up their breasts or show cleavage to accent same.  Then, they get offended when men point out how good they look or comment that their looks may have given them an advantage in some way.

It was reported in the media that Hillary claims that world leaders are calling her expressing their fear that Trump could become president.  Could that be true?  I suppose it could because Trump is saying he would take away their candy, e.g. the billions and trillions of dollars they make off the U.S. in trade imbalances, foreign aid, NATO funding, etc.  Trump is rightly saying we are getting ripped off in a big way on the world stage and that it has to stop given that our national debt is $19 trillion and climbing.

Again, it is clear that the media are trying to take Trump down by blowing small things way out of proportion.  I would agree that Trump is not a polished politician.  But that is what is refreshing about him.  He has the knowledge and skills to renew the greatness of America.



If I had any respect for Mitt Romney, I lost it all today, after hearing the vicious way in which he attacked Donald Trump.  Romney said he was not running for anything, but it seems clear to me that he is trying to set himself up to be the savior of the GOP at a brokered convention.  Notice that he encouraged people to vote for the other candidates to prevent Trump from getting enough delegates to win the nomination.  He did not say rally behind one candidate so that candidate would win instead of Trump.  No, he wants people to vote for all the other candidates, to spread the votes around, so that a brokered convention is assured.  Only in a brokered convention could he have a chance to be nominated.  Romney’s ulterior motive is what is behind this speech.  He has to savage Trump to try and take him down so he can he can be the savior of the GOP.

The establishment GOP are in a panic now.  Trump is winning, and their boy Rubio is losing.  Cruz is not their second choice.  I believe there has been a back-room deal between the establishment GOP and Mitt Romney, to draft Mitt at the convention, if he can effectively take down Trump and assure a brokered convention.

Romney does not know what is in Trump’s tax records, nor does he even have a hint of what is there.  All he is doing is sowing seeds of doubt.  As a man who is supposedly a person of strong faith, this malicious “false witness” against Trump says more about Romney’s character than it says about Trump.

Trump’s characterization of Romney is spot on.  Romney ran a very poor campaign when he was the nominee.  The poor character he is showing now, will not endear many grassroots Republicans to him.  If Romney is successful in taking down Trump, it is almost assured that Hillary will become President.  Trump will likely regroup and continue his bid for the White House as an independent, siphoning votes from the GOP.  The establishment GOP and Mitt Romney are going to ruin the Republican Party by trying to frustrate the will of the electorate.  It is sad, but after this election, there may not be a Republican Party of any significance.