Musings

Standard

I just finished reading an article by Todd Starnes of Fox News in which he spoke of a university in Seattle that removed the presentation of the colors and the pledge of allegiance from a Veteran’s Day event because of fears the ceremony would offend certain people in their student body.  Let me say that. as a Veteran who served this country for 20 years, I am very offended that this kind of thing occurs.  I am not ashamed of what our country has been or ashamed of our flag.

Why is it that offending small percentages of the population is taboo but offending large segments of the population is okay, just because those segments are either Christian or conservative?

The worship of political correctness is going further and further astray.  I am constantly reading stories about high schools that tell their students they cannot wear T-shirts with the American flag, or about apartment/condo residents told they cannot display an American Flag, etc.  This is the United States of America and we are Americans.  If people, living in this country and enjoying the freedoms our military have fought for, are offended by our flag, then they are free to leave and go somewhere else.  We should not fear offending them.

Musings

Standard

I have just been watching CNN New day and the interview Alisyn Camerota had with Dr. Ben Carson.  The background to this is that CNN attempted to investigate whether Carson’s story about being a violent youth was true.  The investigators could not find anyone who would or could corroborated Carson’s accounts of violent outbursts.  In this morning’s interview, Carson accused CNN and other liberal media of trying to create a distraction to bring down candidates they oppose politically and ideologically.  Alisyn Camerota defended CNN’s investigation and reports on grounds that CNN was merely attempting to “vet” Dr. Carson as they vet all other candidates.  The interview was a good 30 minutes long and was less of an interview than it was a debate over the bias and intent of CNN.  Dr. Carson was quite strong in his push back against CNN as was Ms. Camerota in her defense of CNN.  But, I believe Dr. Carson had the best showing in the debate.  He said, if CNN was so objective then why is it that anyone who watches CNN has no doubt as to which side of the political spectrum they fall.

Despite Camerota’s assurances that CNN is merely trying to objectively vet Dr. Carson as it vets others, today’s New Day show was clearly an attempt to bring down Dr. Carson.  Rather than simply report that they could not find anyone who would confirm Dr. Carson’s accounts of violence, they went on and on about their failure to confirm the stories to imply that Dr. Carson must be lying about his violent past.  Not only was the interview 30 minutes of Camerota arguing with Dr. Carson about CNN’s bias, but there was at least 30 more minutes of the New Day panel analyzing what Dr. Carson said, none of it positive.  All that was implied in the interview and analysis is that Carson must be lying or trying to hide something.  If CNN was so objective, then why was so much time spent trying to discredit Dr. Carson?

CNN’s bias was clearly evident in today’s show.  They are not just reporting but are attempting to change opinion.

Dr. Carson’s position is that CNN and other liberal media should simply report accurately what was said by candidates rather than trying to interpret what they said.  The public is intelligent enough to make their own interpretations.  They do not need the media trying to tell them how to think.

Musings

Standard

I had an interesting back-and-forth on a comment forum in my local newspaper.  The person to which I responded said this in her comment:  “the belief system here is going by the way side as people do become more educated and open minded.”  This person was commenting on right-wing Christian voters.  By her comment she was saying that Christian conservatives were less educated and more closed-minded, as compared to more liberal voters.  Her statement also implies that Christian values fall by the wayside as people become more educated, or more enlightened.

This woman, appears to me to be the classic example of the prevailing attitude of the liberal left toward Christians and more specifically, Christian conservatives.  The liberals accuse Christian conservatives of being “moralists” and holding themselves to be superior, morally, to their liberal counterparts.  In reality, it is the liberals who thinks they are superior to Christians.  By her statement, the commenter was looking down her nose at Christian conservatives, saying that she is more educated, more enlightened, and more open-minded than Christians.

Also implied in her statement is that Christianity, Christian beliefs, and Christian values are for the ignorant and less educated folks, and these beliefs fall away as one becomes more enlightened.  In other words, belief in God is nothing more than a figment of the imagination of the unenlightened that changes as one learns more.  Taking the implication further, it is saying that Christian beliefs and values are not valid, because they are based on a falsehood.

In addressing this person’s comments, I want to first state that I am a Christian conservative, and well educated.  If this person wants to compare education credentials, I would be pleased to do so.  That said, advanced education has not weakened my belief in God but strengthened it.  I find no inconsistencies in my belief in God and what I believe God has revealed to us in Scriptures, and what I have learned through the education process.  I believe that what we see in the natural world and have learned in science is more evident of God than not.  Our scientific knowledge exists because there is order and consistency in our universe of great magnitude rather than randomness and haphazardness.

Just looking at the human body, one can see that it is a masterful piece of engineering, rather than an accident.  Human scientists and engineers, with all of their advanced knowledge, have not yet been able to create an artificial hand that has the full capabilities of the human hand.  We have artificial hearts that cannot fully do what the human heart does.  And I have seen no evidence that science has developed a way to successfully replace the blood system in the human body or any animal body.  Again, more knowledge does not weaken my belief in God, but strengthens it.

Given a belief in God and believing that God created and gave order to the universe, it is not inconsistent to believe that God would have revealed himself and his will to his creation.  I believe that God has revealed himself to us through the writings found in the Bible.  I believe that God inspired and guided holy men in the past as they wrote, and that the writings we have today are the result of God’s guidance in the process.  Again, advanced education has not weakened that belief but strengthened it.  It is not my purpose here to go into a defense of the Scriptures, other than to affirm my belief in the scriptures, The Bible as the revealed Word of God.

Now comes the element of truth.  I believe in God and accept the Scriptures as God’s revealed word, then the values presented are accepted as the truth.  Because God created the universe with immense order and  consistency, I must also believe that the truth as revealed is also consistent.  It does not change.  It is not relative.  Does that make me closed minded?  To some degree, yes, but only in the sense that I am firm in what I believe to be true.  Certainly, I am open to listen to what others have to say.  But, if I do not find what others say to be convincing, I am not bound to change what I believe is truth just because they offer a different opinion of truth.

My firmness in my belief does not make me hateful of others who do not  believe as I do.  There is a world of difference  between disagreement and hate.  I can express my disagreement with others and express my different values without hating.  I do not hate others.

When I vote for a Presidential candidate, I will vote for one whose values are more closely aligned with mine.  That is natural.  It is expected that Hillary Clinton will get the women’s vote just as Barrack Obama got the black vote,  That happens because people vote for the person they believe is more attuned to their values.  I should not be expected to be any different.  However, I am not desirous of establishing a Christian theocracy, but I do desire the continued freedom to be Christian.  It is not my intention to impose my moral values on others.  At the same time, others should not require of me to do things that I would consider immoral.

Musings

Standard

Liberals/progressives are notorious for their intolerance of opposing opinions.  They hate true debate.  I think that is because most of what they espouse is intellectually indefensible. A good example of that is my recent experience with a group called “the Christian left.”  The group is certainly left in their thinking but hardly Christian.  They relish in going out of their way to marginalize the more traditional Christian thought and practices.

The Christian Left has been making a number of posts on Facebook recently.  That is their right and Facebook is an open-forum medium with readers often given the right to respond to posts.  When I read posts on Facebook, which I oppose ideologically, I am compelled to respond and offer an alternative view.  I did just that on one such post.  The Christian Left, in this post, was making the assertion that companies have a moral obligation to pay a “living wage” to its employees.  My response was to say that the only moral obligation a company has in this regard is to pay the prevailing market rate for the skill level desired and that those who desire more pay than they can current command should take whatever measures are necessary to improve their skill set to command the higher wages.

Of course, my response invoked all sorts of name-calling directed my way, and some called for me to be banned from commenting on their posts.  Interestingly, no one on the forum could offer a reasonably logical justification to their premise that companies are morally obligated to pay a living wage.  The back and forth continued with me holding my ground, trying to explain the realities of the business world.  Eventually, The Christian Left, called me a Troll and banned me from commenting on the forum.  I appear to be banned from commenting on any post made by the Christian Left because none of their recent posts have a button for me to press in order to comment.

The Christian Left likes to make disparaging comments or posts about traditional Christians.  They relish in having like-minded people “like” their post or engage in glad-handing them, in their response, for being so perceptual.  They certainly do not like anyone offering alternative viewpoints, especially when those viewpoints have the strength of logic and common sense.  They not only dislike opposing viewpoints, but are intolerant of opposing viewpoints.  They wish only to wallow in their self-righteousness.

Musings

Standard

After the carnage in Oregon, we are again filled with the knee-jerk reactors calling for gun control.  The focus always seems to be on the guns rather than on the person who committed the act.  Yes, there is always the question of why? The talk of the shooter’s mental illness, or the signs that others should have seen.  But, the talk always comes back to a call for more gun control.

The problem is not guns, or the availability of guns.  Guns are inanimate things.  They do not have brains, arms, legs, hands, or feet.  A gun cannot, of its own accord, go out and shoot someone.  It takes human intent and action to pick up a gun, point it, and pull the trigger.

In my mind, the source of the problem goes back about five decades.  In my lifetime I have observed the deterioration of the family unit, the loss of ability to discipline children who misbehave, the disappearance of the value of life, and the deterioration of character-building in children.

Starting around the 1960s, liberals began inserting their views on how to raise and educate children.  Discipline in the home was virtually eliminated.  Swatting a child on the butt could get you jailed.  Schools quit holding back non-performers, giving social promotions rather than requiring students to learn.  Everyone got smiley faces on their papers.  When children misbehaved in school, they were not disciplined by their parents, but rather the parents stormed the school blaming their child’s misbehavior on the teacher.

In children’s sports, such as little league baseball, no one loses and everyone gets a trophy.  After all, we did not want to permanently damage a child’s psyche by causing them to experience losing or disappointment.  We allowed children to spend hour upon hour watching violent movies or playing violent video games.

The net result is that we raised generations of children who did not learn how to deal with losing or disappointment.  We raised generations of children who cannot accept responsibility for what they do wrong but, instead, blame others.  We  raised generations of children who learned that one deals with problems with violence.

We are reaping what has been sowed over the last five decades.

Banning guns will not stop the violence.  Those intent to do violent acts will either find a way to get guns, or use a different weapon, such as explosives, knives, baseball bats, claw hammers, crowbars, or frozen legs of lamb.

Musings

Standard

I am amazed at how quickly the liberal media will jump on something a conservative politician says and jump to conclusions without really understanding the words said.  An example of this is the recent interview in which GOP representative McCarthy made comments regarding the Benghazi committee with reference to Hillary Clinton’s decline in the polls.

The media were quick to conclude that McCarthy said that the committee was formed to take down Hillary.  However, when one examines the actual statement made by McCarthy, one will find that he did not say the committee was formed for the purpose of taking down Hillary.  What he said was that Hillary’s decline in the polls was a by-product of the the committee’s work.

Another example of the liberal media jumping to unwarranted conclusions is the situation with Dr. Ben Carson’s statement about not advocating putting a Muslim in the White House.  When Carson made that statement, the media immediately got their drawers in a knot and got into a frenzy about the constitution not allowing religion to be a qualifier for the Presidency.  Again, this was a knee-jerk misinterpretation of what Carson said.  Carson was making a personal statement based on what he knew of Islam.  He was not making an interpretation of the Constitution’s qualifiers for the Presidency.  Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits an individual voter from applying whatever litmus test he or she wishes to determine how he or she votes.

The reporting on what Donald Trump said about illegal immigrants was also out of place.  Trump did say that the 11 million illegals must go.  He never said he was going to send squads of police or troops into communities to smash down doors and haul families away kicking and screaming.  He never said he was going to deport American citizens, i.e. the anchor babies/children.  What Trump did say was that the process would be humane, and that it is assumed that when the illegal families left, they would take their children with them, even if those children were born in the U.S.

Regarding babies born in the U.S. being U.S. citizens if their parents are illegal aliens, the media are quick to mention that the Constitution says that babies born in the U.S. are citizens.  What the media forgets or ignores is the qualifier regarding that citizenship.  The Constitution says that babies born in the U.S. whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are citizens.  “Subject to the jurisdiction” is the qualifier.  Illegal aliens are still citizens of their home country, so they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, not of the U.S.  This qualifier will likely be the basis for challenging the status of the so-called anchor babies.

Musings

Standard

My most recent debate on the facebook posts of “friends of Bernie Sanders” was about global warming.  As in most of the debates where I try to challenge the thinking of Sanders’ followers, I am met with with all manner of name-calling, rather than a serious debate of facts.  Many are so vested in expressing love for Bernie Sanders and his Socialist/Progressive views, that they do not want to hear an opposing viewpoint.

To understand how “global warming” became such a hot-button issue, it is important to understand the political climate behind the issue.  Americans first became aware of the issue when former Vice President, Al Gore, began to preach his warnings of climate failure, and produced a popular movie about the issue.  Al Gore’s vested interest is his business investments.  He created a company to sell “carbon offsets” to those who were concerned about their “carbon footprint” and its impact on the earth.  It is in Al Gore’s vested interest to create as much concern for the climate as possible so that he can make more money selling his “carbon offsets.”  Those who buy the “carbon offsets” feel like they are helping the world be a better place.  They do not really change their carbon footprint but soothe their consciences by giving up their money to Al gore.

Another political player is the United Nations.  The UN wants to be able to tap into the wealth of industrialized nations to distribute to the third world nations.  The UN would also like to see itself become the world governing body.  “Global warming” seems to be the issue that will help the UN come closer to their goals.  In the world summit coming up next year, the UN hopes to get the member countries to sign a pact to reduce carbon emissions by a certain percentage and give the UN power to tax those countries that do not meet the targets.  President Obama has already declared they he intends to sign the agreement, which will be binding on the U.S.  The countries that sign the agreement will be yielding a part of their sovereignty to the UN.

President Obama has also stated that “global warming” is settled science, and claims that a majority of scientists support the science behind “global warming.”  First, science is, by its nature, never settled.  There are always new discoveries, sometimes requiring changes to old ways of thinking.  Secondly, the political climate in which the scientists operate is important.  Much of their research is funded by government grants.  If they do not support the government narrative, they can lose their grant funding and even their jobs.  The result is that the scientists are on the “global warming” band-wagon because it is politically expedient, not because they really believe in “global warming.”

Despite what has been said, “global warming” is not settled science.  There are a number problems with the “science.”  Here are some tidbits of information to be digested:

Richard Tol, professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, VrijeUniversiteit, Amsterdam, was a member of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and stepped down from his position and asked that his name be removed from any IPCC reports to be published. Tol, reported in May 2014 that this was because of the bias in the reports toward alarmism, and refusal to report the facts as they were. For example, Tol reports that by the time the third of four scheduled reports was ready to be published, the committee had recognized that the earth had not warmed for 17 years, but would not revise the report to reflect those facts. Another reported bias in the IPCC reports is the failure to acknowledge the costs of global emissions targets. The IPCC research studies showed that ambitious emissions targets would be prohibitively expensive, while not accomplishing much for global warming, but they would not report that. Instead, they reported that striving for the ambitious emissions targets would cost little.

The bottom line is that Tol called the people writing the IPCC reports “activists posing as scientists.”

In May, 2014, the Obama administration released its National Climate Assessment (NCA). Cornwall Alliance Senior Fellow Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist in Climatology at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and U.S. team lead scientist on NASA’s Aqua satellite remote sensing program, feels, along with many other scientists, that the report is full of factual errors and hype. For example, Dr. Spencer says that the report’s claim that global warming is “unprecedented” and “primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels,” is not supported by the facts. Dr. Spencer states that there is absolutely no way of knowing what is human-caused vs. nature-caused climate change, because there is “no fingerprint of human-caused or naturally caused climate change.” He further states that the claim of global warming as “unprecedented” is contradicted by “published paleoclimate data which suggests most centuries experience substantial warming or cooling.”  Dr. Spencer states that the global warming alarmists are making predictions based on “climate models which have not even been able to hindcast past global temperatures, let alone forecast changes with any level of accuracy.”

NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling. In an article, published in August 1999, entitled Whither U.S. Climate?, authors James Hansen, RetoRuedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato stated “Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.”

Up until the year 2000, the record high temperature for the U.S. was recorded in 1934 and 1998 was recorded as a half degree centigrade less than 1934. But after 2000, NOAA and NASA replaced the recorded data with numbers generated from their computer models that showed 1934 as cooler than 1998, thereby showing a warming trend for the U.S. Keep in mind that Dr. Roy Spencer said that the computer models cannot hindcast past temperature, let alone, forecast future temperatures with any level of accuracy.

Glacial melting is not a new phenomenon. The glacier at Glacier Bay, Alaska was discovered in 1794. The National Park Service reported that by 1879, the glacier had retreated more than 30 miles, and by 1916 had retreated more than 60 miles from “natural warming.” In a recent interview with NBC news, the founder of the Weather Channel stated that the polar ice caps were growing, not receding.

It has been claimed by the Obama Administration, and others, that global warming contributes to more frequent, and intense hurricanes. However, John Christy, University of Alabama climate scientist, states that hurricanes have not become more numerous or intense and that NOAA hurricane records back up that claim.
The bottom line is that the debate over global warming is not settled. In fact, the fact that the chicken little climate “scientists” have quit using the term “global warming”, opting to use “climate change”, instead, shows that the matter is not settled.