On a page by itself, we find this inside the front cover of Al Gore’s latest climate fraud promotion book: “I’m offering you the choice of life or death. You can choose either blessings or curses.” –Deuteronomy Chapter 30, Verse 19

Let’s imagine that a Republican former vice president (say Dan Quayle or Dick Cheney) authored a similar book telling us that apocalypse was at hand unless we shoveled massive amounts of public money toward companies they’ve heavily invested in. Let’s say the Republican-authored book also prominently featured the Bible verse above, suggesting that Quayle or Cheney was offering the reader the choice between life or death.

In the scenario above, would the mainstream media give Quayle or Cheney the same respect and free book promotion airtime that Gore has received in recent weeks?

SOURCE

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Large wardrobes of seldom-used clothes are no longer environmentally acceptable and people should instead rent outfits and accessories, according to the Government’s waste watchdog.

The Waste & Resources Action Programme (Wrap) claims that overcoming our obsession with owning goods could be a “secret weapon” in meeting climate change targets. It has called for a fifth of all household spending, £148 billion out of an annual total of £732 billion, to be converted to renting by 2020.

In a report published today the watchdog calls for the transformation of a large part of the retail sector into a service industry specialising in renting goods, with each item used by many different people during its lifetime.

WRAP is non-profit backed by government funding (much like ACORN.) And what they are calling for is what the AGW movement is all about: control. Control of economies, control of private citizens, and control of countries, all in the name of a fake issue. Soon, we will all look like bag ladies, or those unhinged liberals we see demonstrating in San Francisco

Shifting a fifth of household spending from purchasing to renting would cut emissions by about 2 per cent, or 13 million tonnes of CO2 a year, through a fall in manufacturing and lower consumption of raw materials.

And people who are out of work do not drive to work, saving more CO2!

Guess who gets hurt? The poor, that’s right! The people who are quite often the recipients of used clothing. Well, they will just have to suck it up, buttercup, to save Gaia from those evil clothing buyers.

On the subject of religion

You Could Not Make It Up: Belief in man-made climate change as important as religious faith?

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The US threatened to derail a deal on global climate change today in a public showdown with China by expressing deep opposition to the existing Kyoto protocol. The US team also urged other rich countries to join it in setting up a new legal agreement which would, unlike Kyoto, force all countries to reduce emissions.

The Senate rejected it and Clinton refused to sign on because it would “result in serious harm to the US economy” as well as not including developing nations. Like China and India. Bush 43 rejected it for the same reasons.

In a day of high international rhetoric, chief US negotiator Jonathan Pershing said the US had moved significantly in the last year. “There has been a startling change in the US position. There is now engagement. We have had a 10-fold increase finance from the US. We have put $80bn into a green economic stimulus package. One year ago there was no commitment to a global agreement.”

But he forcefully outlined America’s opposition to the Kyoto protocol. “We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries. Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries.”

At least the Obama admin. is staying strong for the moment in wanting an agreement that all nations are going to destroy their economies and takes us back to partying like it is 1799. How soon till President Neophyte caves?

In other AGW news, when we say that AGW is like a religion for the Left, well……..

A man who claims he was unfairly dismissed from his job because he believes in climate change is attempting to have his environmental views recognised under religious law.

Tim Nicholson, 42, says his beliefs on the environment are so strong they led to clashes with other senior staff at Grainger, one of the UK’s biggest property companies.

In March, employment judge David Neath gave Nicholson permission to take the firm to a tribunal over his treatment. The company is challenging the ruling, arguing that environmental beliefs are not the same as religious or philosophical ones.

Oooooooo-kay.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

**Update** below from children’s book author Charisse Carney-Nunes

As school kids in New Jersey are being indoctrinated to think that Barack Hussein Obama is a suitable replacement for Jesus of Nazareth, the extremist leftist website FireDogLake rose to defend the propaganda. But even the left-wingers over at FDL must realize how indefensible their support of this indoctrination effort in Jersey is because a recent post they made to defend the incident is weak tea, indeed.

At the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, New Jersey, the author of the book “I Am Barack Obama,” a children’s book propagandizing kids about the president, was allowed the opportunity to teach kids a couple of cult-like songs about The One. The author, one Charisse Carney-Nunes, claims to have been a Harvard classmate of President Obama.

Carney-Nunes wrote an absurdly hortatory series of songs for Black History day for the grade schoolers to sing at the Jersey elementary school, one of which appropriated a stanza of the ages old Christian standard, “Jesus Loves the Little Children” — suitably altered to make Barack Obama the focus instead of Jesus Christ, of course.

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Nice, eh? Barack as Christ goes down well on a school day, doesn’t it?

In any case, after the fire storm erupted on the right leaning blogosphere about this outrageous indoctrination of school children, FireDogLake rose to defend their Obammessiah.

So what was the lefty website’s defense of this propagandist’s effort?

It went sort of like this: “Yeah, well kids were forced to sing O-Cultish propaganda, sure, but there was a school named after George W. Bush in Texas, so THERE!”

That’s right, folks. The reply to this propagandizing of our kids was OK to FireDogLake because some school in Texas was re-named after Bush once. I don’t know about you but it seems to me that re-naming a school is a bit different than forcing kids to sing songs that tells them that Jesu-Bama Loves the little children, all the children of the world, doesn’t it?

**Update** from children’s book author Charisse Carney-Nunes

I have received a press release from the author involved in this school incident. It is presented in its entirety below:

Statement From Hoverfly Media Regarding Charisse Carney-Nunes and
Recent Events Surrounding Bernice Young Elementary School

Washington DC (September 25, 2009) — Charisse Carney-Nunes was invited to Bernice Young Elementary School by the Burlington Township School District because of her status as an award-winning children’s book author. Charisse presented all of her books, including her recent book I Am Barack Obama, a book capturing the example of President Obama to highlight children’s personal power to change the world.

Charisse did not write, create, teach or lead the song about President Obama in the video. The song was presented to her by a teacher and students as a demonstration of a project that the children had previously put together.

Charisse feels it is unfortunate that an event put together with sincere intentions to encourage literacy while celebrating the contributions of African Americans to our great nation has been become political fodder, and hopes cooler heads will prevail.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I haven’t seen so many lies, misconstructions, affectations, and guffaw-invoking absurdities in a single editorial in a major American newspaper for a very long time. In fact I thought it wasn’t possible to see so much foolishness in such a small space without satire being the ultimate goal. In the L.A. Times, however, Anne Lamott has succeeded in making a bigger fool of herself in one editorial than Maureen Dowd could hope to have achieved in a whole year’s worth of blather.

Lamott, an aging novelist that churns out those woefully indulgent tomes that forces readers to endure her darkest feelings and imagines that all of us are on the edge of our seats as she chronicles raising her child, fancies herself an expert on faith and grace. She seems to imagine that she defines it, what ever it is. Of course she was one of the most infested with Bush Derangement Syndrome and was quick to warm to her ersatz religious leader, Barack Hussein Obama. It seems to me that she’s spent her life looking for meaning anywhere and she thought she finally found paydirt with The One. She likes to use words like “grace” and “belief” a lot in her writing but like a true newagie, leftist she rarely talks about any actual religion except in the vaguest of terms. It does appear, though, that she had found a new religion in The One.

And now, with her piece in the Times, it seems she is on the verge of losing her religion… again.

So, it appears that Mz. Lamott imagines herself one of the grown ups. But one line of hers in the Times is an admission that sums up so well the entire piece in a few, succinct words that I am a bit shocked Lamott left the line intact. In one of her last paragraphs, Lamott said of herself, “I hate to sound like a betrayed 7-year-old…” Well, this about sums it all up perfectly. Not only does Lamott act like a petulant 7-year-old, but she reveals herself to have a 7-year-old’s understanding of politics, human nature and history, as well.

This uproarious admission of her maturity level aside, the rest of the piece simply has to be seen to be believed. The fun starts off right in the first paragraph when Lamott asserts that in the last election about “1,575 people wanted you to try to reconcile the toxic bipartisanship that culminated in those Sarah Palin rallies.” Where does she get this number? From the same orifice that she gets all her other assertions in this laugher, of course.

But it’s her second mini paragraph, simplistically encompassing one sentence, where she first reveals her complete lack of knowledge about the late campaign for president.

The other 66,880,655 of us wanted universal healthcare.

This silly woman has it precisely backwards. The candidate that was going to “bring us together,” the candidate that was “post-partisan” was far more the central campaign theme of her Obammessiah than the healthcare issue was. In fact, the “universal healthcare” that Lamott seems to think was so important to sixty-six million voters was just one more of Obama’s vague promises during the campaign. Sure some sectors of the national political scene were hot for universal healthcare during the campaign but healthcare was not as central to the moderate voters that put Obama over the top as the very idea that he would bring a new atmosphere to Washington. And we should also note that Obama had already started distancing himself from the idea of universal healthcare during the campaign before he even became president.

Then comes the prosaic leftist boilerplate that has no real historical truth to it, but rhetoric that every wild-eyed leftist believes as gospel.

You inherited a country that was in the most desperate shape since the Civil War, or the Depression, and we voted for you to heal the catastrophic wounds Bush inflicted on our country and our world. You said that you were up to that challenge.

No, Mz Lamott we most certainly were not in the “most desperate shape since the Civil War.” That is simply a brainless conclusion to come to. We certainly were in the worst economic shape since The Great Depression, granted, but we were nowhere near in as bad a shape as we were in the1930s and 40s. Not even close… though Obama is doing his level best to get us there. And, if, Mz Lamott, you want to focus on the floundering economy, you can thank Obama for making it far worse than Bush ever dreamed of. Curiously enough we do have a parallel with The Great Depression, in a way. We now have a president that is making it worse, just like our president did during that troubling time nearly 80 years ago. Far from being the hero that saved us from depression, more economists every day are realizing that Roosevelt extended that economic horror story by up to seven years. Obama is on track to repeating this rueful mistake.

Next Lamott shows us a burning hatred for nearly half of America’s voters as well as the concept of bi-partisanship that Obama ran on.

We did not vote for you to see if you could get Chuck Grassley or Michael Enzi to date you. The spectacle of you wooing them fills us with horror and even disgust. We recoil as from hot flame at each mention of your new friends.

I guess extremists like Lamott cannot be counted on to help us reach that “post partisan” world that Obama promised us, eh? We must not look to Lamott for civility and a spirit of cooperation. She is not interested in the American idea of compromise, but is interested in the authoritarian, Stalinist process of tyranny. Some American she is, eh?

Then, for some inexplicable reason, Lamott thought we’d all be interested in her love life. Firstly, a woman of her advanced years telling us of her sex life is slightly creepy. But it also shows how incompatible she must be with normal people if at 55 years of age she is still prowling single’s bars for a mate. If all the vitriol, acid and hate she reveals in this piece is any indication, though, it’s no wonder that she keeps coming up short in the love department. Who needs to invite such turmoil into their lives? Eligible single men certainly have enough troubles in their lives without adding hers to theirs!

Then we have a statement of the obvious that is amusing even as it seems to come as a shock to Lamott.

And Mr. President, that is what the Republicans are saying to you: They are just not that into you, sir.

Maybe that’s why few of them voted for him, Anne? Do ya think that could be the case?

Now, we on the right have been decrying the religious-like deification that the religion-hating left continually heap upon The One. And Annie doesn’t disappoint in this area.

After eight years of Bush, and then the Palin nomination, we were battered and anguished and punch-drunk. But in rallying behind you, we came back to life, like in Ezekiel when the prophet breathes the spirit of bearing witness and caring onto the dry bones, and those bones come back to life, become living people again, cherished and tended to.

For people that hate religion so much, they sure do fall to pseudo-religious rhetoric to praise their Obammessiah, don’t they? Of course, Lamott specializes in this sort of conceit, so it isn’t surprising. Oh, but she wasn’t done with the soaring expectations she had for The One.

We did not know exactly how you would proceed to restore our beloved Constitution. It seemed beyond redemption, like my kitchen floor did briefly last week after my dog, Bodhi, accidentally ate 24 corn bread muffins. You said you would push back your sleeves and begin, that it would take all of us working harder than we ever had before, but that you would lead. While acknowledging the financial and moral devastation of the last eight years, you said you would start by giving your people healthcare. You would do battle with the conservatives and insurance companies. You said in your beautiful way many times that this was the overarching moral and spiritual issue of our times, and we understood this to mean that you took this to be your Selma, your Little Rock.

What a bunch of… well, let’s get to the meat of this adolescent rant, shall we?

I hate to sound like a betrayed 7-year-old, but you said. And we believed you. Now you seem to have abandoned the dream. That is why moderates and liberals and progressives like myself all seem a little tense this summer. It is time to call your spirit back. We will be here to help when you get back from vacation. We want to help you get over the disappointment of Mr. Grassley’s cold shoulder, of Mr. Enzi blowing you off, even that nice Olympia Snowe standing you up. We can and will take to the streets again, march and hold peaceful rallies, go door to door, donate to any causes that will help get out the truth of what a public option would mean. But we need you to shake off the dust of the journey and remember the promises of Dr. King, and we need you to lead us toward what is no longer so distant a shore.

I love how this extremist, left-winger includes herself in with the “moderates.” That was pretty amusing, to say the least. But the crux of what we see here is a crestfallen, extremist that is just realizing heir Messiah is a hollow man. Interestingly, Lamott’s lament is just seeping into the minds of the far left in America, a sector that is just beginning to realize that they elected a man incapable of doing what they thought he was promising them. It’s too early to say that their goals are all lost due to Obama’s incompetence, of course, but that they are starting to stare gape-mouthed at failure after failure by this president is momentous and could portend a left-wing backlash that could have long lasting political and social repercussions.

Lomott’s moaning is also a perfect example of what is happening due to Obama’s empty campaign. It is more evident than ever that no one that voted for Barack Hussein Obama knew anything about him as they entered the polling booth. It is proof that the man was a shiny mirror held up to voters who saw themselves reflected in him as they voted for him. It is a stark example of how none of his voters had any idea what Obama himself stood for but were voting for him based on the dreamy-dream they had for a new political landscape.

This is the emptiness of hope-n-change revealed. It is an example of how Obama ran on empty bromides, happy talk, and breezy jaw, jaw that had no substantive policies contained within.

Extremists like Lamott thought they were electing a Stalinist. Moderate voters thought they were voting for a centrist that would bring us together. Black voters thought they were voting for one of them and those wary of government thought they were voting for a fresh-faced outsider. He’s turning out to be none of those things. Obama represented a completely different candidate to every voter but offered no real substance to assure them of their assumptions.

The truth is, of course, that he cannot be all of those things. He is bound to disappoint some or even all of them. And right now we are beginning to see folks on the far left like Anne Lamott coming to the realization that they didn’t elect a revolutionary, a person that would tear down the entire country in a matter of weeks and rebuild it as the communist state of their dreams. And they are starting to worry that they’ve been had.

The question is, what are the un-American, extremist, leftists that pushed for Obama so hard going to do when their disappointment becomes concrete instead of the just dawning, gauzy suspicion it is now? It could be messy, don’t you think?

Pop some popcorn and settle in for a great show if this continues.

(H/T HotAir.com)
(Cross posted at RightWingNews.com.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A publicly funded exhibition is encouraging people to deface the Bible in the name of art — and visitors have responded with abuse and obscenity.

The show includes a video of a woman ripping pages from the Bible and stuffing them into her bra, knickers and mouth.

The open Bible is a central part of ‘Made in God’s Image,’ an exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow. By the book is a container of pens and a notice saying: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

The exhibit, Untitled 2009, was proposed by the Metropolitan Community Church, which said that the idea was to reclaim the Bible as a sacred text. But to the horror of many Christians, including the community church, visitors have daubed its pages with comments such as “This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all.” A contributor wrote on the first page of Genesis: “I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this.”

The Church of Scotland expressed concern, the Roman Catholic Church called the exhibit infantile, and a Christian lawyers’ group said that the exhibition was symptomatic of a broken and lawless society.

What it is symptomatic of is moonbattery, the same godless corrosion that has destroyed Britain and rendered its fetid remnants so broken and lawless.

The exhibition has been created by the artists Anthony Schrag and David Malone, in association with organizations representing gay Christians and Muslims. Mr Schrag, the gallery’s artist in residence, said that he did not believe in God, but that his research for the show had underlined his respect for people of faith.

Gay Christians and Muslims. These organizations ought to branch out and represent all “Christians and Muslims” who are proud to wallow in forms of depravity explicitly condemned by the religions they mock.

The community church, which celebrates “racial, cultural, linguistic, sexual, gender and theological diversity,” had suggested the “interactive” Bible and pens and Mr Schrag, 34, said he had been intrigued.

Naturally bureaucrats regarded this project as a suitable rat hole to pour taxpayer money down.

On a tip from Oiao. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Ah, those ingenious Islamists. Ya gotta give em’ points for inventiveness.

Imagine yourself as a dutiful Iranian thug theocrat that has to get rid of a few teenaged girls that just won’t toe the Islamist line. Is your religion of peace a tad too peaceful to help you in that noble, government duty? Is it telling you that you aren’t allowed to execute virgin girls for “crimes” against the state? What are ya gonna do, Bunkie?

Then, after a carefully considered few seconds, it hits you. Marry ‘em off before you slaughter them! See, after the “husband” and “wife” have had that first conjugal visit, why voila! No more virgin! Then the door is open to the government abattoir for a jolly good time to be had by all.

But how to achieve this marryin’ project? Another few seconds of deep religious and philosophical rumination and you get another one of those flashes of brilliance that can only be considered divine. The solution is so easy, you realize. So, mindful of your religion of peace and all, you order your prison guards to “marry” every little girl that you need to murder… er, I mean chastise… tell them to rape… er, I mean “make love”… to their new “wives,” and then you can start choppin’ heads with the blessing of “god.”

BRILLIANT! Problem solved, those pesky little girls are properly punished, and even the prison guards get a little sumpthin outta the deal.

I just loves me that religion of peace. It’s so modern and innovative.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

David Gibson at the Norfolk Examiner:

Some NATO countries have threatened to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan as a result of the measure.

Speaking to British newspaper The Independent, women’s rights activist Wazhma Frough said that hard line clerics pressured the Justice Ministry to retain the most outrageous parts of the original legislation. She said: “There have been a few little changes, but they are not enough. For example, if the wife doesn’t accept her husband’s sexual requirements then he can deny her food.”

Afghanistan’s Muslim law now allows rapists to go free if they offer to marry their victims. The same practice actually exists in Mexico and is known as ‘Rapto.’

The new law has touched-off riots in the streets of Kabul, as hundreds of women protested the law which would be unthinkable in a civilized society. However, groups of men from Kabul’s largest Shia madrassa also took to the streets and attacked the women. The event has been completely ignored by the American press.

Read the rest. He goes on to cite examples of violence against women in the Muslim world and makes some other points-such as a woman’s testimony in court counts as a fraction of a man’s; in a rape case a woman needs to bring four male witnesses to support her side of the story; a book was written by a Muslim man in Spain which explains ways to beat your wife; the horrid practice of honor killings of female relatives. The writer concludes that we should pull our troops out of countries that legalize unthinkable things to their own family members, and I heartily agree.

Phyllis Chesler at Pajamas Media and writers at Frontpage Magazine among others-are among those who are constantly asking the same question as the author of this article: about women’s groups and activists here in the U.S. Where are the women’s rights organizations here in the US to speak for the suffering women in the Muslim world? They are more interested in their crusade to kill more babies than taking a stand and speaking out against government-sanctioned oppression across the globe in Islamic countries.

It is beyond disgusting that women are beaten in the streets for showing an ankle and that family members get light sentences for killing a female relative for being raped.

With thanks to Jack for the tip.

X Posted at CB

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Randy Brinson, a conservative political consultant in Alabama, has been fielding anxious calls for weeks from business interests across the South.

Their concern is a massive ad blitz on Christian and country-music stations across 10 states. The ads, funded by a left-leaning coalition, urge support for congressional legislation to curb greenhouse-gas emissions — by framing the issue as an urgent matter of Biblical morality.

“As our seas rise, crops wither and rivers run dry, God’s creation cries out for relief,” begins one ad, narrated by an evangelical megachurch pastor. Another opens with a reference to the Gospel of John, slams energy interests for fighting the bill, and concludes: “Please join the faithful in speaking out against the powerful.” (snip)

Emboldened by what they see as a kindred spirit in the White House, progressive and liberal Christians are stepping up their political activism in a big way.

A religious coalition called the American Values Network spent nearly $200,000 placing the global warming ads. Some political analysts credit the campaign with boosting support for the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which narrowly passed the House last week.

During the past 8 years, the Left’s assault on Christianity grew to record levels, particularly because George W. Bush was a Born Again Christian. Now that they have their own Born Again Christian in the White House, they are all for using Christianity to achieve their goals. And, as the article points out, there are even more ad campaigns coming. Of course, the hard left will just use their Leftist Christians (not sure how you can be a Christian when you believe in the primacy of abortion on demand) as yet another group to abuse and then ignore.

Interestingly, I wonder how much good $200k could do if it was put into humanitarian relief efforts here in the USA, rather than an ad campaign over a fake issue?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Some 3.9 billion years ago, a shift in the orbit of the Sun’s outer planets sent a surge of large comets and asteroids careening into the inner solar system. Their violent impacts gouged out the large craters still visible on the Moon’s face, heated Earth’s surface into molten rock and boiled off its oceans into an incandescent mist.

Yet rocks that formed on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, almost as soon as the bombardment had stopped, contain possible evidence of biological processes. If life can arise from inorganic matter so quickly and easily, why is it not abundant in the solar system and beyond? If biology is an inherent property of matter, why have chemists so far been unable to reconstruct life, or anything close to it, in the laboratory?

The origins of life on Earth bristle with puzzle and paradox. Which came first, the proteins of living cells or the genetic information that makes them? How could the metabolism of living things get started without an enclosing membrane to keep all the necessary chemicals together? But if life started inside a cell membrane, how did the necessary nutrients get in?

The questions may seem moot, since life did start somehow. But for the small group of researchers who insist on learning exactly how it started, frustration has abounded. Many once-promising leads have led only to years of wasted effort. Scientists as eminent as Francis Crick, the chief theorist of molecular biology, have quietly suggested that life may have formed elsewhere before seeding the planet, so hard does it seem to find a plausible explanation for its emergence on Earth.

So, what does Darwin’s theory say about this? Can it explain how life arose? Might there be more to the Universe that science can now explain? Could there be some guiding force? There is no doubt that species change over time, but, how? Where are all the mistakes? Why does everything seem linear? Why is the makeup of water so perfect? Why is gravity set at just the right degree? How did tiny little one cell life become a marvelous thinking species?

Science is about testing, retesting, changing one’s hypothesis, seeing where it takes you, until there is no doubt. Darwinism is a religion, practiced as dogmatically as Islamic fundamentalists practice their version of the word of Mohammed, in which no dissension is allowed.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post