In this excellent article by John Coleman, Dr. Suess is given credit for helping identify the early science supporting global warming way back in the 50's. Dr. Suess is mentioned in this excerpt from the article:

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957.

I checked Wikipedia and sure enough Hans Suess is:

an Austrian physical chemist and nuclear physicist. Suess earned his Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of Vienna in 1935.

Nuclear physicist: that makes him a real rocket scientist, eh?
And Ph.D. makes him a Dr. right?

So the foundational science for global warming was laid in part by Dr. Suess. Cool huh?

One other interesting item from the article. Roger Revelle later became one of Al Gore's Harvard (pronounced haaa-vud) professors and inspiration to later seek a career in making big bucks selling carbon credits when he grew up.

It could only happen in a free America.

Unbelievable!!!

First the gas prices were too high because (according to the mainstream media) George Bush is a crook who steals a nickel or so from every gallon of gas sold in America or whatever. They don't know HOW W profits from all of the oil sold in the world, they just know that he does.

Then the gas prices dropped. According to the same mainstream media it was because of supply and demand. Amazing. I would have thought George Bush had a handle on that. He must have lost a lot of money on that.

Now we have a Rocky Mountain News editorial that tells us that a few gas stations in Montrose Colorado have been awarded 1.4 million dollars in suit against King Soopers and City Market for discounting gas prices too much and the gas discounts from those retailers are gone!!!

The liberal Rocky Mountain News (that printed many articles about how "BIG OIL" is screwing us over) is rightly advocating that the 69 year old Unfair Practices Act legislation upon which the lawsuit was based, be repealed.

OW!! My head hurts!! What are you RMN. Socialist or capitalist??? Do you know the difference???

I am beginning to think that the mainstream media is not biased, just stupid!!!

Next thing you know the Bush hating, anti-war Dims will be ratcheting up the war in Iraq and saying it was their idea all along and most of John Q. Public will buy it!!!!

Or how about this: The economy is GOOD now. And we (the Dims) did it, even before we took over power in January and without passing any legislation!!! And you guessed it, most of John Q. Public will buy it!!!! After all, they blamed the recession on Bush before he took office and people believed it.

We need a new party. The common sense party. Our campaign would buttons could say W.W.R.D. - What Would Reagan Do!

The national unemplyment rate = 4.6%

The national employment rate = 95.4%

Hello

I don't have much time to post messages here so my post are few and far between, but this afternoon I got a visit that I just had to sit down and write about.

I got a visit from Sue Radford today. Ms. Radford is running for the Colorado House District 49 on the Democrat ticket. Her opponent is Republican Kevin Lundberg. I know this is a local race, but Ms. Radford made a statement that is incredible, even for a Democrat.

I asked Ms. Radford about her views on abortion. Her response: "I think the governement should mind their own business" (however she supports nationalized healthcare). She also said that she thought the decision to abort a "mass of tissue" was the woman's decision. Then I asked her whether she believed that an unborn baby was a person or not. She said:

I was stunned. This could be an opportunity for the right to lifers. The right to life folks should point out to the Howard Dean that if unborn fetuses could vote, then Democrats should want to make abortion illegal because the little potential liberal's right to vote is infringed upon by the abortionist. And since an unborn fetus would have a difficult time understanding how to use the voting machines in say FLORIDA for example, a represenative of the DNC could assist them in casting their vote.

Millions of aborted potential Democrat votes lost. The horror....the horror....
    

The culture war breaks down like this: Christians against non-Christians.

I know that sounds very politically incorrect, but as I see it that is where is lays

The culture war is not a war of ideology (liberal vs. conservative), that is just politics.

The culture war is between moral standards and Christians have a different moral standard than non-Christians. Thats just the way it is. It is not conceited, arrogant, racist or judgemental, it is just reality.

Author's note: by Christian I mean true born again followers of Jesus Christ, not cultural Christians who say they are Christians because they were born in America or because they were raised in Church when they were young.

Christians get their moral standard from the word of God: the Bible.

Non-Christians make up their own moral standard. They may draw from many sources to form that moral standard. They may draw from their parent's moral standard and how they were raised and then add some from the ideas they learn from college, some from the classroom and some from their friends. They may get some from television, talk radio or even blogs, but in the end their moral standard is stew made of many ingredients, but each individual is the writer of the recipe for that stew that is their moral standard.

Let me be clear about this. I am not saying that the culture war is a war of morals, but that it is a war of moral standards. It is the source of our morals that is the point of conflict, not just our morals.

This is importnant:
Non-Christians get their moral standard from a source within themselves. They get to decide for themselves what is moral and what is not moral. They may have external influences but in the end they decide what is and what is not moral.

Christians get their moral standard from an external source. Christians have no control over what is moral and what is not moral. It is up to God. It is unmovable. It is a line drawn straight and unwavering. For the Christian morals are defined in black and white, not shades of grey and this is either frightening or offensive or both to non-Christians so they want God thrown out of the public arena.

For example: the 10 commandments are being removed from many government buidlings not because we can't agree that it is wrong to steal, lie, commit adultry, murder, lust after what belongs to someone else or dishonor our mother and father. The 10 commandments are being removed from government buildings because we can not agree on who God is and how we should relate to Him: have no other Gods before me, worship only God, do not use God's name as a curse and set aside Sunday as a day devoted to worshipping God.

Both sides of the Pledge of Allegiance debate can accept saying the Pledge in school as long as we remove "under God" from it.

The culture war only really heats up when God is brought into the debate.

I'll have more to say on this subject tomorrow.

See this post at http://blowupyourtv.com/blowitup/?p=12

4 out of 3 high school graduates don't understand fractions.

 so you can listen to The David Crowder Band while you blog
-

 How well I have learned that there is no fence to sit on
    between heaven and hell.

There is a deep, wide gulf, a chasm,
    and in that chasm is no place for any man. 

         – Johnny Cash

I want to respond to a comment to my previous post titled “when is it ok to yell fire in a crowded theater”. I do this with all due respect to the person who made the comment and to make clear what I am trying to say.

The comment was:

It's been my observation that the resistance these people have to the Truth as commonly spoken is a result of bad experiences as a child, particularly with people who tried to convince them they were evil and were going to be horribly punished if they didn't repent of all their sins and be baptized. And then even when they were baptized, they were still told they were evil and would be horribly punished if they didn't keep repenting of all their sins. To a kid, that is frightening, quite apart from the fact that it doesn't make sense.

My response to this statement is:

1. The Truth is that they really are evil and they really will be horribly punished if they don’t repent of their sins.

2. It really does make sense because it is Truth.

3. Stated that way is frightening not only to children, but to adults as well.

4. There is a better way to state it.

I will concede that there are some churches that use our human sin nature as a club to beat people into the kingdom. This is wrong; it is not Biblical and does not honor God. However we should not overreact by only preaching Gods love and grace. God is love, but God will also judge us in the end.

The problem with telling someone that they need God because they are evil is that we do the convicting. We should teach the law of God (the Ten Commandments), so that the unsaved can be convicted by Gods Truth by the Holy Spirit working through their own conscience. Let them convict themselves.

We don’t need to tell a person that they are evil. We only need to ask them if they have ever told a lie. Everyone will have to answer yes. Have you ever stolen anything, no matter how small? Yes again. Have you ever lusted in your heart for someone to whom you are not married? Yes again. What does that make you? A sinner. And that’s only three of the Ten Commandments. By your own admission you are a thieving, lying adulterer. What does that make you? The only honest answer is: guilty.

Galatians 3:24 says: Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

It is not our job to tell a person that they are evil. It is our job to teach people the truth of Gods law and let the Holy Spirit convict them that they are sinners in need of a Savior. THEN we can tell them that God is a loving God who wants to restore the broken relationship and that he sent His Son to take the punishment that a fair and just judgment requires. Because God loves us so much He sent His only Son, who deserves no punishment, to suffer the punishment that we deserve so that we can go free: free from guilt, shame and punishment.

You see we should not preach God’s grace without first preaching God’s judgment because God’s grace apart from God’s judgment makes no sense. A person who is not aware that they are a sinner, is not aware that they need a Savior. You can tell them that God has a wonderful plan for their life, but they already have their own plan and they think it is a pretty good one thank you very much.

We should not preach God’s judgment apart from God’s grace because that would leave us without hope, believing in an unjust God and God is a just God and a God of hope.

I suspect that the people referred to in the comments made two mistakes. They did the convicting themselves instead of teaching Truth and letting the Holy Spirit convict, and they taught God’s judgment apart from God’s grace. These are two grievous (and all too common) mistakes.

We should never preach sin and judgment apart from grace and we should never preach grace apart from sin and judgment. We should preach sin and judgment through tears of compassion and grace through tears of joy.

This is not mine. Its going around the blogs and talk radio a little bit, but I like it and think it should get more exposure. It goes like this:

How to tell who are the good guys, Hezbollah or Israel.

If Hezbollah were totally disarmed and rendered incapable of waging war what would be the result? Peace

If Israel were totally disarmed and rendered incapable of waging war what would be the result? The destruction of Israel

If my enemy is your enemy then you are my friend. If you are my enemy then your fiends are my enemies.

This is the reason behind some of the unlikely alliances that the Unites States has had in the past. Such as Russia during World War 2, Iran when the Shaw was in power, and unsavory CIA operatives in the war on drugs in South America etc.

It amazes me how many people CNN can find to defend Hezbollah and call for the destruction of Israel. Think about this for a moment. This is a generality, and therefore open to many exceptions, but it seems to me that many of the same people who want the ten commandments taken out of the public view, God taken out of the pledge, the cross removed form the war memorial, prayer removed from commencement speeches, the nativity scene removed from the courthouse lawn and any form of Christian dialog removed from the public discourse are generally the same people who defend Hezbollah, want us out of Iraq, have empathy for Muslims, deny that the war on terror is a war on Islamic fascism and put forward the ridiculous notion that the Israelis are the terrorist not Hezbollah and Hamas.

Jesus said that they hated Me so if you follow Me they will hate you also. He also said that the natural man (those who are not born again into the family of God or non-Christians) hates God. (see Romans Chapter 8).

In simplified terms, Jesus was saying that the world hates Me so if you become My friend the world will hate you because they hate Me and you are my friend.

The secular culture (natural man in Biblical terms) in America considers Christians and all things having to do with Christianity to be their enemy.

Christians consider the Israel to their friends.

The secular culture considers Israel to be their enemy because they are the friends of their enemies (Christians).

The Muslims hate Israel for reasons that pre-date Mohamed and extend all of the way back to Ishmael.

The Muslims consider America to be their enemy because America is a friend of their enemy Israel. (note that they lump us all together even though some in America think they are friends with the Muslims)

Therefore the secular culture in America (liberals, the New York Times, CNN etc.) supports Hezbollah and Hamas and their friends, either openly or through subtly spinning the facts, because Hezbollah et la, are the enemies of their enemies (Christians).

To simplify it, the bleeding heart, liberal, secular left wing culture in America would rather support Hezbollah and their friends than be their enemy, because Hezbollah is the enemy of Christians.

The result is that Green Helmut Guy is a star and a regular on the nightly news.

Does this sound far fetched to you? Consider this. George Bush is not the first president to be hated by the left, but he is the first president to be hated with the level of vehemence with which George Bush is hated by so many.

George Bush is also the first president to openly and often make it known that Jesus is not his enemy, but his friend.

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

 

Please listen to this teaching by Ray Comfort.

Hell's Best Kept Secret