How about "George Foxtrot Yankee, 1/8".

Didn't watch the video, did you? What a shock.

The Ongoing Homosexual Persecution of Christians
Bill Muehlenberg Feb 17, 2017

When I first became a Christian I started to seriously read the Bible for the first time. One thing that struck me right away were the warnings Jesus gave in the gospels about how his disciples would face persecution. Those were very alarming things that he said, and as a brand new Christian, I wondered how that would play out in my lifetime.

Back then I thought of some obvious candidates of this, such as Christians being persecuted in c*******t countries. I did not really think that the West would become the sort of arena about which Jesus was warning. But it certainly has. All over the West anti-Christian bigotry and persecution is breaking out, and some of the worst of this is coming from the militant homosexual activists.

I have documented this numerous times now both in many dozens of articles and even in books. And it keeps getting worse. So let me offer two more recent cases of rather blatant anti-Christian bigotry being carried out by the rainbow activists. The first has to do with a street preacher in Scotland who was arrested for speaking biblical t***h on the issue of homosexuality.

One report on this shocking case is worth quoting in full:

A Christian street preacher was locked up and charged with a h**e crime for quoting from the Book of Genesis in response to a gay teenager’s questions on how God views homosexuals. Gordon Larmour, 42, spent a night in custody and faced a six-month ordeal over the charges before they were finally thrown out in a hearing last month.

The father-of-one, who has been street preaching for seven years following his conversion to Christianity, was handing out leaflets in his home town of Irvine, Ayrshire, last June when a group of young men passed him, The Telegraph has reported. He told the men: “Don’t forget Jesus loves you and He died for your sins.”
One asked Mr. Larmour, “What does your God say about homosexuals?” He responded by referring to the Book of Genesis, stating that God had created Adam and Eve to produce children. The two men argued and Mr. Larmour claims that he was chased by the young man. However, it was he who was arrested and frogmarched to the police van before being held in police custody overnight, charged with threatening or abusive behaviour aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation.

“I think the police should have handled it differently and listened to what I had to say. They should have calmed the boy down and left it at that,” Mr. Larmour told the Scottish Herald on Sunday. He added: “In court the boy’s friend told the t***h – that I hadn’t assaulted him or called him h********c names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court last month, Sheriff Alistair Watson agreed, acquitting Mr. Larmour of the charge. He also found him not guilty of a second charge of assault aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation.

Mr. Larmour said: “I can’t see why I was arrested in the first place – it was a massive overreaction and a waste of everyone’s time. The police didn’t listen to me. They took the young homosexual guy’s side straight away and read me my rights.

“I feel they try so hard to appear like they are protecting minorities, they go too far the other way. I want to be able to tell people the good word of the Gospel and think I should be free to do so. I wasn’t speaking my opinions – I was quoting from the Bible.”

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “It is a great relief that the judge ruled in favour of Gordon, because the case simply did not stand up to scrutiny.”

There have been many other cases of Christians seeking to share t***h in the public arena, only to be arrested and jailed for doing so. That sure sounds like the sort of things Jesus warned about when he said that Christ-followers would be hauled before magistrates and so on.

The second story involves one brave Christian woman who I have written about several times before,

Sadly her saga is an ongoing one, with the latest court move against her a major concern. Here is the latest instalment in her story:

The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding broke the state’s anti-discrimination law, even though she claimed doing so would violate her religious beliefs.

Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland, Washington, had been fined by a lower court for denying service to a gay couple in 2013. Stutzman said she was exercising her First Amendment rights.
But the court held that her floral arrangements do not constitute protected free speech, and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

“As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism,” the opinion said. Stutzman’s lawyers immediately said they would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

The National organization for Marriage said this about the ruling:

In an expected but nonetheless exceedingly disappointing decision, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled today that the state may punish a Christian florist, Barronelle Stutzman, for declining to violate her religious beliefs and be forced into participating in a gay ‘marriage’ that is against her religion. This outrageous ruling confirms what we have been saying ever since the US Supreme Court illegitimately redefined marriage in its Obergefell decision — the religious rights of people of faith are being systematically sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and L**T extremism.

The legal defence group assisting her, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said this: “This case is about crushing dissent. In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist. It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will. Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees.”

So we need to see how this case pans out. We need to keep her in prayer. I am not sure many other Christians could stand strong for four years as she has against the raging militants who are out to get her. She sure needs our support. And she certainly confirms what Jesus said about persecution being the lot of his real followers.

The only other thing to say is where are all the Christians speaking out on this? Not just these particular cases, but the whole raft of anti-Christian activism? We are losing our freedoms all over the place simply because we are staying silent on the things that matter. Michael Brown has just penned a new piece on the Stutzman decision. His closing words are worth sharing here:

Where is the righteous Christian indignation? And where are the bleeding-heart liberals who claim to care about the persecuted underdog? (Remember: The ACLU with its massive resources is leading the charge against Barronnelle.)

I can respect Christian leaders who try to stay out of the culture wars because they don’t want to drive their L**T neighbors and friends away from the gospel — as long as they speak up at times like this, when our fundamental liberties are being trashed and when a gracious Christian grandmother is being savaged by the state. But should they remain silent at a time like this, the next time they raise their voices on behalf of the L**T community (and against the conservative evangelicals they so frequently attack) they will be shouting one message to the world: “I am a hypocritical coward!”

Exactly right. The only thing worse than the ugly crackdown on Christianity is the shocking silence of those who should be speaking out for their faith and for religious freedom.

How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas:

The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet g****l w*****g observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a g****l c*****g crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the g****l w*****g issue. Even if the theory of g****l w*****g is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight c*****e c****e.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: "A g****l w*****g treaty (Kyoto) must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the enhanced greenhouse effect."

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of g****l w*****g is all phony…c*****e c****e provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and e******y in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: "The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order."

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on C*****e C****e in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

How Some Key UN IPCC Researchers View Their Science:

For starters, let’s begin with two different views by some of the same researchers that are reported in the same year regarding whether there is a discernible human influence on global climate.

First, taken from a 1996 IPCC report summary written by B.D. Santer, T.M.L Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba: “…there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulph**e aerosols…from geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These results point towards human influence on climate.”

Then, a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this: "Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general climate circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected."

In other words, these guys, several of whom you will hear from later, can’t say with confidence whether or not humans have had any influence at all…or even if so, whether it has caused warming or cooling!

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: "…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, c*****e c****e policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth..."

At a news conference in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on C*****e C****e, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism."

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,"

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that g****l c*****g risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context t***slates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: "None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state".

Christopher Landsea, a top expert on the subject of cyclones, became astounded and perplexed when he was informed that Trenberth had participated in a 2004 press conference following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season which had announced “Experts warn that g****l w*****g is likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Since IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a g****l w*****g-hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise, he wrote to leading IPCC officials imploring: “What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long-term trends of cyclone activity?"

Receiving no replies, he then requested assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying: “Dr. Trenberth seems to have come to a conclusion that g****l w*****g has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community.” After that assurance didn’t come, Landsea, an invited author, resigned from the 2007 report activity and issued an open letter presenting his reasons.

Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments:

A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on tropical cyclone activity.”

Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people we know and trust into IPCC is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL (Geophysical Research Letters) paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that Yale professor James Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official (American Geophysical Union) channels to get him ousted (as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal).”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin Trenberth and I will keep them out somehow---even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is."

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s g****l w*****g hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘t***h’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”

Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary...”

In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck is involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional c*****e c****e based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if c*****e c****e appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll k**l us probably...”

The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science:

As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: "We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the g****l w*****g that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food."

When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: "A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue."

Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming g****l w*****g catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less, but they don't know what to do.”

Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.

The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for c*****e c****e technology research, tax breaks for “g***n e****y”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to g***n e****y subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for c*****e c****e programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”.

Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon f****l f**l use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.

It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made c*****e c****e. It never was.

You are not a scientist, you've taken very few science classes, you have a strong opinion about c*****e c****e, and you conclude that AGW is real. OK.

So, you conducted your "research" based on a predetermined conclusion. You did not take a scientific approach, you took an ideological approach. You searched for information that would support your preconceived notion that AGW is real. IOW, in ignoring objectivity, you failed science, logic, and reason and wasted your time. Good job.

Read on------

The Shell Corp event was not a Trump rally.

No one who has attended a Trump rally has received any compensation.

The 2016 GOP and DNC conventions ended on August 1, 2016. By the end of September, 340,000 people had attended Trump's rallies, with thousands more turned away due to space limitations. During the same period, a total of 14.000 people attended Hillary Clinton's rallies, and there was plenty of space for everyone who came. During the run-up to the 2018 midterm e******n, more than 1.5 million people attended Trump's rallies. Due to space limitations at all venues, thousands more watched the rally on flat screens outside, and who knows how many watched on TV.

No problemo, amigo, I don't think you are a jackass.

L*****t Hoplophobes never deal with FACTS about gun related deaths, they lump homicides, suicides and accidents into one overall "epidemic of gun violence". FACT is, the US is not even in the top 50 nations with the highest homicide rates.

Since 1992, homicide rates in the US have fallen almost 50%.

Here are the top 25 countries with highest Homicide rates per 100,000 citizens (in ascending order):

25) Eswatini = 17.29
24) Guyana = 18.37
23) Puerto Rico = 18.51
22) Tuvalu = 18.65
21) Curaçao = 19.19
20) Saint Lucia = 19.27
19) Central African Republic = 19.76
18) Montserrat = 19.88
17) Mexico = 21.5
16) Colombia = 25.50
15) Guatemala = 27.26
14) Anguilla = 27.66
13) The Bahamas = 28.40
12) Brazil = 29.53
11) Trinidad and Tobago = 30.88
10) South Africa = 33.97
9) Saint Kitts and Nevis = 34.23
8) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines = 36.46
7) Belize = 37.60
6) Lesotho = 41.25
5) Jamaica = 47.01
4) Virgin Islands = 49.26
3) Venezuela = 56.33
2) Honduras = 56.52
1) El Salvador = 82.84

And, the United States = 4.7

Ya gotta give these posts due diligence, bahmer, a hot link is blue with underline. Next time you see that, click on it first before assuming it is a personal insult. OK?

I did, in fact, identify the link as the "Chicago crime tracker".

Hey, Jackass! Chicago crime tracker.

August to Date
Shot & K**led: 35
Shot & Wounded: 212
Total Shot: 247
Total Homicides: 35

Week in Progress (8/25 – 8/31)
Shot & K**led: 3
Shot & Wounded: 20
Total Shot: 23
Total Homicides: 3

Year to Date
Shot & K**led: 305
Shot & Wounded: 1521
Total Shot: 1826
Total Homicides: 332

L*****t Hoplophobes never deal with FACTS about gun related deaths, they lump homicides, suicides and accidents into one overall "epidemic of gun violence". FACT is, the US is not even in the top 50 nations with the highest homicide rates.

Here are the top 25 countries with highest Homicide rates per 100,000 citizens (in ascending order):

25) Eswatini = 17.29
24) Guyana = 18.37
23) Puerto Rico = 18.51
22) Tuvalu = 18.65
21) Curaçao = 19.19
20) Saint Lucia = 19.27
19) Central African Republic = 19.76
18) Montserrat = 19.88
17) Mexico = 21.5
16) Colombia = 25.50
15) Guatemala = 27.26
14) Anguilla = 27.66
13) The Bahamas = 28.40
12) Brazil = 29.53
11) Trinidad and Tobago = 30.88
10) South Africa = 33.97
9) Saint Kitts and Nevis = 34.23
8) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines = 36.46
7) Belize = 37.60
6) Lesotho = 41.25
5) Jamaica = 47.01
4) Virgin Islands = 49.26
3) Venezuela = 56.33
2) Honduras = 56.52
1) El Salvador = 82.84

And, the United States = 4.7
.

America’s New Jacobins

Maximilien Robespierre and his Jacobin “Committee of Public Safety’ highjacked the late 18th-century French Revolution. As supposedly more authentically radical revolutionaries, Jacobins did away with their supposedly less radical first-generation Girondists, who themselves had helped to liquidate the French monarchy and many of the Ancient Régime.

What followed Robespierre’s “Reign of Terror” were cycles of revolution until the appearance of Napoleon’s military autocracy. The United States, mutatis mutandis, currently seems on the verge of a new cycle of such leftwing radicalism in spirit and substance—as the old Democrat Party appears to be withering away and a new Socialist Democrat Party assumes its place.

Yeah, we do.

Yeah, we've seen the pic, even watched the video.

Obviously you are not the cultured Cosmopolitan world traveler you claim to be.

Justin Trudeau est français, n'est-ce pas? Cheek kissing is very common in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, Central America and South America. In other countries, including the U.S. and Japan, cheek kissing is common as well at an international meeting between heads of state and First Ladies or members of royal and the Imperial families. Most often the greeting is cheek contact only, lips (actual kisses) are not involved.

Trudeau took about one second to greet Melania with the traditional cheek contact greeting, he did not make contact with his lips, Melania did not reciprocate.

L*****t guttersnipes who frequent Facebook, and all other social networks, see, hear and believe only what they want, they lack the intelligence and integrity to face reality. The comments that they have "never seen Melania with such a smile" is no surprise.

Melania is a beautiful woman with an engaging smile. She smiles a lot.

.

Practice what you preach, hypocrite.