Reformedville

Not a good day to be Joe Wilson (or the MSM)

reformedville — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:27:59 +0000

I almost have to laugh when I hear the term conspiracy theory anymore.

Saddam’s Nukes

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

WMD: Hear about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq? No? Why should you? It doesn’t fit the media’s neat story line that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed no nuclear threat when we invaded in 2003.

Read More: Iraq | Global War On Terror

It’s a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad.

In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel — thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region.

This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a “significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy.”

Seems to us this should be big news.

After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush “lied” about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S.

This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon.

This is clear, since Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff. (The International Atomic Energy Agency seems to have known about the yellowcake in the 1990s, but did nothing to force Saddam to get rid of it. It’s duplicating its error today with Iran and North Korea).

That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush’s decision to invade.

The American Thinker Web site reported four years ago on the scary math behind Saddam’s uranium hoard: 500 tons of yellowcake, once refined, could make 142 nuclear weapons.

But yellowcake wasn’t all they found at Tuwaitha. According to the AP, the military also discovered “four devices for controlled radiation exposure . . . that could potentially be used in a weapon.”

By the way, this should put to rest the canard peddled by the American left and by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson that “Bush lied” about Iraq seeking yellowcake from the African country of Niger.

Given what we know, including comments by officials in Niger’s government, Iraq did make overtures to buy uranium. And it’s quite possible all or part of the 550 tons came from there.

What’s more, if Bush hadn’t acted, we might today see a nuclear Iraq, an Iran on the way to having a weapon, Libya with an expanded nuclear program, and Syria — with its close ties to Saddam — on the way to having a nuke.

Of equal concern is why the media ignored this good news coming from Iraq. It seems to be of a piece with how they’ve treated other recent positive developments in Iraq (see editorial below).

We ask again — why aren’t you seeing and hearing more about this? The reason is simple: The mainstream media find it inconveniently contradicts the story they have been telling you for years.

*******************************************************

Derek Webb’s New Video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1p00ASxejlE

The Abortion President

reformedville — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:47:13 +0000

Christian group launches new effort in their campaign to educate American voters on the radical and extremist abortion policies of Senator Obama. (More)

Obama denies protection for infants of botched abortions

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/7/2008 6:00:00 AM var addthis_pub = ‘onenewsnow’;

A pro-life activist in Illinois says Barack Obama has repeatedly mischaracterized his opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act while he was a state senator.

The Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law in 2002 after receiving unanimous support from the U.S. Senate. The measure that forces hospitals to give medical care to abortion survivors — if warranted — even received the backing of liberal senators Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts ), Barbara Boxer (D-California), and Hillary Clinton (D-New York).
Obama now says he did not support the Illinois measure because it “lacked the Federal language clarifying the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.”

Story continues below …

Do you find inconsistency in Barack Obama’s professed Christian faith

and his support for abortion on demand?

Vote in our poll

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek recently wrote a column for WorldNetDaily.com titled “Obama’s biggest lie about supporting infanticide.” She points out Obama actively opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act for three years in the Illinois senate.

“He voted against it. He was the sole senator speaking against it on the [Illinois] senate floor [for] two years. And the third year, he held the bill from being considered altogether in committee and killed the bill,” Stanek contends.

She says Obama’s explanation for opposing the Illinois bill does not pass the straight-face test because, as a committee chairman, he blocked the measure’s sponsor from adding the federal language protecting Roe vs. Wade. That federal provision says the bill does not deny or add rights to the species Homo sapiens before birth.

Stanek fought to stop “live-birth abortion” after holding a live aborted baby at a Chicago-area hospital where she worked as a registered nurse.

“Barack Obama is now saying that, had that provision been in the Illinois bill he would have voted for it, which is absolutely false – because in 2003, the senate sponsor tried to add that provision and Barack Obama, as the chairman of the committee where the bill was being held, disallowed him from adding that provision, disallowed me from testifying, disallowed the committee from even voting on it. So, it sat in committee for 22 months,” Stanek explains.

She reveals it was not until Obama left the Illinois Senate that the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed in August of 2005.

Creation Festival 2008

reformedville — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:29:07 +0000

What an awesome time at Creation Festival! It was by far one of the most memorable events I have ever been to.

I started out Wednesday with full intentions of photographing all aspects of the festival and provided camping accomodations. I even found a use for one of those old fold-out foam sofas that has been tucked away in the attic.

I was in Campground K row 49

At the end of our row they had water wagons with drinking water

And portable toilets that were cleaned twice a day

Bands

Leeland on Big Screen

Parachute Band on the big screen

Day Crowd

Pillar

Worship Tent

Worship tent-Parachute Band- New Zealand

By Thursday afternoon I began to realize that the camera could not capture the entire event or just how big the campgrounds were or just how large the crowd was and so I took the shuttle back to the campground and dropped my camera and recorder and backpack off so I could walk around without luggage and enjoy the festival! Best adjustment of the festival!

In many ways even blogging about it all at once would not do it justice. Some highlights. Awesome music. Awesome preaching.

Met some up and coming artists one on one-one to watch for Joel Auge from Canada. He does some vocal dubs for Paul Baloche, and this guy has an excellent voice and writes his own songs.

I also met and was interviewed by Rob Schenck of National Pro-Life Radio . He also runs Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital.

I also had the opportunity to meet some of the folks in the upcoming businesses Starve The Flesh and Live Offensively as well.

If you want to see video or overview of the festival go to Video Rocket and check out some of the recaps.

I understand why people make this a yearly event in their schedules. It was well worth every dollar . I left both refreshed and wiped out.

Comcast disses MSNBC

reformedville — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:08:26 +0000

I knew MSNBC had dropped in the ratings but now Comcast plans to put it along side the vegetable channel. Effective July 17 it moves from channel 39 to channel 266, meaning you must have a digital package and access to Channel One on demand to get it.

A $10.00 investment recoups memories

reformedville — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:17:01 +0000

We were at a friends moving sale a couple weeks ago and I bought one of their old computers for 10.00, mainly because it had an “a” drive for floppy disks.

When we first moved to Estes Park, almost all my pix were on 35mm and we had them put on floppys, so we have been enjoying some of the lost photo series

Above the treeline, about 13, 200 ft.

Slip and its sudden death

Near Rainbow Curve

Tundra in Summer

Two Miles High

Who is going to pay the piper?

reformedville — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:18:27 +0000

The Democrats have controlled both houses of the Congress since January 2007 and we have seen the economy take a nosedive in that same time period. The price of fuel has doubled, the subprime mortgage crisis hit with key democratic leaders such as Chris Dodd getting sweatheart deals and Congress keeps introducing more legislation that will drive up energy costs, while doing everything it can to keep us dependant on foreign oil.

Americans are also looking at the fact there have been no further terror attacks on the United States homeland since 9/11/01 and Al-Queda is fading into relative obscurity. No, we have not gotten Bin Laden, but we have crippled the organization . The man is only as strong as the organization.

I hope the reaction is not to either hold the democrats harmless or think that the republicans are going to save the day. Until we realize that the current situation in Washington is so messed up nothing short of a entire house cleaning is going to send the message to Congress we are not going to take their antics any longer. If Americans would vote anti-incumbant for four election cycles we would have Congress’s mindset turned back to representing the people and have the political parties attention that we are tired of the poor choices they continue to give us to select from.

Confidence in Congress at record low By: David Paul Kuhn June 20, 2008 02:05 PM EST
Only 12 percent of Americans now have confidence in Congress, the lowest percentage in the 35 years that the Gallup Poll has tracked the number.Americans now view Congress less favorably any of the 14 other American institutions tracked by Gallup, including big business, newspapers and health maintenance organizations. Even as President Bush’s approval rating languishes at a record low, more than twice as many Americans have confidence in the presidency — 26 percent — than have confidence in Congress. The Democrats have controlled both houses of the Congress since January 2007. It remains to be seen whether the Democratic Party brand will find itself chained to the poor public view of the legislative branch. A recent analysis of ABC News-Washington Post polls found that in April the Democrats held a 24-point lead over President Bush as “the stronger leadership force in Washington.” Today, it’s a tie. While Americans have long viewed their local representative more favorably than Congress as a whole, the public’s current view of Congress is exceptionally poor. Today’s 19 percent approval rating (a different measure than “confidence”) ties the record low of August 2007 and March 1992. Friday’s survey showed an across-the-board disapproval of Washington, with only 32 percent of Americans expressing confidence in the Supreme Court. The sense of malaise extends beyond the capital — Americans show less confidence than in 2004 in all 15 of the American institutions tracked by Gallup. That includes schools, organized labor and the military (which about 7 in 10 Americans show confidence in; it receives the highest percentage of the 15 institutions). Only banks and the criminal justice system have seen as precipitous a decline as the three branches of the federal government.
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

Money fuels global warming alarmism

reformedville — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:33:06 +0000

A year and a half ago, James Spann questioned the money and the so-called scientific consensus pushing the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Today, he says it’s losing steam. Two imminent surveys of meteorologists may further complicate the climate debate. Spann, a broadcast meteorologist for ABC 33/40, an affiliate in Birmingham, Ala., downplayed the future of the global warming movement in a June 13 appearance. He was interviewed by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council for its Washington Watch Weekly broadcast. Spann told Perkins: “[Y]ou know, there was some great power in that movement back in January of 2007,” Spann said. “It’s pretty rapidly running out of gas and it just seems like every day more and more people are coming out with the fact that that’s pretty much a hoax. And these are Ph.D climatologists that are pretty much saying what I said all along.”

In January 2007, Spann received national attention when he wrote a post on his blog challenging a post by The Weather Channel climate expert Dr. Heidi Cullen. Cullen had argued that meteorologists should have the American Meteorological Society (AMS) credentials taken away if they doubt the validity of manmade climate change.

“If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval,” Cullen wrote for Weather.com on Dec. 21, 2006.

Spann fired back on Jan. 18, 2007: “Well, well,” Spann wrote. “Some ‘climate expert’ on ‘The Weather Channel’ wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for ‘tolerance’, huh?”

Spann claimed at the time he didn’t know any broadcast meteorologists who were sold on the theory touted by global warming alarmists. Since then, he has managed to find one.

“Again, one of my statements in that original article – I did not at the time know of a single broadcast meteorologist that was on the global warming bandwagon,” Spann said in his interview. “Now since then – and it’s been a year and a half, I found one, one guy and I know hundreds. I’ve been doing this for 30 years and I know meteorologists on television in some of the most liberal markets in this country that agree with me and I did find one – and that’s fine. And I certainly respect his opinion.”

Spann’s comments about broadcast meteorologists come two weeks prior to the AMS 36th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology, set for June 25-29 in Denver. At the conference, two separate surveys of broadcast meteorologists’ opinions on climate change are set to be unveiled – one by the National Environmental Education Foundation and one by Sean Sublette, a meteorologist for WSET, the ABC affiliate in Lynchburg, Va.

Spann explained it wasn’t his belief that carbon dioxide was a pollutant, but he told Perkins to understand the motivation of those who say it is – they should follow the grant money.

“Of course, the root of this whole thing is money,” Spann said. “And, there is a vast amount of wealth being generated by this whole issue. And I always recommend to folks – if anyone speaks on the subject, get a disclosure and find out their financial interests in it.”

The same claims are often made by climate change alarmists – global warming skeptics are in it for the money from big energy corporations. Spann told Perkins he has never accepted any money for speaking out about global warming alarmism, but he had reservations about money’s effects on government policy pertaining to climate change.

“When I speak on this topic, I’ve never accepted one dime,” Spann said. “It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other – if warming that we’ve seen in recent years is natural or not. But, there’s a vast amount of grant money going to very, very powerful people and I think that maybe that flows into some of the lobbying efforts and it goes and winds up in Washington.”

He pointed to former Vice President Al Gore as an example of how money behind climate change and global warming alarmism can perpetuate a theory that shouldn’t warrant as much merit otherwise.

“I’m not a politician, don’t understand it – I honestly don’t know,” Spann said. “But, I will tell you that there’s a lot of people who have gotten very, very wealthy – filthy rich off this subject. I think former Vice President [Al Gore] collects a minimum of $200,000 per speech on this and all of this money – it can corrupt anybody, and I just think it’s all about money.”

_________________

Now consider both candidates for president support the global warming craze to different degrees. Is money fueling their support of global warming? Al Gore just did the love fest endorsement of Barack Obama. Obama says he’ll count on Gore to help him lead the fight for a better environment. video link

Update: Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations -TTennessee Center for Policy Research-link

___________

Not so fast…Mc Cain is on the Human Induced GW bandwagon too!

”John McCain stood up to the President and sounded the alarm on global warming five years ago. Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions.” video link

Anyone surprised that money is driving two United States Senators?

______________

Let me qualify before I get the pseudo-arguments; if the issue is energy independence, or being cognizant of pollution , I think everyone is one board, but the alarmism of Al Gore and Ted Turner and company is finally being exposed for what it is.

The fact the media has embraced this without deep questioning places the global warming alarmism in a position to cripple the american economy. Just look what has happened with biofuels driving the price of corn and food up, while being less fuel efficient. Time to say enough is enough.

The National Center for Policy Analysis has produced a very simple to understand Global Warming Primer. [Link]. The primer is based on a review of currently available scientific data. It is simple to understand (using graphs and charts) I found pages 5-8 interesting

______________

“There’s an elephant in global warming’s living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.”

________________

Sources- Hat Tips

Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute “Meteorologist Says Money Behind Warming Alarmism ‘Can Corrupt Anybody’ “

Breitbart.tv

Judi Mc Leod , Canadian Free Press

Bill Dawson The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media Why Are So Many TV Meteorologists and Weathercasters Climate ‘Skeptics’?

A Special Report from BMI: Global Warming Censored

BMI’s Special Report “Fire & Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice or warming”

Climate of Bias: BMI’s page devoted entirely to global warming and climate change in the media.

Steve from Mezzanineview

Are Christians subject to different political standards ?

reformedville — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:13:18 +0000

Should Christians give politicians the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their truthfulness or should they test the veracity of their statements?

Are Christians subject to different standards than others when supporting a particular candidate?

Why or why not?

True?

reformedville — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:08:42 +0000

I found this video last week entitled True.

Now I am always skeptical when I see a political advertisement entitled True, thinking of the relative nature the truth is presented in. Especially, when ex post facto explanation is required.

So the question is, was it true then? If so , is it still true?

Change in the air

reformedville — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:04:11 +0000

Be careful what you ask for, they are ready to deliver

The Democratic leadership is beginning to define “change” and what they hope Amerika will look like if they are elected. So what does change look like?

Well for starters, Marxist Christopher Dodd believes the government should regulate the profits businesses make.

Listen to Senator Chris Dodd, a former candidate for POTUS: video

Government Can Mandate What Profit is ‘Fair’ for Business

The word for the day is SELL & DIVEST in American regulated firms!

Dodd believes it is both the governments right and its responsibility to make sure businesses dont make enough money to make you want to invest in them.

When asked if he thought all businesses needed to be regulated, Senator Dodd said,

“In fact it’s been done that way in the past and particularly when you’re trying to get some relief for people out here when the economy is in a tailspin. We’re about to go into a recession here. This is really causing a tremendous dislocation, not only here, but around the world.”

The economy is in a tailspin after American have had their earnings devalued 80.00 a week per worker due to the raise in minimum wage and now employers are not hiring people at 7.50 an hour they would have at 5.50 an hour because a 7.50 a hour employee cost 10.00 an hour to employ with all the ancillary costs. Many younger workers are going to be unemployed as a result of Congress madating what wages must be paid.

Congress can’t run itself, has stolen our pensions, and now wants to tell business how to operate? These guys need sent home, all of them!

Time for a tea party.