Google+ Followers

Tuesday, April 22, 2014


The Anti-Intellectualism, Ignorance, and Intolerance at Our American Universities

April 22, 2014 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Children, Conservatives, Democrats/Leftists, Education, Ethics, Government, Government Corruption, Liberals, Progressives, Public School, Warner Todd Huston | No Comments
-By Warner Todd Huston
Since the 1960s the American University as an institution has ceased to be geared for education. It has, instead, become an institution geared to the indoctrination of an anti-American leftism that is wholly anti-intellectual. This is something that a member of the American Enterprise Institute recently saw first hand, but he isn’t the only one.
Murray, a libertarian political scientist, author, columnist, and a fellow at AEI, had for months been scheduled to speak at Azusa Pacific University about his new book, The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead, but only a day before his scheduled appearance, the university sudden revoked his invitation.
Azusa President Jon Wallace sent Murray, who may be best known as the co-author of the controversial book The Bell Curve, an email with one of the most absurd and convoluted excuses to cancel a speaker imaginable.

In part, the university president said, “Given the lateness of the semester and the full record of Dr. Murray’s scholarship, I realized we needed more time to prepare for a visit and postponed Wednesday’s conversation.” But Murray was also told from other sources what the real reason for canceling his talk was. He was told his appearance would hurt “our faculty and students of color.”
Murray is a conservative minded economist and social scientist and we can’t expect our poor, hapless, emotionally fragile students confronted with any ideas or opinions that might deviate from the extremist, liberal norm can we?
Murray took to the web posting an open letter to urge Azusa students to “think for themselves” for a change.
You’re at college, right? Being at college is supposed to mean thinking for yourselves, right? Okay, then do it. Don’t be satisfied with links to websites that specialize in libeling people. Lose the secondary sources. Explore for yourself the “full range” of my scholarship and find out what it is that I’ve written or said that would hurt your faculty or students of color. It’s not hard. In fact, you can do it without moving from your chair if you’re in front of your computer.
Murray admits that some of what he writes is controversial. In fact, he says that real scholarship must be controversial to some. “Yes, because (hang on to your hats) scholarship usually means writing about things on which people disagree,” he writes.
The task of the scholar is to present a case for his or her position based on evidence and logic. Another task of the scholar is to do so in a way that invites everybody into the discussion rather than demonize those who disagree. Try to find anything under my name that is not written in that spirit. Try to find even a paragraph that is written in anger, takes a cheap shot, or attacks women, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, or anyone else.
“Azusa Pacific’s administration wants to protect you from earnest and nerdy old guys who have opinions that some of your faculty do not share. Ask if this is why you’re getting a college education,” Murray wrote.
But Murray isn’t the only one that liberal professors have prevented or tried to prevent from speaking at a university. Just to provide a very short list, such well-known conservatives as columnist and author Ann Coulter, conservative activist David Horowitz, Women’s right activist and Muslim critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali, writer Star Parker, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, writer Daniel Pipes, and a host of others have been prevented from speaking by either left-wing professors, left-wing administrators, or rioting, anti-intellectual students (and often all three at once).
For another example,a study by Campus Reform shows that students are twice as likely to be forced to sit through a liberal commencement speaker than one perceived as a conservative.
Our system of education, or mis-education as it should more rightfully be termed, needs to be torn down and re-made again in the image of America instead of Stalinist Russia as it is currently.
We will not be able to return this country to the constitutional republic it was intended to be until we eliminate the control that extremist, left-wingers infesting and destroying our education have on the system.
Our kids are taught from the earliest grades to hate America. They are told that our history is evil. They are trained to think that the U.S.A. is a blot on mankind. They are trained that every other system of government is better than ours. They are taught racism against white is “OK.” They are also inculcated with the idea that listening to contrary opinions and to stretch their understanding of others is something to be abhorred.
It is long past time to do something about this disgust state of affairs, isn’t it? Conservatives need to reassert themselves into our system of education. The health of our nation depends on it.

Tags: Ignorance,universities,colleges,intelectualism,hatred,socialism,antichristian To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Monday, April 21, 2014

Katie Pavlich
Recommend this article NO, NO, Say it isn't so.... Biofuels are worse than Gasoline??

Well, this is going to be a heartbreaker for the hysterical global warming crowd. According to a new study, emissions from burning corn are worse for the environment and produce more CO2 or 'global warming' gases than the burning of traditional gasoline.
Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.

A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.
The federal government has already dumped billions of dollars into facilities and programs producing biofuels in the name of preventing climate change but as usual, is having the opposite effect than originally intended.
Just last week, biofuel industry producers told the New York Times 2016 was the year they were looking most forward to bring cleaner energy to the United States. Oops.
“The whole purpose of the Renewable Fuel Standard was to encourage investment to create brand-new technologies that would help the United States become more energy-independent and use cleaner and more efficient fuels. We feel like we are just on the verge of doing that and now the E.P.A. is talking about changing the rules," Executive Vice President of the heavily subsidized biofuel company Abengoa Christopher Standlee said to the paper.
Al Gore, call your office

Tags: climate change,gasoline,biofuels,gov study,renewable fuel standard To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Proofs of the Existence of Jesus

Again,I do not agree with all that is written herein but this is a good article, well written and the points are well made. Jesus is (was) real, lived and died, and was seen numerous times after his burial so must have risen again. Aristotle was also a famous Greek philosopher of whom we'd probably know nothing except that he was the educator of Alexander the Great since no writings exist of his own. 

Lunatic Lord


We accept that Socrates existed, though Socrates did not leave writings behind. A few people so intent on believing Jesus is imaginary have decided Socrates was too. These are largely weak minded fools.
Socrates may have no writings on his own, but Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes — all of whom we know existed — wrote about Socrates. We derive knowledge of Socrates from those who did know him and wrote about him. The same is true of Jesus.
Though modern scholarship has spent a good bit of time trying to disprove Biblical writings — again, if you start from the premise that they are frauds, guess what you’ll probably conclude — we do largely know that Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew, Mark written based on testimony from Peter, Luke written by a doctor who interviewed eyewitnesses and investigated their claims, and John by the Apostle John. Three of the four were based on eye witnesses and the fourth was based on interviews with eye witnesses by one who later became an eye witness to the works of the Apostles. Additionally, the separate books of Peter, John, James, and Jude were written by eye witnesses.
It goes beyond those books though. We know that a man named Irenaeus existed. He was born in 130 AD in Turkey and died in 202 AD in France. We have writings from Irenaeus and we have writings of others documenting his existence. We know from Irenaeus that he studied under another man named Polycarp.
We know Polycarp existed. We have writings from Polycarp and we have writings about Polycarp. He was born around 69 AD and was martyred in 155 AD. From the writings of others about Polycarp and from Polycarp himself we learned that he, along with a man named Ignatius, studied under an older man named John.
Ignatius, who wrote and was written about, with Polycarp, were two of the early second generation leaders of the church. Ignatius was born some time around 35 AD and was martyred by being fed to wild beasts around 107 AD. Ignatius and Polycarp both claim that they studied under a man named John who they both identified as the Apostle John. They attribute the Gospel of John to him and much of what they learned about Christ to his eye witness.
There was also a man named Clement who existed. We know he existed because of his writings and the writings of others. Paul referenced Clement in Philippians 4:3.
Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Clement, through his writings and the writings of others, came into contact with Peter, Paul, and possibly John. Clement, not an eye witness to Christ, was an eye witness to these other men.
Irenaeus claimed Polycarp and Ignatius studied under the Apostle John. Polycarp and Ignatius made the same claim, treating John as an eye witness to Christ. Clement, an eye witness to Peter and Paul for sure, documented their existence and their claims to be eye witnesses to Christ.
Peter, John, Matthew, James and Jude all wrote books of the Bible claiming to be eye witnesses to both Jesus and the events of his life. Then there is Paul, who we know persecuted the early church, then claimed a supernatural physical visit from Christ after his death. The other church leaders who he had sought to kill took him into the church and affirmed his ministry. But we do not even have to get to Paul to establish this — either Jesus existed or a great many people over a century collaborated in an elaborate conspiracy to create him.
To claim Jesus did not exist, we must also declare a bunch of other people — who we know existed by their own writings and the writings of others — did not exist.
So that all leads to the next question:

If Jesus existed, why did so many claim him to be God?


Here, I have to give a good bit of credit to Pastor Mark Driscoll and his sermon on James. Driscoll is getting a lot of criticism these days over plagiarism allegations. I am reading the book in question and will address that at some point. But for now, just know that Driscoll’s sermon is Biblically based and Biblically sound. Also, I do like Driscoll, would very much like to meet him, and think he is worth reading. I’ll add reservations and caveats about his book at a later date. Suffice it to say, I do not think the controversy disqualifying.
So, to get to Jesus’s claims about himself and others’ claims about him, we first need to broach an issue. The Bible claims he had brothers. At the Council of Constantinople in 553 AD, the early church declared that Mary was “ever virgin.” Many Christians believe this. It is not just a Catholic belief. Early Protestant leaders like Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Zwingli, and others agreed. They interpreted the references to Jesus’s “brothers and sisters” as either (1) Joseph’s children from a prior marriage or (2) his closest cousins in an extended family.
Going into this, understand I think Jesus’s brothers and sisters were his half-brothers and sisters, all younger than him, from the marriage between Mary and Joseph. But for purposes here, we should all agree that, at least, his “brothers and sisters” were his closest family who knew him best — whether half siblings or closest cousins. There are a number of passages that reference them in the New Testament and the sense of the phrasing is that they were his closest relatives.
Mark 6:1-6 describes the family thusly:
He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, ‘Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?’
Matthew 13:53–57, in accordance, reads:
And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, ‘Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?”
Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (later called Jude). He had at least two sisters. The tradition at the time was the oldest son typically received the grandfather’s name. We know that Joseph’s father’s name was Jacob. Matthew 1:16 tells us, “and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.”
James is the Greek derivative for Jacob. We can conclude that James was either Joseph’s oldest natural born son or the oldest son of Joseph’s own brother. If the second son was indeed Joseph’s son, it makes sense the first son is named for the grandfather and the second son for the father himself.
This also explains why there are so many Jacobs, James, and Judases in the Bible. Jacob, in particular, was very popular given Genesis.
Many people may not realize that, based on the eye witness accounts of Jesus’s friends, Jesus’s family thought he was a nutter. So much for the “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” framing. His family was all in for lunatic. See Mark 3:21, 31–35:
And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, ‘He is out of his mind.’”
“. . . And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, ‘Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.’ And he answered them, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.’”
Today, as Mark Driscoll and others have noted, we would call this an intervention. Jesus’s “mother and his brothers came” trying “to seize him” because they thought he was a nutter claiming to be God. The most extraordinary thing about this is that Jesus’s own mother was involved. Luke 1 tells us the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.”
Mary clearly knew he was special and from the Lord. John 2:1-5 — an eye witness account — tells us
On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Despite what she had experienced and knew, Mary too went with Jesus’s brothers to seize him and carry him home. Note that Mary stuck with Jesus the whole way through his life, unlike his brothers and sisters — no doubt coming to a richer and richer understanding of her son over time.
John tells us Jesus’s brothers wanted him gone. John 7:2-5 notes
Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand. So his brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.’ For not even his brothers believed in him.
This is Jesus’s brothers confronting him telling him that if he really thinks he is a big deal — if he really thinks he is God — he needs to go to the big city and show everyone. He needs to tell the world, which he can’t do in a small town. They want him gone, with his friends, and given the implications of what they’re telling him to do, they may very well think he is going to get himself killed.
The brothers who had tried to stage an intervention had given up and wanted their brother gone. And Jesus goes. He winds up being arrested, tried, tortured, and crucified. The most striking thing here is that his brothers did not even show up at the execution. His mother was there. The mother, who with the brothers, had tried to save Jesus from himself — she was there. But the brothers were not.
From the account in Matthew 27:55,56
There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
From Mark 15:40,41:
There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. When he was in Galilee, they followed him and ministered to him, and there were also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.
From Luke 23:49:
And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things.
Lastly, from John 19:25-27:
but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
From John we learn that Jesus, from the cross and about to die, told John that he had to look after Mary. We learn that “from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” Why? The brothers who had tried to stage an intervention would not show up at the execution. Mary was there with no immediate family. John, the Apostle, had to take her into “his own home.”
And Jesus died.
If that were all there were, lunatic he would be. The family would have been right. They tried to intervene to no avail. The brothers sent Jesus packing. He got himself arrested, tried, and killed. They wouldn’t even show up as he hung on the cross dying. Or at least we have a record of who was there and not one of those eye witness accounts documents his brothers being there. Jesus’s best friend is commanded to take care of Jesus’s mother as if they were son and mother.
That would be the end of it, except something extraordinary happened.
From Acts 1:14 we learn that “All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.”
It is clear from the text that these are not the Apostles. These are James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude — these are the family members who had tried to seize him, urged him to leave, and would not show up at his death. They were in the early church. So what happened? Seriously? These people thought he was crazy. They, his family, knew him best. Were he some sinner or a jerk they would not make up the early church after he, the lunatic jerk, had died. But there they were.
Look at James alone. James became a leader in the early church. Paul called him a pillar. Paul traveled to Jerusalem after his conversion to meet with the Apostles and with James. This is James the brother of Jesus, not James the Apostle. James the brother of Jesus, called James the Just, came to be referred to as “camel knees” because he was on his knees praying so much.
James the brother who had rejected Christ in life became a pillar of the early church vested with authority.
Paul, writing to the Galatians documents
“When they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles.” (Galatians 2:7–9)
From Acts 15:12-21:
And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.”
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.’
Paul sought out James and Peter — Paul, the guy Jesus himself had told to go preach to the Gentiles, went to find Jesus’s brother who had rejected Jesus in life. He didn’t just seek him out, we learn from Paul and others that James had, in fact, become a well known and established authority figure in the early church. He considered himself a servant of Jesus, not his brother — a servant to a living God who had been crucified.
In 62 AD, early church history notes that the local Jews of Jerusalem went to James. They respected him. They told him they wanted him to tell all of Jesus’s followers that, being Jesus’s brother, he could testify Jesus was not God. Made sense, didn’t it? Here’s the guy who escorted Jesus out of town and wouldn’t show up to the funeral because his brother was an embarrassing nutter. Also, here is a guy, being Jesus’s brother, who could claim part of Jesus’s legacy and become the icon himself.
But by 62 AD, James was so invested in the idea that Jesus was the Risen Lord he told the Jews the crowd was right. Jesus was Lord. Enraged, the Jews carried him to the top of the temple and threw him off. When he did not die, they stoned him and beat him with clubs until he died.
Then, the early church tells us, Jesus’s brother Simon took James’s place.
Along the way, Jesus’s brother Jude also became a church leader. He too eventually was killed by the Roman state in a purge of Christians. Accounts are mixed as to whether it was his children or grandchildren, but it appears his grandchildren were called before the Emperor. They testified that that their relative Jesus had been talking about a return at the last day, not an imminent take over of the Empire — that he was King in Heaven. They were spared, became leaders within the church themselves, and were executed by a later Emperor.
Jesus’s family, who had rejected him in life, were willing to die proclaiming he had risen. Something had to have happened. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that Jesus “appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” (1 Corinthians 15:5-7)
It is a silly thing to say that Jesus did not exist. There is an ample historic record to show, through eye witnesses, that Jesus and Socrates both existed. Many atheists concede Jesus existed, but, unlike with Socrates, they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
One of Christ’s friends betrayed him, then committed suicide.
Eleven of the twelve who followed Jesus were willing to go to the ends of the earth to proclaim him God.
Ten of the twelve met terrible deaths because they would not recant that Jesus was God. The tenth, John, lived in exile. His students and others documented the numerous attempts to kill John.
Jesus’s brothers, who rejected him in life, embraced him as a risen, living God after his death. They too were willing to be put to death for refusing to recant after Christ’s crucifixion what they refused to believe when he walked and talked with them.
Others came claiming to be the messiah. Their claims did not last. The man named Jesus not only must have been a spectacularly charismatic person, who surrounded himself with spectacularly charismatic people — all of whom were willing to be tortured and killed — because Jesus and these men were able to recruit into faith a lot of others who, over two thousand years, grew into the world’s largest religion. Many of them were persecuted, tortured, and killed in horribly gruesome ways. Still they persisted in the faith.
So either these men were charismatic liars so invested in their lies they were willing to be tortured and killed or they were telling the truth.
Those who do not want to believe will not believe. As for the rest of us — Christ’s own family rejected him as a lunatic then, after his torture and crucifixion, picked up the cross claiming Christ had risen. And they too, the brothers who rejected him in life, were willing to die proclaiming him risen.
That’s pretty extraordinary to me.

Tags: jesus,aristotle,josephus,james,john,socrates,mary,bible,christ,GOD, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Sunday, April 20, 2014

A FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY

I don't really know if the following is true or not as I did not find a reference for it on the net but I do agree with this judge, particularly on this holiest of days, Easter, wherein we celebrate the resurection of our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ. Come soon ,Lord...              

A Florida Court Sets Atheist Holy Day!   
   Gotta love this Judge!  
  
   You must read this......
A proper decision by the courts...
for a change. 

 
  
    A  FLORIDA COURT SETS
ATHEIST HOLY DAY
 

   In  Florida , an atheist created a case against Easter and Passover Holy days.  He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days.  The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

   The case was brought before a judge.  After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"
 
   The lawyer immediately stood and objecting to the ruling saying,
"Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case?  The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others.
  The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays..."

   The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counselor, is woefully ignorant."
   The lawyer said," Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."
   The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fool’s Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.'  Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore,
April 1st is his day.

Court is adjourned..."
You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!   
 
 
This is too good not to forward
Tags: christ,savior,aetheist,hell,heaven,GOD,judge,judgement day To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!


Sensible Gun Control  



In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States   who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .

In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX .

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .

In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

…Best idea I've heard to date!


Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Thank You For Your Service (A Moment of Truth)



Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

FIREARMS FUTURE | Chapter 1: Borderless



Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

He is Risen, King Jesus

Here then is our Lord, the God of the Universe in whom is all our faith and hope for live everlasting

Tags: God,christ,hope,life,lord,risen,heaven sent,master,king jesus To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Clinton Papers: Bill and Hillary Feared the Internet

April 19, 2014 | Filed Under 1st Amendment, Bill Clinton, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Democrats/Leftists, Elections, Ethics, Free Speech, GOP, Government, Government Corruption, Hillary Clinton, Journalism, Liberals, Media, Media Bias, Media Matters For America, Newspapers, President, Progressives, Republicans, Senate, Warner Todd Huston | No Comments
-By Warner Todd Huston
The Clinton Library has released over 7,000 pages of documents from Bill’s presidency, likely hoping that what ever is in them will be “old news” by the time Hillary announces her bid for president. But one of the documents is very interesting and shows that Bill and Hillary really feared and hated the free flow of information on the Internet.
A report, titled “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” was meant to “prove” Hillary’s claim that a “vast right wing conspiracy” was trying to destroy her and Bill. It also made to explain “the Internet influence.”
In 1998, Hillary appeared on NBC’s Today Show and said that a “vast right wing conspiracy” had been trying to destroy her husband “since the day he announced for president.”
Of course, her absurd claim became the joke of the decade and for years afterward conservatives were proud to belong to that “vast right win conspiracy.” The phrase became such a joke, though, that Clinton’s White House decided it had to “prove” the claim with a report linking that “conspiracy” all together.

In the report, Clinton pointed fingers of accusation at conservative think tanks, newspapers, and then the Internet–the latter coming in for particular fearmongering as Clinton blamed the Internet for “bouncing” negative Clinton stories “all over the world.”
The White House report said that the think tanks “serve as the idea mill” for the GOP: “The think tanks define and shape the idea’s agenda for the party and serve as the training ground for this new generation of conservatives.”
There was also a line showing just how paranoid the Clintons were about the think tanks.
“In many way, these Republican think tanks are to today’s media age of political organizations what the Democratic big city party machines were to the New Deal era of political organizations,” the report strangely stated.
This is amusing in that think tanks don’t command votes like big city Democrat political machines do. Think tanks can’t force their will on the electorate, but a party apparatus can. The comparison here is just silly, but it does show how Clinton feared the think tanks.
The most telling part of the report is the hate, fear, and disdain it displayed for the American people as seen in the section explaining to its late 90s readers just what that darned ol’ Internet was (remember, the Internet was fairly new at that time).
Here is how the report put it:
The Internet: The internet has become one of the major and most dynamic modes of communication. The internet can link people, groups and organizations together instantly. Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all. The right wing has seized upon the internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange ideas and information.
Here is what I wrote about this at Brietbart:
There couldn’t be a more telling entry that at once describes the left’s lock on the media, the left’s hatred of a free flow of information, plus its hatred of the great unwashed having the gall to interact with Congress.
Note that this report is dripping with disgust over the “unregulated data” that the Internet allows people access to. Further see that the Clintons were alarmed that this information was “open to all”.
Then, when the White House wrote, “The right wing has seized upon the internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people,” it was essentially admitting that before the Internet, conservatives had few avenues by which to reach the people. This is an open admission that the left fully controlled the media until the advent of the Internet.
Finally, the White House was incensed that Republican staffers would dare interact with those commoners on the Internet, calling we, the Internet people, “extremists.”
Another hilarious thing about this is the Clintonistas’ ultimate hypocrisy here. Even after writing this report crying about how evil the right was for using these tactics, they took them right up themselves. Clinton’s pals, John Podesta and David Brock, used these exact same practices starting in the early 2000s to create their own “conspiracy commerce” by starting the Center For American Progress in 2003 and Media Matters for America in 2004.
If these things were all so evil, why perpetrate the same actions yourself? Hypocrites.
____________

Tags: Pissant Bill,Clinton,the Harridan,Hillary,hypocrites,liars,liberal socialist minded progressives,democrats,media,internet To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Friday, April 18, 2014

Federal Judge: BLM Engaged In A Criminal Conspiracy Against Ranchers

April 18, 2014 9:54 am  
Court opinion exposes BLM’s true intent against Cliven Bundy
(Info Wars) – For over 20 years, the Bureau of Land Management engaged in a “literal, intentional conspiracy” against Nevada ranchers to force them out of business, according to a federal judge whose court opinion exposes the BLM’s true intent against rancher Cliven Bundy.
In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family’s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family’s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.
“Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights — a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights — the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,” Judge Jones wrote. “After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]”
SPECIAL: Join the Tea Party REVOLUTION! The Obama Regime must be dismantled!
And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.
“The entire chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993–2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,” he stated.
Judge Jones continued:
In 2007, unsatisfied with the outcome thus far in the CFC, the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate. The Government did not bring criminal misdemeanor trespass claims, perhaps because it believed it could not satisfy the burden of proof in a criminal trespass action, as a previous criminal action against E. Wayne Hage had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. During the course of the present trial, the Government has: (1)invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits, indicating that Mr. Snow could use water sources on such land in which Hage had water rights, or at least knowing that he would use such sources; (2) applied with the Nevada State Engineer for its own stock watering rights in waters on the land despite that fact that the Government owns no cattle nearby and has never intended to obtain any, but rather for the purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights; and (3) issued trespass notices and demands for payment against persons who had cattle pastured with Hage, despite having been notified by these persons and Hage himself that Hage was responsible for these cattle and even issuing such demands for payment to witnesses soon after they testified in this case.
By filing for a public water reserve, the Government in this case sought specifically to transfer to others water rights belonging to the Hages. The Government also explicitly solicited and granted temporary grazing rights to parties who had no preferences under the TGA [Taylor Grazing Act of 1934], such as Mr. Snow, in areas where the Hages had preferences under the TGA.
It is necessary to note that under the TGA, according to Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes (1938), a rancher whose cattle had previously grazed in the area based upon adjacent land, water rights on the land, etc., has a right to a grazing permit over others who apply for a permit to graze the area without having previously grazed there.
So in this instance, Hage would have priority over Snow for a grazing permit, but the BLM willfully ignored this court ruling.
And after the agency filed for a public water reserve, according to Judge Jones, the BLM “sent trespass notices to people who leased or sold cattle to the Hages, notwithstanding the Hages’ admitted and known control over that cattle, in order to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.”
“For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” he wrote. “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”
“This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”
So in other words, the BLM willfully attempted to destroy the Hage family’s livelihood because Hage dared to assert his existing rights to the land which his family has held since the late 19th century.
And unfortunately the BLM is attempting to do the exact same thing to Cliven Bundy.
“Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No,” William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American, wrote on the subject. “Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.”
“With attitudes such as those expressed above by Sen. Harry Reid, it is almost a certainty that the recently defused Bundy Ranch standoff will be replayed again — and in the not-too-distant future. And the outcome could be much less amicable for all concerned.”
http://www.infowars.com/federal-judge-blm-engaged-in-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-ranchers/
- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/federal-judge-blm-engaged-criminal-conspiracy-ranchers-39814/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social#sthash.ItMMnNvD.dpuf

Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Fwd: cannot go on like this.. 3


















 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



The Importance of November 2014

A recent speech by Dennis Prager given in Colorado has greatly impressed me. Is the USA the last hope of freedom in the World?
(look it up here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNUc8nuo7HI)

Considering recent events in the USA, doubts arise. In Nevada, armed agents of the BLM killed cattle, destroyed water troughs and desert tortoises dens (tho one reason given for the “raid” was the endangered tortoise - which isn’t) because the ranchers supposedly owe monies for grazing on BLM land, the same land that they have been using for 130 years. A raid on a Montana company, USA Brass, which recycles shell casings, supposedly because of health concerns (though the EPA and OSHA had given the co. a clean bill of health) wherein federal agents confiscated cell phones and arrested employees (later released.)

Nationally, we are spied upon daily by federal agencies, our phone calls monitored, our banking transactions recorded, and lately even drones are being used to spy on us from above, all in the names of the law and safety. The IRS gave info to the Democrat Party (illegally) to be used against their opponents. Other USA agencies have cooperated to jail individuals, confiscate properties and bank accounts, large Corporations have been given special priveleges and low interest rate loans to keep them in business. Unions have been exempted from rules and Obamacare and given info by agencies to use to force unionization of employees who refused to join unions. Such actions are called “crony capitalism” but is mostly practiced by the socialist Democrat Party and this administration.

Our military allow Muslims to wear turbans, pray daily, but refuse to allow Christians and Chaplains to even mention the name of Christ.
Military personnel are told that “militias” and conservatives are dangerous and responsible for school deaths, etc. despite the evidence that leftists and muslims are our greatest culprits. Officers who do not share the leftist theology are being forced out of the Military and exercises are held to train LEO’s and military how to combat conservatives.

For a man to kill another, they must believe the “other” is evil or a non-entity unworthy of respect. The left demonizes all Christian, Conservative, and American ideals as “evil” so they can rally their followers to fight, legally and illegally, for the victory of socialism.
The GOP has been complaining of the media bias against them for years but socialists own the media and the majority of college campuses. Our own children are indoctrinated to believe the USA is evil and Christianity the enemy of humanity. More than 90% of all media and college professors are voting democrats. We people here in “flyover country” are demonized by the coastal elites who control those media and Universities because we still have non-leftist ideals.

If the senate remains in democrat hands after this next election, replacements for retiring judges of the Supreme court and even more federal judges will be leftist opponents of American ideals. Even more voter fraud will be the results of removing the Electorial College and forcing popular election of  Presidents.

I fear for America because I know the Lord’s wrath cannot be withheld forever.

PL Booth, www.blueeyeview.blogspot.com 4/18/14


Tags: evil,winning,conquerers,leftists,democrts,liars,christianity,conservatism,gop To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Dennis Prager in CO, the best speech by far I've heard this year.



Tags: christian,conservative,the left,socialiists,liars,american exeptionalism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

The Obama Training Ground

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2014


Tags: chicago dictionary,corruption,democrats,no hope,tombstone,liars,inc. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!
Michael Brown
Recommend this article  What we have is an authentic fabrication and nothing more. 
What exactly does this mean? And should Christians be concerned that a new discovery might contradict the biblical account and undermine their faith?
Actually, the report from scholars working with the Harvard Divinity School found that the manuscript is much younger than previously thought – in other words, it is even further removed from the time of the New Testament than scholars originally believed – meaning that, at most, it is a very late myth without a stitch of historical support.
What the report did say was that there was no evidence that any part of this small manuscript had been forged, so what was written was “authentic” in terms of not being the work of a modern forger.
But the scholars did not determine that the apparent reference to Jesus having a wife was authentic. How could they?
As New Testament scholar Darrell Bock observed back in September, 2012 when the find was first announced, “In the New Testament, the church is presented as the bride of Christ. And then in Gnostic Christianity in particular, there’s a ritual - about which we don't know very much - that portrayed the church as the bride of Christ. So we could simply have a metaphorical reference to the church as the bride, or the wife, of Christ.”
And what if this text recorded Jesus as saying that one of his disciples would be his wife?
Bock explained that, “This would be the first text - out of hundreds of texts that we have about Jesus - that would indicate that he was married, if it’s even saying that. So to suggest that one text overturns multiple texts, and multiple centuries, of what has been said about Jesus and what’s been articulated about him, I think is not a very wise place to go, just simply from a historical point of view.”
Initially, when Harvard professor Karen King learned about this papyrus fragment written in the Coptic language, which was used by the ancient, heretical, Gnostic Christians, she thought it might have been a forgery, as did other scholars, especially from the Vatican. But upon further study, she concluded it was not, dating it to the fourth century A.D.
Yet how seriously should we take a fourth century report about Jesus, who was crucified around 30 A.D., especially when it contradicts every other piece of evidence we have about Jesus up to that time? As Prof. Bock said, this “is not a very wise place to go, just simply from a historical point of view.”
To give you a parallel example, how seriously would future historians take a report written 300 years after Pearl Harbor that contradicted every single report that preceded it, including all reports from all eye witnesses?
But the latest report – the one creating such a stir – claims that the tiny manuscript should not be dated to the fourth century. Instead, scholars have now dated it to approximately 741 A.D., meaning, more than 700 years after the time of Jesus. What kind of “evidence” is this?
It would be similar to historians 1,000 years from now finding a letter written in the year 2510 claiming that George Washington, who died in 1799, was actually an alien from Mars. How seriously would it be taken? (Come to think of it, the Ancient Aliens series has probably made a similar claim already!)
There remains no evidence of any kind that Jesus had a wife (note to the reader: Dan Brown’s fictional The Da Vinci Code is not evidence), and the only thing scholars did was determine that this small papyrus fragment was not a modern forgery, although it was hundreds of years younger than they originally thought.
Of course, it is still not totally clear that the manuscript even claims Jesus had a wife, but we know that within 150 years of the time of Jesus, there were fictional gospels circulating with all kinds of bogus claims. Should it surprise us, then, that many centuries later, another fictitious account with yet another new claim would be written down?
Unfortunately, many casual readers and skeptics now think that some “authentic” new evidence has been discovered supporting the idea that Jesus was married, and even Christians are asking if they should be concerned about this latest find.
Rest assured that nothing has been discovered that even remotely challenges the biblical account, and if this very late text does imply that Jesus had a wife, what we have is an authentic fabrication and nothing more. 

Tags: Christian,anti-christian,liars,jesus,marraige,forgeries,fabrications,BS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!