Saturday, December 12, 2015





Liberty University President Draws Concern After Telling Students: ‘We Could End Those Muslims’ With Guns

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

LYNCHBURG, Va. — The president of what is purportedly the largest Christian university in the world remains unremorseful after concerns were raised over the spirit of his comments about “ending Muslims” that he made to students and faculty at a convocation on Friday, which also drew applause from those gathered.
“I’ve always thought, if more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in and killed them,” Jerry Falwell, Jr. said on Friday to unreserved applause in speaking about Wednesday’s San Bernardino massacre.
“I just wanted to take this opportunity to encourage all of you to get your permit. We offer a free course,” he said. “Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here.”
The thousands present again applauded enthusiastically and cheered, with some smiling wide and one man in view of the camera giving the remarks a standing ovation.
Falwell told the Washington Post that his comments resulted in the most positive feedback he has ever received for a convocation.
“The support here on campus is almost universal,” he stated.
He went on to reTweet social media posts in support of his remarks, including one that read, “S*CK IT, Muslim extremists,” adding a link to the school’s gun course. The account of the original Tweeter is now unavailable.
However, when some became aware of Falwell’s statements, they expressed concern about the spirit of his statements in killing Muslims.
“My administration is committed to making Virginia an open and welcoming Commonwealth, while also ensuring the safety of all of our citizens. Mr. Falwell’s rash and repugnant comments detract from both of those crucial goals,” said Gov. Terry McAuliffe in a statement. “Those of us in leadership positions, whether in government or education, must take care to remember the tremendous harm that can result from reckless words.”
Some online commenters, while supporting the Second Amendment, also disagreed with how Falwell expressed his views.
“I think Falwell has made the situation more tense rather than less tense by his choice of language,” one wrote.
“I’m trying to imagine Jesus saying what Jerry Falwell Jr. said,” another stated. “I’m having trouble. I don’t think Jesus would be big on the tough talk or brag about the gun he’s carrying.”
Falwell told reporters that he doesn’t regret his statements per se, but would have inserted the word “extremists” to clarify.
“If I had to say what I said again, I’d say exactly the same thing,” he said.

Liberty president calls for an armed Christian campus
Published on Dec 5, 2015
Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. urged students, staff and faculty at his Christian school to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon on campus to counter any copycat attack like the deadly rampage in California just days ago.

"Let's teach them a lesson if they ever show up here," Falwell told an estimated 10,000 of the campus community at convocation Friday in Lynchburg. While Falwell's call to arms was applauded, his remarks also seemed to target Muslims.

"I've always thought if more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in .," Falwell said. The final words of his statement could not be clearly heard on a videotape of the remarks.

Jerry Falwell, Jr. defends his statements about Muslims and gun control opposition




LNA 12112015 Conceal 03
Wielding a simulation pistol, Liberty University Police Chief Richard Hinkley lectures students attending the University's concealed carry class, at the University's Law School Supreme Court Room on Thursday, Dec. 10, 2015 in Lynchburg, Va. 

More than 200 people attend LU's 

concealed gun course



Colorado Bible Study Goes to Pot: ‘Stoner Jesus’ Group Combines Weed with the Word

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

CENTENNIAL, Colo. — A Bible study group in Colorado has literally gone to pot, inviting its members to smoke marijuana together while discussing the Scriptures.
The group is called the “Stoner Jesus Bible Study” and was formed after Colorado legalized the use of recreational marijuana. It was formed by Deb Button, who first posted her invite on Craigslist. Only one person attended at first, who told reporters last month that Button was “so baked out of her head she forgot that she’d invited me over.”
“Many people have a thirst for spiritual connection that is lacking in the traditional church setting and we aim to learn from the wisdom of His word and teachings,” the group writes on its website. “And yes, cannabis is welcome as it can bring clarity of thought and a sense of connectedness that we often only find in a small group of fellow stoners.”
The stoner study has now grown to several people, including a Mormon, a Catholic and an atheist, according to New York Magazine.
“Jesus didn’t hang out with the Pharisees,” attendee Cynthia Joye told the outlet. “If somebody passed Him a pipe, He wouldn’t say no.”
JeTaun Brown told CBS Denver this past week she reading the Bible while stoned “enables people to relax and focus.”
“I think you have a deeper thought process, which makes you better understand,” she claimed.
Button told the outlet that she didn’t see a problem with mixing weed and the word as some congregations have small group studies with wine and cheese.
However, many Christians nationwide remain opposed to the smoking of the plant out of their belief that the substance interferes with the Biblical command to be “sober-minded.”
“Sorcery/witchcraft is from the Greek word ‘pharmakia’ the same word we get pharmacy from. It means the general illicit use of drugs (same application as today) and the use of drugs to cast spells,” writes Steve Rudd in “Drugs and the Bible: E, Shrooms, Cocaine, Crack, Marijuana.” “Psychologically, drugs can cause us to lose all sense of control. We switch our entire dependence and reason for living to the chemical.”
“The Bible teaches in I Corinthians 6:19-20 that God has given us our bodies; our bodies belong to Him,” he continues. “We are also told in Romans 12:1 that we are to present our bodies a living sacrifice to God. Can we do this and be drug dependent?”


Bible Study in Obama's America, substance abusing
in the name of Jesus!
Published on Dec 5, 2015
" Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." 1 Peter 5:8

Quite likely the above Bible verse is being ignored in the so-called Stoner Jesus Bible Study as they are not actually getting together to be sober minded, rather their primary purpose is to get stoned.

Getting stoned and claiming to better commune with God in an intoxicated state is completely divorced from Christianity, but is nothing new. Pagan religions such as Majove Indian spirituality, Rastafarianism and anceint Caananite religions indulged in mind altering substances to allegedly commune with God.

Scripture frowns upon these practices and believers are admonished to not be like the pagans. We are called to abstain from drunkeness and to live lives of self control and selflessness:

"Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God. For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry."
1 Peter 4:1-4

" The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires."
Romans 13:12-14

Altering one's mind by using alcohol, cannabis, mescaline, cocaine or some other substance is at the end of the day poisoning one's self to alter their state of consciousness. Illicit sex and mind altering substances both “gratify the flesh” and continuously indulging in either reduces one’s self control and at the end of the day makes one a slave to their passions, whatever their passions may be. In my experience many if not most people who indulge in mind altering substances whether it is alcohol, cannabis or something else, also lacks self control when it comes to other things, sexual relationships, gambling, video games, etc...... While there are degrees of harm depending on the substance, using any of the above substances (including THC) is harmful to our bodies and is therefore contrary to God's will.

"Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s."
1 Corinthians 6:19, 20

Cannabis use, just like any other drug, is associated with a lack of self control and an unwillingness to deal with reality. Cannabis users like all other addicts seek to find freedom by escaping from reality by altering their consciousness.

Christianity on the other hand is about finding freedom by dealing with reality as it actually is and and by living lives of repentance, faith and self control. .

"you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 8:32

Unfortunately the Frankfurt School Marxists have a firm grip on Canada and the United States. To read about the Frankfurt School and how Marxist academics have successfully corrupted the west with promiscuity, substance abuse, government dependency, etc....

I heard a news report that the city of Vancouver has around 200 “medical marijuana” dispensaries operating 7 days a week. Some have been reported to be offering their “medicine” to minors without any sort of prescription. The reality is that legalizing vice whether it is abortion, prostitution, pornography or drug use doesn’t actually reduce criminality. All that it does is give legitimacy to the criminals and makes it harder to control them and prevent their harm. For Canada the cost of legalized vice is huge, STIs, HIV, drug overdoses, tax funded so-called harm reduction initiatives, addiction treatment, court costs, loss of productivity and people who could have held jobs sitting on disability because of addiction issues, etc.....

The cost to the economy every year is billions. The human suffering is incalculable.

Christians can be a light in this darkness. A good beginning is if we stay out of the hooker houses, bars and marijuana dispensaries and offer our Bible studies while we are in our right minds......

Bill Whatcott

Social and physical effects of long term marijuana use:

Lower life satisfaction
Poorer mental health (depression, lower IQ)
Poorer physical health (respiratory problems, increase risk of stroke and heart attack with age)
More relationship problems (cannabis users tend to underacheive in school, employment and in family relationships)


School District Votes to Allow Boy in Girls' Locker Room Following Ultimatum From Obama Administration

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

CHICAGO — A school district in Chicago has voted to allow a male student who identifies as female to use the girls’ locker room in light of an ultimatum issued by the Obama administration.
As previously reported, an unidentified high school student within Township High School District 211 requested to use the girls’ locker room nearly two years ago as he had been identifying as female.
But the district declined, citing the privacy concerns of the female students. It in turn offered a private location to change, but the student rejected the accommodation. He then contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a federal complaint with the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education.
“They are telling a student that she can’t be with her friends at school but has to be relegated to a separate place to dress. That’s just a horrible thing to do,” John Knight, director of ACLU Illinois’ LGBT program, told the Daily Herald.
The Department of Education responded by opining that the district had to permit the student to use the locker room of his choice due to Title IX requirements. The two sides continued in talks for a number of months, but the district held firm on requiring privacy for female students while offering various options for the transgender student, which were refused.
It said that it desired to “to protect the privacy rights of all students when changing clothes or showering before or after physical education and after-school activities, while also providing accommodations necessary to meet the unique needs of individual students.”
The Department of Education recommended that the district install privacy curtains in the changing area so that he could not see other students changing and female students could not see him. The district installed the curtains, but as negotiations remained impasse, the department gave district officials 30 days to settle the matter under threat of penalty, including the possibility of the loss of $6 million in federal funding.
Last Thursday, despite strong disagreement from many parents, district officials voted 5-2 to allow the male student to change in the curtained area of the girl’s locker room.
“Consistent with our stated position throughout this matter, if the transgender student seeks access to the locker room, the student will not be granted unrestricted access and will utilize a private changing station whenever changing clothes or showering,” Superintendent Daniel Cates said in a statement.
By Monday, the district considered rescinding the settlement, but again weighed the matter following further talks with members of the Obama administration followed by two hours of heated public comment, and decided to go through with the agreement.
“I commend the Board of Education of Township High School District 211 for taking steps necessary to protect civil rights as well as student privacy,” Catherine Lhamon, Education Department assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. “We are grateful that the board and superintendent chose to come into full compliance with our nation’s civil rights laws. And, we look forward to partnering with the district to assure that the terms of this agreement are fully and effectively implemented.”
An estimated 600 people attended Monday’s meeting, according to the Chicago Tribune. Students have had mixed feelings about the matter.
“I feel that discrimination of any kind within the LGBT community opens doors to discrimination outside of this particular issue,” one student told the publication.
“My peers and I are already uncomfortable about our growing and changing bodies, and allowing this person will only further contribute to our embarrassment and to our hurt of confidence and our self-esteem,” another stated.
According to the Department of Education, the student already has “unlimited access to all girls’ restrooms in the school” and is allowed to participate in girls’ athletics.


First front page editorial since 1920 backfires
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

New York Times poll released on Thursday found that a majority of Americans oppose a ban on “assault weapons” in the wake of a New York Times front page editorial championing the idea.
The poll, conducted among 1,275 adults between Dec. 4 and 8, found 50 percent of Americans now oppose a nationwide ban on “assault weapons” while 44 percent favor such a ban. The results represent the first time since the question began being asked in 1995 that more people oppose a ban than support it. Such a ban would outlaw the AR-15, the most popular rifle in the country, as well as other stylistically similar semi-automatic rifles.
A ban on such rifles, and their confiscation, was advocated for in a Dec. 4 editorial by the New York Times editorial board. “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership,” the editorial said. “It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”
The editorial was the first to be published on the front page of the paper since 1920. The 1920 New York Times editorial lamented the nomination for president of Warren G. Harding by the Republican Party and described it as “the gift of a splendid opportunity” for the Democratic Party. Harding went on to win the election capturing 37 of 48 states and 404 of 531 electoral votes.

"End the Gun Epidemic in America" 

by the New York Times

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

​It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper. But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms. It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism. Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did. But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition. "No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation". Says it all!!! After all, courageous successors to our founding father saw... The only reasons someone would want to own an assault rifle would be to kill people or to sleep with one. It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens. What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency? Certainly a thought-provoking one ! 
Reproduced from NY Times.



Leahy amendment could transform illegal immigration into "civil right"

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In response to Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims entering the U.S. without being vetted, Senate Democrats may attempt to create a “civil right” for anyone – including ISIS militants – to immigrate to the U.S.
Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) proposed an amendment to Title 18 of the U.S. Code to stop the federal government from banning “individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion,” which would create a dangerous precedent where illegal aliens could claim immigration laws preventing their entry into the U.S. violate their civil rights.
“The adoption of the Leahy Amendment would constitute a transformation of our immigration system; in effect, it is a move toward the ratification of the idea that global migration is a ‘human right,’ and a civil right, and that these so-called ‘immigrants’ rights’ must be supreme to the rights of sovereign nations to determine who can and cannot enter their borders,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) warned. “…Any alien denied entry could file suit to demand entry and claim damages for lost employment, lost welfare benefits, lost income…”
This could permanently prevent the Border Patrol from enforcing immigration laws because the borders would practically no longer exist, and it would also render the current Congressional debate over amnesty irrelevant because illegals could also claim that deportation violates their civil rights.
Leahy proposed the amendment after Trump called for a ban on non-citizen Muslims entering the U.S. from war-torn countries until a proper vetting process could be put in place to identify terrorists.
The Senate Judiciary Committee already passed the amendment on a 16-4 vote Thursday, with Senators Sessions, Cruz, Vitter and Tillis voting no.
“If Democrats wanted to destroy the United States, or transform our country into something unrecognizable, one of the first things they would do is to erode our ability to control our borders and determine who will be permitted to live here, and ultimately become voting citizens here,” John Hinderaker of Powerline.comstated. “[The] vote represents one more step in that direction.”

Congress to Consider Easing Passage into U.S. for Immigrants

Congressional source: 'The amendment is intended to be a response to Trump’s statement' about Muslims
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Congress is set to vote on Thursday on what some have called an “unprecedented” right that would allow immigrants easier access to relocate to the United States, according to new legislation offered by a Democratic senator.
The legislation, which is being offered by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) as an amendment to a larger bill governing nuclear safety, would prohibit the U.S. government from barring any individual from entering the country based on their religion.
The bill comes amid a fierce national debate about immigration to America, particularly for individuals coming from Muslim-majority nations. Critics of the Obama administration’s refugee plan, which would permit up to 10,000 Syrians into the country, maintain that there are not enough oversight measures in place to ensure that immigrants are not linked to terrorists or various terror organizations, such as the Islamic State.
The bill, a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, would express Congress’ sense that “the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”
The legislation is a direct amendment to current U.S. laws already on the books.
Congressional critics of the legislation warn that the amendment would facilitate an unprecedented right to immigration that has never existed under U.S. law.
“The amendment is intended to be a response to Trump’s statement and thus the category of immigration at the heart of it is clearly immigration from the Muslim world,” said a congressional source apprised of the legislation.
“This amendment will establish the progressive goal of creating a right to global migration, their solution to global income inequality,” the source said. “This is not simply a slippery slope. This is ripping open Pandora’s box. If you can establish that we have no right to consider religious beliefs, then you could help establish we have no right to consider a candidate’s age, skill, income, or country of origin.”
If passed, the new rule would burden the U.S. immigration system and prevent authorities from normal background checks meant to ensure individuals are not tied to terrorists or other type of criminal enterprises, the source said.
“It would could lead to rules saying you can’t discriminate against foreign single mothers, or unemployed elderly seniors, or members of religious cults. And if religion cannot be considered, then of course you cannot favor say Australian immigration over Middle East immigration since religion is, of course, a factor in that decision,” the congressional source explained. “It would mean you could not favor a Christian Syrian priest over a fundamentalist Muslim cleric, and that if you denied the cleric you’d be paving the road to them having standing to sue for entry from a foreign country.”
The legislation would further mean that a “radical Imam could demand the right for a tourist visa to deliver a speech, or that a member of a pagan cult could demand that they be given a foreign worker visa to take an American job,” according to the source.
The legislation essentially extends the U.S. Constitution to inhabitants from other countries, which has never been done before, the source said.
‘The Constitution, by definition, is a document that protects the rights of the American people – to extend it to the citizens of foreign countries living in those foreign countries is to turn the Constitution from a document that protects Americans into one that renders them utterly defenseless,” the source said. “Congress can decide who to admit, and who not to admit, and on what grounds – our founding documents confer on no alien the right of entry to the United States and to travel down this road is to challenge the very idea that immigration is supposed to serve the American interest and no other.”
While some politicians, including President Barack Obama, have maintained that a “religious test” for immigrants is unconstitutional, this has not legally been the case in American history.
Studies by the Pew research firm has found that the majority of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, 99 and 91 percent respectively, support a strict interpretation of Islam known as Sharia.
Under U.S. law, the president already has the authority to halt all immigration to the United States for national security reasons.
The Obama administration is slated to grant at least 660,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim majority nations in the next five years, according to statistics issued by the Department of Homeland Security.


Church slapped with criminal summons over worship service ‘noise’

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Meanwhile, Mosques in America Broadcast 5 Times a Day Calls To Prayer
“Silent Night” has new meaning for a Louisiana church after they were issued criminal sanctions because their worship services exceeded 60 decibels – which is about the same noise level of a dishwasher.
The executive pastor of Vintage Church was issued a criminal summons and the rest of the staff was threatened with “physical arrest” if they used any microphones or amplified sound in their worship services, according to a lawsuit filed by Liberty Institute.
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office are named in the lawsuit – alleging that the local government is “imposing unwarranted and unreasonable demands on the members of Vintage Church.”
If it’s okay to use a jackhammer on Sunday morning, why isn’t it okay to worship Jesus?
“Federal and Louisiana law both protect Vintage Church from this sort of targeted enforcement,” Liberty Institute attorney Justin Butterfield said.
For the record, I reached out to the sheriff for comment – but he declined to speak to me.
The trouble started back in August when the small evangelical congregation announced plans to expand its existing sanctuary – located within a subdivision.
However, that meant the church had to temporarily relocate its two Sunday morning worship services to an enclosed outdoor tent. The church applied for, and was granted a permit to erect the structure.
On Aug. 9, a neighbor called authorities to complain about the noise levels.
On Aug. 18, the church was told by the sheriff’s office that any sounds before 8:50 a.m. had to be kept below 60 decibels. They also told the church they could not set up for the Sunday service until after 8:50 a.m.
Pastor Rob Wilton told me that was the start of what would become weekly visits by heavy-handed authorities.
“It’s been difficult,” he told me. “We have been consistently hassled by our neighbors and by the parish officials since the first of August – every single week.”
By Nov. 12 the sheriff’s office escalated their bullying tactics by issuing a stern warning to the church – vowing to either “issue summons or even ‘physically arrest’ Vintage Church personnel if any amplified sound were used by the church for the first service, including the pastor’s use of a microphone to preach, regardless of the sound levels.”
So that meant no microphones, no electric guitars, no musical instruments that required amplification.
The church complied with those demands – but it turned out not to matter.
The following was written in the lawsuit:
“On Nov. 15th, 2015, six JPSO officers in six marked JPSO vehicles, plus Sheriff (Newell) Normand in an unmarked black SUV, arrived at Vintage Church in response to a neighbor’s call. Vintage Church was not using any sound amplification, but JPSO officers demanded to inspect the equipment in the Vintage Church’s tent to ensure that there was no sound amplification. Vintage Church’s pastors showed the JPSO officers that all sound equipment was unplugged. JPSO nevertheless issued a second summons to Pastor (Matt) Brichetto, stating that the sound levels were above 60 dB without any amplification at all.”
What the heck were they supposed to do – whisper the morning sermon?
“I preached without a microphone but we still received a second criminal summons,” the pastor told me. “They literally issued the summons in front of the congregation. Thankfully they allowed me to continue to preach.”
The executive pastor had previously been slapped with a criminal summons – delivered in front of stunned church members.
“They even took his fingerprints on our property,” Pastor Wilton told me.
Let’s put this in some perspective, folks. The church was not hosting a weekly Guns & Roses concert. It was a worship service.
Liberty Institute says parish ordinances allow local residents to engage in all sorts of activities on Sunday morning that are much louder than 60 decibels.
“The parish allows things like lawn mowers and jackhammers starting at 8 a.m. on Sunday while placing these burdensome restrictions on the church,” attorney Butterfield told me.
If it’s okay to use a jackhammer on Sunday morning, why isn’t it okay to worship Jesus?
There are always two sides to a story. The neighbors may very well have a valid argument. But since neither the neighbors nor the sheriff’s office want to go on the record, we don’t know what that argument might be.
Regardless, the storm trooper tactics of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office are uncalled for.
“We are seeing more and more of this sort of hostility toward churches in the United States,” Butterfield told me. “Five or ten years ago the idea that a church would be issued a criminal summons and would be subjected to this sort of continuous investigation just for having a worship service would be unthinkable.”
I’m certain that Sheriff Normand has much more important things to do on a Sunday morning than bully and harass a small evangelical church.
Perhaps he might consider spending next Sunday reading the Good Book or the U.S. Constitution.


PARIS: Scientists Hold Alternative Conference, Challenge UN Agenda 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

While President Obama and other world leaders joined tens of thousands of climate activists, politicians, and bureaucrats in Paris to promote a global regime to tax and regulate global CO2 (and all human activity), a group of distinguished scientists held an alternative conference elsewhere in the city to challenge the devastating policies at the UN’s COP-21 gabfest.
The “counter conference,” which was sponsored by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, was headlined as “Bringing Climate Realism to Paris at COP-21.”
A main attraction of the event was its “Day of Examining the Data” on December 7, which featured presentations by, among others:
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., professor emeritus, atmospheric and space physicist, author and editor of numerous scientific books and peer-reviewed articles, recipient of numerous scientific awards, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and founder of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
“Climate is constantly changing; it has been warming and cooling for millions of years because of natural influences,” Singer said. “There is no reason to believe that these natural factors have suddenly stopped working — today or in the future. Therefore, the burden of proof is for climate alarmists to show convincing evidence that the rise of CO2 will produce catastrophes. In my view, they have not done this — probably because they cannot.”
Willie Soon, Ph.D., an astrophysicist and geoscientist based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection, as well as many articles published in peer-reviewed journals on the sun’s influence on climate. (See TNA interviews with him here and here.)
“After a quarter of a century of dedication to the scientific research on how the sun can affect the Earth’s climate, I am forced to conclude the United Nations’ summary of the latest science is either extremely weak or purposefully misleading filled with only half-truths,” Soon told the Paris conferees. “I challenge all COP-21 participants and even Greenpeace to come hear us out and embrace the full truth and to stop the sad demonization of CO2, the ultimate gas of life.”
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a paleogeologist and marine geologist, is emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia, former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia, and author of Climate Change: The Counter Consensus.
“In its first report in 1991, the IPCC concluded the observed twentieth century increase in global temperature could be largely due to natural variability. They were right then and the statement remains true today,” Carter said. “But despite the absence of direct evidence for dangerous human-caused warming, damaging natural climatic events will always be with us. The only sensible policy response is to prepare for and adapt to all hazardous climatic events, of whatever causation, as and when they occur.”
Christopher Essex, Ph.D., a professor of applied mathematics at the University of Western Ontario and a former director of its program in theoretical physics, is coauthor, with Ross McKitrick, of Taken by Storm.
“The world’s most baffling debate is over climate,” Essex said. “The debate’s boundaries exclude its own subject matter (the functions and differential equations of physics and chemistry). Within accepted boundaries, the key debating strategy for a certain side is to maintain throughout the debate that the debate is over, while simultaneously arguing its opponents do not exist, and that those nonexistent opponents are bad.”
The New American’s Alex Newman attended the Heartland conference in Paris and, along with TNA videographer David Lewis, interviewed these and other scientists and policy experts who contest the global-warming hysteria that poses as “science.” In this video interview below, Alex gives highlights of the Heartland Climate Realism summit.

Conclusions at COP21 Derived from UN Approved Data Only