A Room Full Of Politicians

Shock Study: U.S. Flag Only Boosts GOP

by Paul Bedard

Just a brief exposure to an image of the American flag shifts voters, even Democrats, to Republican beliefs, attitudes and voting behavior even though most don't believe it will impact their politics, according to a new two-year study just published in the scholarly Psychological Science.

What's more, according to three authors from the University Chicago, Cornell University and Hebrew University, the impact had staying power.

"A single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants' Republican voting intentions, voting behavior, political beliefs, and implicit and explicit attitudes, with some effects lasting 8 months," the study found. "These results constitute the first evidence that nonconscious priming effects from exposure to a national flag can bias the citizenry toward one political party and can have considerable durability."

Read More...

Stop The Global Warming Lies

by Jim Lacey

Whether it’s energy policy, global warming, or nuclear waste, if our regulators get the wrong answer, they make one up.

Effective policy cannot be built on lies and myths. But when it comes to energy policy that seems to be all we have to go on. A report recently released by the EPA, for instance, claims that by 2020 regulations enacted under the Clean Air Act will provide an annual benefit of $2 trillion for a cost of $66 billion, a 30-to-1 return on investment. And that is the EPA’s low estimate. In a best-case scenario, the benefits could reach as high as $5.5 trillion, a 90-to-1 return, or $48,000 for every American household. Where do I go for my check?

Unfortunately, the EPA is lying. Not about everything: The $66 billion cost is real, though probably low-balled. EPA regulations will most definitely remove that $66 billion from the economy, making it unavailable for job-creating investment. But what of the $2 trillion in benefits? According to analysis by economists W. David Montgomery and Anne E. Smith, these gains are an illusion. The $2 trillion figure was based on nothing more than a survey asking Americans how much they would pay to live an extra few weeks or months, or to have a little extra visibility on a clear day.

The EPA estimate, therefore, has nothing to do with job creation, economic growth, or real economic output. It has everything to do with hiding the fact that EPA regulations will place a crushing burden on the economy. The EPA knows this. In fact, in the same report that purports to prove that we all gain from more regulations, there is a real macroeconomic study, one done by EPA economists rather than policy officials. They find that past EPA rules slowed the economy by $79 billion in 2010, and will slow it by $110 billion in 2020.

Poof! In the EPA’s own report a $2 trillion annual benefit turns into a $110 billion annual loss. That is a lot of jobs.

The lies and myth-making do not end there. Last month the infamous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once again let its global-warming agenda get ahead of the facts. The IPCC claimed that “Close to 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies.”

We had to wait a few weeks for the supporting evidence. It turns out that to get to that 80 percent number the folks at the IPCC threw out 163 scenarios where their models did not give them the answer they wanted. Only on the 164th try did they finally get an answer they liked. Moreover, the report the IPCC used as the basis for its claim turns out to have been written by Greenpeace activists in conjunction with a lobbying group for renewable energy. No real scientists or engineers were involved. But the story gets even better. For the IPCC model to work, they researchers had to assume the world will be using less energy in 2050 than it is today. By that date there may be 2 billion more people on the planet, all clamoring for their fair share of energy resources. But somehow the IPCC thinks we will be using less energy!

Read More...

Glenn Beck – Why you should stand with Israel

America Meets 90% of Karl Marx’s Demands

by Terresa

The 10 planks of communism by Karl Marx:

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

Author’s Comment: This is where eminent domain comes into the picture, and even property taxes. Once you own your property outright by paying off your mortgage, you still don’t technically own it because the government could jack up property taxes so high that it makes it unaffordable to remain.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Comment: Marginal tax rates increasing as income goes up IS a graduated income tax. This is in opposition to a more fair tax like a national sales tax or flat tax where a person is not taxed at a higher rate the more income they earn.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Comment: In the U.S. these can be seen as estate taxes (i.e. the death tax).

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Comment: This is nothing more than government seizures, IRS property confiscation and the 1997 Crime/Terrorist bill which calls for the imprisonment of terrorists (not such a bad thing), but also for those who speak out against the government.

Read More...

Buzz Aldrin Punches Moon Conspiracy Stalker

74 Year-Old Former Astronaut Buzz Aldrin

Punches Moon Conspiracy Stalker In The Face

Mythbusters Moon Hoax Photo Explanations

Would You Give Up The Internet For 1 Million Dollars?

Defending the Faith Part 6: The Professor's Ploy

by Greg Koukl

When executing the burden of proof tactic, beware of the “professor’s ploy.”

Some professors are fond of taking pot-shots at Christianity with remarks like, “The Bible is just a bunch of fables,” even if the topic matter has nothing to do with religious issues.

Well-meaning believers sometimes take the challenge and attempt a head-to-head duel with the professor, but this approach is rarely successful.

One rule of engagement governs exchanges like these: The person with the microphone wins. Never attempt a frontal assault on a superior force. The professor always has the strategic advantage, and he knows it.

Don’t get into a power play when you’re out-gunned. There’s a better way. Don’t disengage; instead, use your tactics. Raise your hand and ask, “Professor, what do you mean by that?” Next ask, “How did you reach that conclusion?” Make the teacher and the one making the claim shoulder the burden of proof.

This approach enables you to stay engaged while deftly sidestepping the power struggle. The “professor’s ploy” comes into play when he attempts to make you shoulder the burden of proof. He may sense your maneuver and respond by saying, “You must be one of those Christians who thinks the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Okay, since I’m a fair man, why don’t you prove that to the rest of the class?”

In one quick move, he’s cleverly switched the burden of proof back on you, the student. Don’t fall for this unfair move! You aren’t the one making a claim; he is. He must defend his own claim. He’s the teacher, after all.

You can respond to the professor’s ploy with dignity and tact. When he shifts the burden of proof on you, calmly respond by saying, “Professor, first, I haven’t revealed anything about my views. Second, my views don’t really matter right now. You’re the teacher and you’ve made a strong claim about the Bible. I’m just trying to learn your reasons for it.”

If he gives an answer, thank him for it and either ask him another question or let it go. Recognize that the burden of proof tactic takes the pressure off you but still keeps you in the driver’s seat. You don’t have to be the expert on every subject.

If you keep the burden on the other side when they’re making the claim, you don’t have to have all the answers. In fact, you can be effective even when you know very little if you ask the right questions.

Next time: How to properly exploit a weakness in an argument

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Jack Van Impe on Robert Schuller, Self-Esteem and the Truth

Intelligence Tax?

Augusta GA Waffle House Fight

Texas executes murderer/rapist. Final words: “Viva Mexico!”

by Michael Graczyk

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) — A Mexican national was executed Thursday for the rape-slaying of a teenager after the U.S. Supreme Court turned down an appeal to spare him that was supported by Mexico and the White House.

In his last minutes, Humberto Leal repeatedly said he was sorry and accepted responsibility.

"I have hurt a lot of people. ... I take full blame for everything. I am sorry for what I did," he said in the death chamber.

"One more thing," he said as the drugs began taking effect. Then he shouted twice, "Viva Mexico!"

Read More...

Now that we have change, where's the hope?

The Rise Of Chrislam

by Chad Groening

A Protestant renewal organization is concerned about the recent efforts of some mainline Protestant churches to produce an ecumenical reconciliation between Christianity and Islam.

According to a recent blog post from The Last Crusade, congregations in several metropolitan areas -- Houston, Atlanta, Seattle, and Detroit -- preached sermons and held Sunday school lessons recently on the founder of Islam, Mohammad, whom Muslims consider a prophet. Qurans were also placed in the pews next to Bibles.

Proponents of the movement, which has been dubbed "Chrislam," claim that Christians cannot love their neighbors without having a relationship with them.

Read More...

Warren Buffett’s foolproof plan to wipe out the deficit

Rep. Todd Akin: At The Heart of Liberalism Is A Hatred For God

Christian preacher harassed at Arab Festival in Dearborn

Waterboarding for Dummies

Inmate files lawsuit for being denied pornography

by Associated Press
MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich. — A Michigan jail inmate says he’s being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because he can’t have pornography.

In a handwritten lawsuit, 21-year-old Kyle Richards claims his civil rights are being violated at the Macomb County Jail. Richards says denying his request for erotic material subjects him to a “poor standard of living” and “sexual and sensory deprivation.”

Read More...

Why I Left Islam - Naeem

Veterans Affairs Bans Mention of God at Veterans Funerals

by Liberty Institute

Liberty Institute, on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars District 4, The American Legion Post 586, and the National Memorial Ladies, just returned to federal court with new allegations of religious hostility and unlawful censorship by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and its director of the Houston National Cemetery. The VA has forbidden mention of God at veterans' funerals, and now requires prayers to be sent in writing for approval. Additionally, volunteers were told to remove "God bless" from condolence cards to grieving families. Last month, Liberty Institute successfully represented Houston pastor Scott Rainey in the same federal court after Houston VA officials tried to prevent him from praying in Jesus’ name at a Memorial Day ceremony.

Read More...

Defending the Faith Part 5: Columbo Step Two

Defending the Faith Part 5: Columbo Step Two:

“How did you come to that conclusion?”

by Greg Koukl

The first application of the Columbo tactic helped you understand what a person thinks; the second application known as reversing the burden of proof helps you learn why they think the way they do.

The burden of proof is the responsibility someone has to defend or give evidence for his or her view. The burden of proof has one cardinal rule: Whoever makes the claim bears the burden. Don’t allow yourself to be thrust into a defensive position when the other person is making the claim.

This rule means there are no more free rides. It isn’t the Christian’s responsibility to refute every story a nonbeliever can spin or every claim he can manufacture. When your opponent advances a view, make him or her defend it. Steer the burden of proof back on their shoulders, where it belongs. Make them give you their arguments, not just their points of view.

In the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo from I Love Lucy, “they’ve got a lot of ‘splaining to do!”

The second Columbo question enforces the burden of proof rule: “Now, how did you come to that conclusion?” This question graciously assumes that the non-believer has actually reached a conclusion that he has reasons for his view and has not merely asserted it carte-blanche.

It will give him a chance to express his rationale, if he has one. It will also give you more material to work with in addressing his objections. It ultimately shifts the burden of proof to the other person, which is where it often belongs.

Since many people have never thought through their views and don’t know why they hold them, don’t be surprised if you get a blank stare after asking this question. Alternate options are, “Why do you say that?” or “What are your reasons for holding that view?”

Sometimes the simplest, most effective question you can ask someone is a variation of the question, “How do you know?” This tactic can also take the form of the following questions:

“Why should I believe what you believe?”
“What makes you think that’s the right way to see it?”
“I’m curious. Why would you say a thing like that?”
“Why should I trust that your organization, the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, the Watchtower speaks for God?”

We can spend hours helping someone carefully work through an issue without ever mentioning God, Jesus, or the Bible. This doesn’t mean we aren’t advancing the Kingdom, though. It’s always a step in the right direction when we help people to discover truth. It gives them tools to assess the bigger questions that will eventually come up.

Further, when we challenge people to think carefully, we acknowledge they bear the image of God. This affirms their intrinsic worth. For a discussion on the value of human beings apart from the cross, see the commentary “Gospel Fodder.”

Remember: The two most important questions you can ever ask are, “What do you believe?” and “Why do you believe it?”

Next time: The Professor's Ploy

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Black & Beautiful: pro-life billboard ads labeled racist

Convict sues jail for $50 million...for calling him an "inmate"

by Daily Mail Reporter

The family of a convicted killer is suing New York state for $50 million, saying he is being 'stigmatised' by being called an 'inmate'.

Gerard Domond, 49, says the term implies he was 'mating with other men' in his lawsuit against the state.

The Domond family want the state to stop calling him an 'inmate' as the term hurts his feelings causing him 'mental anguish.'

Read More...

Wizard Of Id Parody