The Earth is getting colder….since 2002! 1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week.

Sid-Gasp-ice-age copy

Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002’

Growing number of scientists are predicting global cooling: Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory: ‘We could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years’

‘Sun Sleeps’: Danish Solar Scientist Svensmark declares ‘global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning…enjoy global warming while it lasts’

Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warns ‘global COOLING is almost a slam dunk’ for up to 30 years or more

Australian Astronomical Society warns of global COOLING as Sun’s activity ‘significantly diminishes’

By:  – Climate DepotJune 15, 2013 2:55 PM

Climate Depot Exclusive Round Up of Global Cooling  predictions  

Professor Judith Curry of, the chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, on June 14, 2013: “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.”

Climate Depot Note:

Many scientists in recent years have noted the recent global cooling and predicted many years to decades to centuries of more global cooling. Below is a sampling of scientists and studies on global cooling.

UW-Milwaukee Professor’s Peer-Reviewed Study Predicts 50 Years of Global Cooling – January 2010: ‘A University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor is making headlines for his work suggesting the world is entering a period of global cooling. “Now we’re getting a break,” Anastasios Tsonis, Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at UWM, said in an interview with the MacIver Institute. Tsonis published a paper last March that found the world goes through periods of warming and cooling that tend to last thirty years. He says we are now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years.

Atmospheric Scientist Tsonis on record cold: ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while’ – Tsonis was flooded with ‘hate emails’ after 2009 peer-reviewed study predicting ’20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures’ — ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth’

Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory: ‘We could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years’

New Study: Russian Astrophysicist from Russian Academy of Science Predicts Global Cooling: ‘From 2014 we can expect start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055′ — Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Science, St. Petersburg, 196140, Russia — Applied Physics Research, Vol. 4, No. 1 February 2012: Abstract: ‘We can expect the onset of a deep bicentennial minimum of total solar irradiance (TSI) in approximately 2042±11 and the 19th deep minimum of global temperature in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.’

Flashback Sept. 2009: ‘Sun Sleeps’: Danish Solar Scientist Svensmark declares ‘global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning…enjoy global warming while it lasts’

Global Cooling Coming? Aussie Scientist David Archibald uses solar and surface data to predict 4.9°C fall — ‘Normal solar cycles are 11 years long, but the current one (cycle 24) is shaping up to be 17 years (unusually long), and using historical data from the US, David predicts a 2.1°C decline over Solar Cycle 24 followed by a further 2.8°C over Solar Cycle 25. That adds up to a whopping 4.9°C fall in temperate latitudes over the next 20 years. We can only hope he’s wrong’

Prominent geologist warns ‘global COOLING is almost a slam dunk’ for up to 30 years or more — ‘There is no single piece of real evidence that points to CO2′ as driving temps – Dr. Don Easterbrook: ‘We’ve had 27 climate changes in the last 400 years: warm, cold, warm, cold. There have been four in this past century that have nothing to do with CO2, because CO2 wasn’t a factor hundreds of thousands of years ago. We know that those are not at all related to CO2. So why would we expect climate change today to be related to CO2?’

AUSTRALIAN SCIENTIST PREDICTS GLOBAL COOLING: “SUN IS THE MAJOR CONTROL OF CLIMATE; LOOK FOR COOLING’ — ‘Prof. Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth & Env. Studies, U,  of Western Australia, recently presented a paper in Poznan, Poland,  in which he described the sun as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases.”There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate. Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling. Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models. The UN’s main adviser, the IPCC, uses adjusted data for the input, their models and codes remain secret, and they do not accept responsibility for their projections.” Download paper here

New paper finds that a solar proton event could cause global cooling of more than 3C — Paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics – Study finds that ‘a solar proton event, if it took place in the near future with an intensity similar to that ascribed to the Carrington Event of 1859, must be expected to have a major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere, resulting in significant and persistent decrease in total ozone,’ resulting in a ‘significant [global] cooling of more than 3C’

1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week

by  on JULY 30, 2013 · 21 COMMENTS

Here it is… From July 23 to July 29 (1 week) in the U.S.

1,122 Record Cold Temps173 Record Warm temps.



July 30, 2013

Arctic Temperatures Dropping to Zero Early!

Filed under: Arctic Sea Ice — sunshinehours1 @ 5:29 PM
Tags: 

According to DMI, Arctic temperatures are dropping to zero early! The blue line is 0C.

Below Zero DMI

Full graph for 2013 of arctic temperatures.

Below Zero DMI Full

John McCain, Undecided 2016 VoterAn exclusive interview on Fox News, Tea Party nihilism, and Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul in 2016

hillary26n-1-web

INTERVIEW JULY 30, 2013

John McCain, Undecided 2016 VoterAn exclusive interview on Fox News, Tea Party nihilism, and Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul in 2016

BY ISAAC CHOTINER

It has been difficult to follow politics over the past several months without sensing the presence of a new John McCain. (Again.) He was a crucial player in the passage ofimmigration reform through the Senate, he has helped Democrats carve out a dealallowing several of President Obama’s appointments to win confirmation, and he has even teamed up with Elizabeth Warren on a bill to regulate the banking industry. The politician who could once barely hide his disdain for the president has suddenly become one of his most valuable partners in Congress. (This makeover hasn’t extended to foreign policy, where he remains an outspoken hawk.)

McCain himself scorns theories into the psychology behind his ideological lurches, but they are invariably attributed to his voluble temper. It was widely assumed that his resentment of George W. Bush prompted him to work more closely with Democrats after 2000. After losing to Barack Obama in 2008, he cast his bipartisan persona aside and became one of the administration’s fiercest critics. By the 2010 midterms, he wasadvocating for “a dang fence” on the Mexican border and crusading against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Lately, his irritation has shifted to Tea Party Republicans like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who have helped bring his beloved Senate to a near halt and whom McCain has dismissed as “wacko birds.”


During the course of our conversation in his Senate office, McCain spoke about decades-old skirmishes with real intensity, as if they were still fresh in his mind. We met on the day that Al Qaeda claimed credit for freeing possibly as many as 500 inmates from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and as we sat down to talk, McCain was waving around a printout of a news article about the breakout.

John McCain: What happened to your wrist?1

Isaac Chotiner: I hurt it playing basketball.

JM: Well, you gotta be careful. This thing that happened, in Abu Ghraib, where they freed all these terrorists. Most of those guys will end up in Syria.

IC: Is the Syrian war making the situation in Iraq worse?

JM: Oh yeah. But the fundamental mistake was when we did not keep a residual force behind in Iraq. The president basically campaigned saying that he’d get us out of Iraq, and I am very respectful of that position, but all along we knew that we had to leave a residual force behind for a number of missions.

IC: Do you see a situation where we would send troops back to Iraq?

JM: I don’t see how you do that. I just don’t. I think it’s too late. The whole tragedy of this is four thousand brave Americans [died], and I don’t know how many thousands lost limbs, and it’s all for nothing. And we had it won.

IC: You say you don’t blame the president for his campaign position, but if you feel like—

JM: I respect his position, but I heartily disagree with it. He was fulfilling his campaign promise—I don’t know how we got off on this.

IC: You were reading the article.

JM: That was it.

IC: We can go back to my basketball injuries.

Bloomberg via Getty Images
‘SHE’S A ROCK STAR’
Hillary Clinton has “maybe not glamour, but certainly the aura of someone widely regarded throughout the world,” says McCain.

JM: [laughs]

IC: You have called for a cut in military aid to Egypt.

JM: Here’s the conundrum: A law was written—whether it was a good law or a bad law—that specifically states a coup would require a cutoff or suspension of aid. Now, I am asking the Egyptians to abide by the law, and I am asking them to set up a constitution and a freely elected government, and the first thing I would do is say, Never mind our law? But our statement laid out very clearly that aid can be restored with a constitution, a free election, and inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was a tough call. So, I have had a relationship with their military for years. I met this guy [the new leader Abdel Fattah] el-Sisi, and as soon as I met him, I said, This guy is not his predecessor. And everyone said, Oh no, he’s [Mohamed] Morsi’s guy, and I said, Not this guy, he’s his own guy.

IC: Morsi may have thought he was Morsi’s guy.

JM: I was just about to say that. Created a monster [laughs].

IC: How do you think your old friends Chuck Hagel and John Kerry are doing?

JM: I hear good reports from friends in the military that Hagel is respectful. I think he is doing OK. And John Kerry I think is working extremely hard, frenetic. I met with him yesterday morning. But I am a little worried about whether John is trying to take on too many issues at once, and I think that is a shared concern amongst many of his friends. And I have expressed that to him. But I don’t think there is any doubt that, if you look at the world five years ago and today, we live in a far, far more dangerous world. There is a lack of American leadership. I hear that every place I go in the Middle East. This massacre in Syria is one of the most shameful chapters in American history. I have not been more worried about the world as we see it—ever. This is the greatest seismic event in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And we are bystanders.

IC: Given that you think things are out of control, what do you make of Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state?

JM: I think she did a fine job. She’s a rock star. She has, maybe not glamour, but certainly the aura of someone widely regarded throughout the world. I do think it is interesting that the issues where John Kerry is engaging is where Hillary Clinton did not engage in, that those decisions were left to the White House and the National Security Council.

IC: I want to switch gears and talk about the Senate. Obviously you—

JM: Can we just talk a little about what happened at the hearing [on Syria]?2 Dempsey was asked a question by Carl Levin, which we ask of all nominees, “If asked for your personal views by this committee, will you give your personal views even if they are contradictory to administration policy?” No sooner does he say that than I asked if Syria was better or worse off by the fact that the U.S. has not been involved. He said he wouldn’t answer. He would talk to the president, blah-blah-blah. He had just said he’d give his personal view! It got really testy. And he didn’t answer. I went to see Carl Levin, and asked if we could send a letter with these questions. And we got the answers yesterday. In all the years I have been associated with the military, I have never read anything as bizarre as those answers. Basically, Dempsey said we would have to declare World War III in order to help the Syrians. One phrase was “hundreds and hundreds of planes and tanks and thousands of troops.” This affirms everything bad I have seen about military leadership in my time. It’s the worst I have ever seen.

IC: Don’t you think Iraq has colored the discussion about all these things?

JM: I know it has. I know it has. But I am also totally convinced that the option of doing nothing is the worst option. And I am also convinced that, unless we do something that changes the equation, the situation, there will be a stalemate.

IC: I want to talk about the Senate. It seems to me that the GOP leadership has been frozen by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

JM: I am not sure if it has been frozen, but certainly there is an element in the party that has been there prior to [World War II], the isolationist, America-Firsters. Prior to World War I, it was Western senators, and then Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, and then Taft versus Eisenhower. Even Reagan—Reagan’s presidency was perfect without ever a problem [said sarcastically]—there was an isolationist wing that fought against Reagan. And now the bad economy has exacerbated what has always been out there.

IC: Do you think this wing has changed the comity in the Senate? There were the attacks on Hagel. Do these things concern you?

JM: Oh yeah. It’s of concern. But it’s important for me to be respectful. After I called them wacko birds, I apologized. I try and be respectful but also go out there and debate them every chance I get. Small example: For four years, Harry Reid—and I beat him up regularly—wouldn’t bring a budget to the Senate. This year, we brought one, stayed up all night. We were so proud, we passed a budget resolution—most of it nonsense—but guess what? Now we have the same group3 who are blocking going to conference. The same group sometimes doesn’t want to take up a bill and at other times blocks a bill because they can’t get all the amendments they want.

IC: The GOP leadership—Mitch McConnell, Minority Whip John Cornyn—is from the same states as Cruz and Paul. Is that a particular problem?

JM: Sure, yeah.

IC: When Hillary Clinton versus Rand Paul occurs in 2016, I guess you are going to have to decide who to vote for, huh?

JM: It’s gonna be a tough choice [laughs].

IC: So—

JM: Let me just clarify that. I think that Rand Paul represents a segment of the GOP, just like his father. And I think he is trying to expand that, intelligently, to make it larger.

IC: Were you surprised that the GOP allowed sequestration?

JM: I think the way it was sold, that the Sword of Damocles would never fall, was a contradiction. You should never point a gun unless you were going to pull the trigger. The leadership said this would never happen. It is the worst vote I have cast in many years.

IC: Do you think Obama has grown in office since 2009?

JM: Oh yeah. No doubt.

IC: How so?

JM: He had just won a huge victory in 2009, had overwhelming majorities, he could pass whatever he wanted. That breeds a certain degree of confidence, if not—the word isn’t cocky, it isn’t arrogant—a certain self-assuredness that you don’t have to deal with the minority. I think the big mistake was doing Obamacare when he should have addressed the debt. He had the votes to do it then. That is for historians to decide. He was confident and had reason to be. Here is a young man who, six or seven years before, was a state legislator and had lost a primary for a House seat. I think he has grown to appreciate bipartisanship. He is looking at his legacy. I know that for a fact and it is entirely appropriate. One is, close Guantánamo. It is an unfulfilled commitment. Outreach to me and Lindsey. So yeah, I think he has learned a lot.

IC: Part of that legacy is immigration. Are you feeling frustrated with the way Marco Rubio has not been putting a lot of pressure on House Republicans?4

JM: I expressed a little frustration. But Marco Rubio has played a tremendously important role, he is very articulate, and he has been going out there on the talk shows. He has a bright future in the party. He is a valuable candidate for president. Some people say this will set him back, but remember, I got the nomination of the party after failing on immigration in 2007. Yes, he is new to the Senate, and yes, sometimes I would have liked for Marco to say, Hey John, I am going to say X, but that is minor stuff.

IC: So you don’t put him in the Mike Lee/Rand Paul/Ted Cruz category?

JM: Oh no. I do not. Not in any way.

IC: You have had conversations with people at Fox, The New Yorker reported, about immigration. There is a real divide in the party. What do Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch say about whether the party can come along on this issue?

JM: It is well known that Rupert Murdoch is a strong supporter of immigration reform. Roger Ailes is also a realist. He believes that immigration reform is vital to the country first, but also the GOP. Yet he does not dictate. [Sean] Hannity has come out against it and kept his job. I don’t think Roger Ailes is ham-fisted.

IC: But if you watch Fox, there are all these segments on immigrants and crime and so on, and people get riled up, and then they want reform. It’s a difficult dynamic in the party.

JM: I think that Fox News is a bit schizophrenic. I saw a guy on “Hannity,” maybe “Huckabee,” and the guy said, “You know, the Chinese are coming across our border, and they are going to commit cyber attacks.”

IC: They have to cross the border to do that?

JM: Honest to God! “They are going to commit cyber attacks.”

IC: I am sure you hate psychological questions, but people say you are driven by anger: that you were angry about Bush, so you worked with Democrats; and then you were angry with Obama, and so you swung right. And now there’s Ted Cruz and the rest, and you are working with Democrats again.

JM: If you use the word anger, then obviously it is a very detrimental trait. If you use the word passion, that is a valuable thing to have. Losing to George W. Bush didn’t change my behavior. I thought as a fiscal conservative it was wrong to have tax cuts that we didn’t pay for, to have a secretary of defense who was the steward of a failing strategy in Iraq. And so it wasn’t anger, but when I go to Walter Reed and see men with no legs, and have my own sons serving in the military, I feel passionate. If I didn’t feel passionate, I shouldn’t be in the business I am in.

Have I stepped on some toes? Yes. Have I angered some people that I probably could have avoided? I think so. But I would challenge you to talk—with rare exceptions—to my colleagues, and they would say I treat them with respect. It’s maybe interesting that, whenever there is a major issue to be addressed, somehow I am in the mix. You don’t get in the mix unless you have the respect of your colleagues. Maybe you can name me a major issue that has come up that I haven’t been in the mix about.

IC: [starts to talk]

JM: And that’s what I’m here for.

IC: I wanted to ask—

JM: Wait—I was never angry and bitter at George W. Bush. We reconciled and I campaigned for him. That’s just simply false. Now, you could argue about Obama—“the angry old man”—but the fact is, the first issue that came up in 2009 was Obamacare, and yes, I fought ferociously to stop it, but I am not embarrassed about it. I am proud of it, because I think it’s obvious Obamacare is becoming a failure.

IC: So are you saying you were more upset after 2008 than 2000?

JM: No. Look, the speech I gave on election night, I meant it.5 I wouldn’t have given it if I didn’t mean it. He won fair and square, and it was my job to work with him. In 2009, I was invited over to the White House, and I was maybe the only Republican there. They said they would get in touch with me [about immigration reform]. I never heard another word. Later, Obama had me over to the White House and said, “There’s [then–Chief of Staff] Bill Daley. We are gonna work with Senator McCain, blah-blah-blah.” I even called Bill Daley up, but never a word. Now, that has changed dramatically in the last six or eight months between me and the president.

IC: You also fought with Obama about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. You said people would have blood on their hands—

JM: On DADT, I asked for a study to assess the impact on military readiness. The commandant of the Marine Corps said he didn’t know the effects and he was opposed. So I said, “Let’s do a study.” My opposition was based on the fact that I wanted to know about readiness.

IC: OK, but has our readiness suffered over the past couple years?

JM: I think it has worked out. There are a number of issues that remain unresolved—who’s eligible for base housing, do we require the same physical standards to be a Navy SEAL for women as men? And obviously with this issue of sexual assaults, there are still some lingering issues, to say the least. Because a good portion of these aren’t necessarily men on women.

IC: Your wife said she hopes you change your position on gay marriage.

JM: Not to mention my daughter.

IC: When Justice [Anthony] Kennedy’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and allowing gay marriage in California was announced, what was your emotional reaction?

JM: I think it is our society evolving. It would be foolish not to observe that. But I think I am still entitled to my opinions and views and ideas.

IC: It seems like you want to keep your position—

JM: It’s not a position. It’s a fundamental belief.

IC: OK, your belief. But it seems like you are almost taking pride that our society is evolving.

JM: I just think it’s an obvious fact. It is neither pride nor condemning.

IC: What do you think your legacy is right now?

JM: One of them, McCain-Feingold,6 has obviously failed, because the Supreme Court, in its omniscience, has overturned it.

IC: How worried are you about the current campaign-funding environment?

JM: Oh, very. Just as we predicted. I can assure you, one hundred percent, that there will be scandals.

IC: This has been a long cause of friction between you and Mitch McConnell, I suppose. Something you will never see eye to eye on.

JM: No. We have agreed to disagree.

IC: So you aren’t going to go campaign for his opponent in Kentucky?

JM: [smiles] I can’t pretend to describe my own legacy. I have known people and done things that in my wildest dreams I never would have expected. I have had the best ride. That’s why I am sometimes puzzled by, McCain is angry and bitter. I am angry at injustice, but as long as that anger is channeled in the right way, it encourages me to be more involved, more effective, to know the issues as much as I possibly can. But when you say “angry” …

IC: I was quoting other people.

JM: OK, but when I see this London Whale thing,7 I get angry. People’s deposits are being used to waste six billion dollars. Maybe it’s the populist in me. I find these things—the word isn’t anger. It’s a sense that I need to do what I can.

IC: So it seems like you are saying you are happy, or lucky.

JM: Am I happy? I’d like to be president of the United States.

IC: You did get to be in Wedding Crashers.8

JM: That’s right. I’m happy in what I have been able to accomplish, but it’s not so much happy as fortunate. I was on an aircraft carrier that [one hundred thirty-four] soldiers died on. I am not angry or bitter. I am very happy.

IC: Does it bother you when people say choosing Sarah Palin is your legacy?

JM: No, because I think historians will decide that facts are stubborn things. We were four points down when I chose her and three points up afterwards. She held her own and, some people said, won a debate with the vice president. She did everything I ever wanted. She excited our base in a way I was unable to achieve. And then I watched the shredding and destruction to destroy a good and decent person by the liberal media, beginning with Katie Couric. Not only do I not regret it, but I have probably not seen anyone in American life savaged like she was, particularly by the liberal left.

IC: Do you draw any connection between her outlook and the group of congressional Republicans, Tea Partiers, that you have had trouble with?

JM: No, because I think she had a positive message. A message that we would have less government, lower taxes, less regulation. Many in this group didn’t come to power to get things done. They came to power to keep things from getting done.

IC: But she also accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists.” It wasn’t entirely positive.

JM: Well, if she attacked Obama and Biden, that is fairly standard.

IC: “Palling around with terrorists”?

JM: With all due respect, you never heard about when John Lewis said my campaign was worse than the Birmingham church bombing?9 That may have escaped your attention.

IC: It did. I agree, that is bad.

JM: OK, well, that is what he did, when they orchestrated this “racism” effort against me. Maybe Sarah Palin said “palling around with terrorists,” but the things that were said about me and her were far worse. I’ll never forgive John Lewis.

IC: Did you ever talk to Lewis?

JM: No. I would be glad to show you the press release. But we selectively take something Palin said, and the vice president’s job is to attack, and how many people know about John Lewis? I can show you many other comments. For me to complain about it is a waste of time.

IC: Who do you think is the best senator today?

JM: I loved Bob Dole. He was so good to me when I came to the Senate. On Bosnia, he took the right side of the debate even though it hurt him with the right wing of our party, and he gave a speech on intervention in Bosnia. He happened to mention my support and said, “I wore a bracelet with Senator McCain’s name on it during the entire Vietnam war.” He never told me that. I went over and asked, and he said, “Yeah, yeah.” I thought the world of him.

IC: What about current senators?

JM: Lindsey Graham is like a son to me.

IC: Is he that young?

JM: In his fifties. Kelly Ayotte, I am very close to. Chuck Schumer. Carl Levin and I are as close as two people can be. But I also understand how transient this is. Once you are gone, you’re gone.

E-mails Suggest Collusion Between FEC, IRS to Target Conservative Groups

FEC IRS blog copy

E-mails Suggest Collusion Between FEC, IRS to Target Conservative Groups

Embattled Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner and an attorney in the Federal Election Commission’s general counsel’s office appear to have twice colluded to influence the record before the FEC’s vote in the case of a conservative non-profit organization, according to e-mails unearthed by the House Ways and Means Committee and obtained exclusively by National Review Online. The correspondence suggests the discrimination of conservative groups extended beyond the IRS and into the FEC, where an attorney from the agency’s enforcement division in at least one case sought and received tax information about the status of a conservative group, the American Future Fund, before recommending that the commission prosecute it for violations of campaign-finance law. Lerner, the former head of the IRS’s exempt-organizations division, worked at the FEC from 1986 to 1995, and was known for aggressive investigation of conservative groups during her tenure there, too.

“Several months ago . . . I spoke with you about the American Future Fund, a 501(c)(4) organization that had submitted an exemption application the IRS [sic],” the FEC attorney wrote Lerner in February 2009. The FEC, which polices violations of campaign-finance laws, is not exempted under Rule 6103, which prohibits the IRS from sharing confidential taxpayer information, but the e-mail indicates Lerner provided that information nonetheless: “When we spoke last July, you had told us that the American Future Fund had not received an exemption letter from the IRS,” the FEC attorney wrote.

The timing of the correspondence between Lerner and the FEC suggests the FEC attorney sought information from the IRS in order to influence an upcoming vote by the six FEC commissioners. The FEC received a complaint in March 2008 from the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party alleging that the American Future Fund had violated campaign-finance law by engaging in political advocacy without registering as a political-action committee. The American Future Fund responded to that complaint in June 2008, telling the commission that it had applied for tax exemption in March of that year and was a “501(c)(4) social-welfare organization that was organized to provide Americans with a conservative and free-market viewpoint and mechanism to communicate and advocate on the issues that most interest and concern them.” According to the e-mail correspondence, a month after receiving the American Future Fund’s response, the FEC general counsel’s office — which is prohibited under law from conducting an investigation into an organization before the FEC’s six commissioners have voted to do so — contacted Lerner to investigate the agency’s tax-exempt status.

The FEC general counsel’s office, in its recommendation on the case, apparently didn’t tell the agency’s commissioners about how it had obtained the information about the group’s tax-exempt status. Recommending that the commissioners prosecute the American Future Fund, the general counsel’s office wrote, “According to its response, AFF submitted an application for tax-exempt status to the Internal Revenue Service . . . on March 18, 2008.” The footnote to that sentence reads, “The IRS has not yet issued a determination letter regarding AFF’s application for exempt status. Based on the information from the response and the IRS website, it is likely that the application is still under review.” In fact, an FEC lawyer knew that the organization had yet to obtain tax-exempt status because Lerner provided the confidential information.

The general counsel’s report was issued in September 2008, but it was over five months before the six FEC commissioners voted, in late-February 2009, on whether to prosecute the American Future Fund for violations of campaign-finance laws. (The typical lag time between the submission of a general counsel’s recommendation and a commission vote is about a month, according to a source familiar with the workings of the commission.) As the vote approached, on February 3, 2009, the FEC lawyer went back to Lerner for an update on the status of the American Future Fund’s application. “Could you please tell me whether the IRS has since issued an exemption letter to the American Future Fund? Also if the IRS has granted American Future Fund’s exemption, would it be possible for you to send me the publicly available information and documents related to American Future Fund?”

Despite the recommendations of the general counsel’s office, the six FEC commissioners split on whether to pursue the American Future Fund’s case andvoted six-to-zero to close the case.

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp and oversight-subcommittee chairman Charles Boustany are calling on the IRS, in the wake of these revelations, to provide all communications between the agency and the FEC between 2008 and 2012. “The American public is entitled to know whether the IRS is inappropriately sharing their confidential tax information with other agencies,” Camp and Boustany write in a letter they will send to acting IRS administrator Danny Werfel on Wednesday.

The FEC enforcement attorney also inquired about the tax-exempt status of another conservative organization, the American Issues Project. “I was also wondering if you could tell me whether the IRS had issued an exemption letter to a group called the American Issues Project? The group also appears to be the successor of two other organizations, Citizens for the Republic and Avenger, Inc.” Also sought were “any information and documents that would be publicly available in relation to the American Issues Project, Citizens for the Republic, or Avenger, Inc.”

Lerner was placed on paid administrative leave in late May after she revealed the IRS had inappropriately targeted conservative groups. The IRS has yet to respond to requests from lawmakers about her current employment status with the agency.

Peggy Noonan: Obama Got To Point Where People Stopped Listening To Him Faster Than Most Presidents.

Obama never thought that the nation would stop listening to him…but it has happened.

 

Peggy Noonan: Obama Got To Point Where People Stopped Listening To Him Faster Than Most Presidents

By Noel Sheppard | July 28, 2013 | 12:06

 896  856 Reddit12  29
A  A
Noel Sheppard's picture

“I think every president in the intense media environment we have now, certainly every two-term president, gets to a point where the American people stop listening, stop leaning forward hungrily for information. I think this president got there earlier than most presidents. And I think he’s in that time now.”

So said the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan on ABC’s This Week Sunday.

 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You are seeing (ph) more populist Democrats, I agree with that, but Peggy Noonan, you know, the president going back to the country one more time, it’s unclear that these speeches are doing much to move public opinion, much less Washington.PEGGY NOONAN, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Yes, I think that’s true. But when the White House calls it a pivot, somebody counted it up and said it’s probably the tenth pivot to the economy the president has done since he came in.

I noticed that in one of the speeches, it went over an hour. There was a heck of a lot jammed in. That tells me something. It said we’re not sure exactly what to say, so we’re going to say everything, but a speech about everything is a speech about nothing. Beyond that, I think every president in the intense media environment we have now, certainly every two-term president, gets to a point where the American people stop listening, stop leaning forward hungrily for information. I think this president got there earlier than most presidents. And I think he’s in that time now.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/07/28/peggy-noonan-obama-got-point-where-people-stopped-listening-him-faste#ixzz2aSJOaRqM

Mario’s note:

There are two ways to look at this:

1. Obama has failed so spectacularly, divided so completely, lied so consistently and broken laws so deliberately that it is hard to imagine how anyone can believe anything he says. 

2. With the media, education, Hollywood, and Unions protecting him and spinning his every failure with such total conviction and intimidation that it is hard to imagine how the message of his epic failure is finally getting through.

Whatever your stance, it remains a fact that America is tuning him out…finally.

Maybe now we can begin to cleanse the nation of pandemic corruption in the IRS, DOJ, NSA and find justice for the victims in Benghazi.

Why Do So Many ‘Born-Again, Spirit-Filled’ Women Show Off Cleavage in Church?

Watchman on the Wall, by Jennifer LeClaire

Why Do So Many ‘Born-Again, Spirit-Filled’ Women Show Off Cleavage in Church?

worship
Some women—and I am talking about mature believers, not lost souls or baby Christians—come into God’s sanctuary on Sunday morning dressed for clubbing. What gives?

“I know I’m inappropriate, but I’m trying to save time. I know I’m in the wrong. My mother would not approve. But would it be better that I not come?” Those werethe words of a 30-year-old woman entering church in Maryland wearing a revealing tank top and tight pants.

God bless her, but that’s in the same spirit as saying, “I know it’s inappropriate to cuss in church, but I can’t think of any better way to say it,” or, “I know it’s inappropriate to smoke during praise and worship, but I didn’t have time to finish my Marlboro on the way here.”

Some women—and I am talking about so-called “mature believers,” not lost souls or baby Christians—come into God’s sanctuary on Sunday morning wearing clothes you might rather expect to see them wearing at a dance club on Saturday night. Their blouses cling to their bodies, their necklines dip so low and stretch so wide that they reveal cleavage, and the slits up the sides of their skirts offer more than an innocent glimpse of their thighs. Again, I’m not talking about sinners seeking God or new believers who plain don’t know better. I’m talking about those who claim to be “born-again, baptized, blood-bought” (even tongue-talking) members of the church!

Paul instructed Timothy that women should “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation” (1 Tim. 2:9), and he told the church at Corinth that “our unpresentable parts have greater modesty” (1 Cor. 12:23). Regardless of how hot it is outside or how busy we are, there’s no justification for Spirit-filled women to come to church wearing clothes that cause some men to pay more attention to the things of the flesh than the things of the Spirit.

But rather than repenting, some of these progressive women are lashing out against campaigns likeModest Is Hottest, calling it sexist. In her critique of Modest Is Hottest, Sharon Hodde Miller, a doctoral student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, argues, “A woman’s breasts and buttocks and thighs all proclaim the glory of the Lord.” Maybe, but I somehow doubt Jesus intended for this aspect of His glory to manifest in church.

Worship artist Jaime Jamgochian launched Modest Is Hottest to reach out to teen girls with the love of Christ. She says, “I feel like there’s always more to it when a girl is dressed inappropriately than ‘I just want to look cute.’”

I agree—and the same goes for older women who call Jesus Lord. I’m not suggesting that women subscribe to the Holiness Movement’s guidelines for women’s clothing and makeup. No, I’m not suggesting religious rules and regulations. But I don’t think Christian women should dress like the worldly women in church or anywhere else. It’s not about a shame-based approach to modesty that Miller opines about in her column. It’s about self-respect—and respect for others.

“I love what Jaime is doing; she is right on: Modest is hottest! I think this is such a good message to convey. Jaime is not being sexist but rather sharing that as beautiful women of God we can look so gorgeous without being revealing,” says Alyssa Shull, a youth pastor at Words of Life in North Miami and founder of The Pink Lid, a conference designed for girls between the ages of 12-18 where beauty and purity are key themes.

“You are respecting yourself and those around you when you are modest,” Shull says. “Lust is very prevalent in our culture, but Jesus says in Matthew 5:28, even if you look at a woman with lust in your eyes it is adultery. So I believe that women can do their part and display themselves in a beautiful way without promoting lust. You can be stylish and modest! I agree with Shull and, as the mother of a 16-year-old girl, appreciate what she and Jamgochian are doing for young teens.

Again, it’s not about the sinner coming in to look for Jesus or the baby Christian still shaking off the dust of the world. We’re talking about tongue-talking women wearing clothes so tight they may as well have been spray-painted on and cleveage falling out of their blouses. That’s why Facebook comments about this topic like this one trouble me: “Get to where God sees and don’t worry about the wardrobe of another person unless you are inclined to buying them new clothes to wear.” And this one: “Even if they aren’t lost, they have an identity issue. Who are we to judge?”

If we can “judge” that they have an identity issue, can’t we judge that they shouldn’t be showing cleavage in church? Isn’t the Word of God clear on this matter? And it’s not our responsibility to buy a woman new clothes just because she’s wearing seductive garb to church. But it is our responsibility to speak the truth in love to those who may not know better and to lead by example. In too many ways—including sometimes our wardrobe—Christians have conformed to the world. Paul warned us not to “be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God (Rom. 12:2).

It’s not about being the fashion police, and it’s not about condemnation. If the Holy Spirit convicted your heart about the way you dress as you read this, don’t let the devil beat you up. Just buy a few new modest outfits and keep praising God! It’s about not purposely opening the door to the spirit of immorality. Sure, as one Facebook commenter noted, a woman could wear a burlap sack to church and still find lustful eyes upon her. But does that mean we let it all hang out in the name of liberty? God forbid.

To read a response from a guy’s point of view, click here.

Jennifer LeClaire is news editor at Charisma. She is also the author of several books, including The Spiritual Warrior’s Guide to Defeating Jezebel. You can email Jennifer at  jennifer.leclaire@charismamedia.com or visit her website hereYou can also join Jennifer on Facebook or follow her on Twitter.

Reza Aslan Misrepresents His Scholarly Credentials.

Monday, July 29, 2013, 11:03 AM

52485103.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large

There is a bit of a hubbub in the interwebs about an interview conducted by Lauren Green, religion correspondent for Fox News Channel, with Reza Aslan, author of a new book on Jesus titled Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Our friend Joe Carter, over at GetReligion, has the basic story. Green launched the interview (available here in full) with a question about why a Muslim should want to write a book about Jesus. A reasonable question, and not a hostile one on its face–but by the end of the interview Green has returned to it in a somewhat more accusatory fashion. As Joe says, the interview is a mess. But as he also points out, Green’s critics are passing right by something far more interesting: that Aslan has misrepresented his scholarly credentials.

In fact, it is Aslan who immediately turns the interview into a cage match by reacting very defensively to Green’s first question. And here is where the misrepresentations begin. For roughly the first half of the interview Aslan dominates the exchange with assertions about himself that seem intended to delay the substance of the discussion:

I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament . . . I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions . . . I am a professor of religions, including the New Testament–that’s what I do for a living, actually . . . To be clear, I want to emphasize one more time, I am a historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religions.

Later he complains that they are “debating the right of the scholar to write” the book rather than discussing the book. But the conversation took that turn thanks to Aslan, not Green! By the final minute he is saying of himself (and who really talks this way!?) that “I’m actually quite a prominent Muslim thinker in the United States.”

Aslan does have four degrees, as Joe Carter has noted: a 1995 B.A. in religion from Santa Clara University, where he was Phi Beta Kappa and wrote his senior thesis on “The Messianic Secret in the Gospel of Mark”; a 1999 Master of Theological Studies from Harvard; a 2002 Master of Fine Arts in Fiction from the University of Iowa; and a 2009 Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

None of these degrees is in history, so Aslan’s repeated claims that he has “a Ph.D. in the history of religions” and that he is “a historian” are false.  Nor is “professor of religions” what he does “for a living.” He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing program at the University of California, Riverside, where his terminal MFA in fiction from Iowa is his relevant academic credential. It appears he has taught some courses on Islam in the past, and he may do so now, moonlighting from his creative writing duties at Riverside. Aslan has been a busy popular writer, and he is certainly a tireless self-promoter, but he is nowhere known in the academic world as a scholar of the history of religion. And a scholarly historian of early Christianity? Nope.

What about that Ph.D.? As already noted, it was in sociology. I have his dissertation in front of me. It is a 140-page work titled “Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework.” If Aslan’s Ph.D. is the basis of a claim to scholarly credentials, he could plausibly claim to be an expert on social movements in twentieth-century Islam. He cannot plausibly claim, as he did to Lauren Green, that he is a “historian,” or is a “professor of religions” “for a living.”

It may be that Aslan sensed a tougher interview from Lauren Green than he is accustomed to. Hence he immediately went into high-dudgeon mode, and made the ten minutes all about her alleged disrespect of him and his alleged scholarly credentials. But in order to change the subject he told a string of gratuitous falsehoods about himself. Perhaps that master’s in fiction writing came in handy.

Is Aslan’s book worth reading? I have no idea. But he has earned enough distrust from me that I haven’t any interest in finding out.

4 IN 5 IN US FACE NEAR-POVERTY, NO WORK: HERE IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO.

Here is what we are going to do part two copy

 4 IN 5 IN US FACE NEAR-POVERTY, …HERE IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO.

By Mario Murillo

According to exclusive information from the Associated Press,  four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

Hardship is particularly on the rise among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families’ economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy “poor.”

Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in government data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.

More than 19 million whites fall below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four, accounting for more than 41 percent of the nation’s destitute, nearly double the number of poor blacks.

By 2030, based on current trends, 85 percent of all working-age adults in the U.S. will experience bouts of economic insecurity.  Just 45 percent say their family will have a good chance of improving their economic position based on the way things are in America.

 obamacare-logo_full

To understand why 80% of all Americans are facing poverty you can blame Obama’s obsession with Obamacare, the media’s obsession with Obama and the damage of Obamacare itself.

Obama was so pregnant with Obamacare that he squandered everything to create it.  Obamacare is why Obama did nothing about jobs when his party controlled both houses of Congress for two years.  For four years, Congress refused to even create a budget at Obama’s bidding so that the cost of Obamacare could not be evaluated.  Only Democrats voted for Obamacare.

To create Obamacare, the Democratic Party turned Congress into Frankenstein’s laboratory.  They perverted laws and parliamentary procedure like “reconciliation” to put the pieces of the corpse together.   Then the cadaver was elevated on a platform to the mainstream media which provided the lightning to bring the beast to life.

Obama, no statesman to begin with, was even worse under the spell of Obamacare.  He bungled foreign policy, made clumsy and arrogant power grabs, diminished our standing in the world, our net worth and possibly our life span.  In simple terms, American is beyond human solution.

HERE IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO:  The answer we seek is prescribed in the last verse of the Star Spangled Banner:

“Oh! Thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand between their loved home and the war’s desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.” And the Star – Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”

In this verse we find three things:  1. Strong medicine for our poverty and disgrace.  2. An act of honor and worship that will save us.  3. And finally, a nation rescuing declaration: “In God is our trust!”

GodBlessAmerica

1. Mario Murillo Ministries will henceforth refer to America as the HEAVEN RESCUED LAND.  Our national anthem declares that we were born from a divine rescue mission!  You cannot say that without also speaking of REVIVAL!  We are a nation of revivals.  We have been rescued by revivals.  Awakenings have come at key times in our history.

Just when doom was certain God has come on the American scene with a vengeance.  As a youth I began reading about the moral awakenings in our nation’s history.  I saw a pattern, a glorious tapestry of mercy and grace that visited us again and again.  My heart burned with the accounts of how entire cities would shut down to pray, how crime was abated and families restored.

Then I lived to see it with my own eyes in the Jesus Movement.  Millions of American youth were converted in the next two decades and the Church was ignited nationwide.

Revival is what we must seek and the nucleus of what we preach.

2. “Then conquer we must when our cause it is just.”  Mario Murillo Ministries will speak out because it is a just cause!  How shall we preachers allow false humility and political politeness to keep us silent in America’s darkest hour?  Combating the poverty that is spreading like locusts is a just cause.  Speaking out in defense of marriage and the unborn is a just cause.  To refuse government constraints on our First Amendment right to speak out in our pulpits is a just cause.

Lightning Strikes Oak Tree

3.  “In God is our trust.”  The enemy we face is sophisticated, organized and well-funded.  Any endeavor with a human origin is doomed from the start.   Going forward, every Pastor, leader and believer must saturate their plans in prayer and tune their souls to hear solutions from the Holy Spirit.  The ideas must come from Him.  The finances will come for divinely approved projects.  We will find the strategies we need, the words that will silence our enemy and the miracles that will confirm and convince a secular generation.

In conclusion:  To make a difference we must see the threat.  To retake the land we must call on God.  We must speak out loud and clear.  We must provoke the lukewarm to action and the lost to redemption.  The matter is summed up in the Prayer of Saint Peter:

“Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word,  by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.”- Acts 4: 29,30.

P.S.  We are moving full speed ahead on our next Living Proof Crusade!

Fairfield card insert