Advertisements
Home

VIDEO: ATLANTA POLICE OFFICER PRAYS OVER CHILD IN THE STREET

2 Comments

H/T Godfather Politics. 

I cannot get the video to embed

James 5:16 New Living Translation (NLT)

16 Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results.

A powerful video is sweeping through Georgia right now after it surfaced earlier today. The video shows an Atlanta police officer who took her job to a whole new level and was caught praying over a child in the street.

WSBTV reports:

This is video of officer Danielle Ognelodh praying over a child outside of Zone 1 in Bankhead.

Ognelodh said she was on duty when the boy came up to her and asked for prayer.

Someone then took out a cellphone and started recording.

Channel 2’s Audrey Washington spoke with Ognelodh about the moment the young boy approached her.

“We went outside and one of the kids asked for prayer. I sat there with the kids and we all prayed. They told me some things in their life that they were going through and that’s how the video happened,” Ognelodh said.

Ognelodh spoke about how she hopes her pretense in the neighborhood will build a stronger bond between police officers and the children, community.  It is such a touching thing to see.

Perhaps this will help be bridge between communities and their police officers, as they begin to realize that officers are just normal people who put on a uniform and work hard to keep people safe.

Advertisements

IN 1977 JIMMY CARTER SAID WE SHOULD HAVE RUN OUT OF OIL BY NOW

Leave a comment

H/T Godfather Politics.

Typical DemocRat wrong about everything.

Global Warming/Climate Change advocates claim that the debate is over. The science is settled. Debating the “science” behind the certainty of man-made Climate Change is like debating whether the earth is flat or round. So say supposedly 97 percent of all scientists. Rubbish.

A similar no-debate claim was made in the 1970s about peak oil — that there was a limited supply and we had nearly reached the limit. Keep this prediction in mind every time you hear some scientist tell us what the future will hold regarding this claim or that claim.

Like today’s Climate Change prognosticators, former President Jimmy Carter, using the science of his day in 1977, claimed that in 35 years the world would run out of oil.

 

In 2008, Salon magazine wrote that Carter’s “speech holds up pretty darn well today.” Here’s a very short video of Jimmy Carter making a similar predictive claim:

Now we’re swimming in the stuff. There’s so much oil being pumped out of the ground that the price of gasoline is less than a dollar in some places. If state, local, and federal taxes are taken out, and accounting for inflation, it borders on being cheaper than it’s ever been.

It’s not just about oil. Almost everything these prognosticators have claimed have turned out to be wrong — very wrong.

Paul Ehrlich made more apocalyptic predictions that scientists took seriously. Ehrlich makes today’s Global Warming Chicken Littles seem like Pollyanna. “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” Ehrlich wrote. “In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”1

In the first edition of his book The Population Bomb, Ehrlich stated:

“There is not enough food today. How much there will be tomorrow is open to debate. If the optimists are correct, today’s level of misery will be perpetuated for perhaps two decades into the future. If the pessimists are correct, massive famines will occur soon, possibly in the early 1970’s, certainly by the early 1980’s. So far most of the evidence seems to be on the side of the pessimists, and we should plan on the assumption that they are correct. After all, some two billion people aren’t being properly fed in 1968!”2

In 1969, Ehrlich continued with his predictions, stating, “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.” The same year, he predicted in an article entitled “Eco-Catastrophe!” that by 1980 the United States would see life expectancy drop to 42 years because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would plummet to 22.6 million.

The facts tell a different story.

“All you can see is growing wealth around the world, increased caloric intake, increased life expectancy, increased per-capita wealth,” says Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies for the Cato Institute, a Washington research center that opposes most government intervention.

“We are increasingly conquering death around the world,” Taylor adds. “A century ago, human life expectancy was about 30 years. Now it’s 60 or 70 years. People are not starving to death. They are getting better food and they are living longer.”3

In the mid-seventies, with the release of his book The End of Affluence,4 Ehrlich outlined a Hollywood-style disaster scenario where he foresaw the President dissolving Congress “during the food riots of the 1980s,” followed by the United States suffering a nuclear attack for its mass use of insecticides. Like Malthus before him, in 1969 Ehrlich did not see much of a future for England. “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”5

In 1976, he went beyond predicting food scarcity and took it upon himself to make unfounded pronouncements about natural resources. “Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.”6

Economist Julian Simon won a bet with Paul Ehrlich on whether the price of five strategic metals which Ehrlich chose (copper, chrome, nickel, tin, tungsten) would rise or fall in a ten-year period from 1980 to 1990. All five metals went down in price. Ehrlich lost the bet.7

First it was the inevitability of Global Cooling, then it was the inevitability of Peak Oil, and now it’s the inevitability of climate disaster if the government doesn’t step in and save Planet Earth. Of course, it’s going to cost a boatload of money, but it will be worth it!

In 1977 Jimmy Carter Said We Should Have Run Out of Oil by Now

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Jimmy Carter and his fellow loons are now telling us that Globull Warming/Climate Change is the problem now.

We see how credible the peanut boob and fellow loons were with their prediction that we would run out of oil.

In my corner of Indiana we have between 1.5-3 inches of Globull Warming/Climate Change.

Global Warming/Climate Change advocates claim that the debate is over. The science is settled. Debating the “science” behind the certainty of man-made Climate Change is like debating whether the earth is flat or round. So say supposedly 97 percent of all scientists. Rubbish.

A similar no-debate claim was made in the 1970s about peak oil — that there was a limited supply and we had nearly reached the limit. Keep this prediction in mind every time you hear some scientist tell us what the future will hold regarding this claim or that claim.

Like today’s Climate Change prognosticators, former PresidentJimmy Carter, using the science of his day in 1977, claimed that in 35 years the world would run out of oil.

 

Jimmy Carter_Peak Oil

In 2008, Salon magazine wrote that Carter’s “speech holds up pretty darn well today.” Here’s a very short video of Jimmy Carter making a similar predictive claim:

Now we’re swimming in the stuff. There’s so much oil being pumped out of the ground that the price of gasoline is less than a dollar in some places. If state, local, and federal taxes are taken out, and accounting for inflation, it borders on being cheaper than it’s ever been.

It’s not just about oil. Almost everything these prognosticators have claimed have turned out to be wrong — very wrong.

Paul Ehrlich made more apocalyptic predictions that scientists took seriously. Ehrlich makes today’s Global Warming Chicken Littles seem like Pollyanna. “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” Ehrlich wrote. “In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”1

In the first edition of his book The Population Bomb, Ehrlich stated:

“There is not enough food today. How much there will be tomorrow is open to debate. If the optimists are correct, today’s level of misery will be perpetuated for perhaps two decades into the future. If the pessimists are correct, massive famines will occur soon, possibly in the early 1970’s, certainly by the early 1980’s. So far most of the evidence seems to be on the side of the pessimists, and we should plan on the assumption that they are correct. After all, some two billion people aren’t being properly fed in 1968!”2

In 1969, Ehrlich continued with his predictions, stating, “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.” The same year, he predicted in an article entitled “Eco-Catastrophe!” that by 1980 the United States would see life expectancy drop to 42 years because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would plummet to 22.6 million.

The facts tell a different story.

“All you can see is growing wealth around the world, increased caloric intake, increased life expectancy, increased per-capita wealth,” says Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies for the Cato Institute, a Washington research center that opposes most government intervention.

“We are increasingly conquering death around the world,” Taylor adds. “A century ago, human life expectancy was about 30 years. Now it’s 60 or 70 years. People are not starving to death. They are getting better food and they are living longer.”3

In the mid-seventies, with the release of his book The End of Affluence,4 Ehrlich outlined a Hollywood-style disaster scenario where he foresaw the President dissolving Congress “during the food riots of the 1980s,” followed by the United States suffering a nuclear attack for its mass use of insecticides. Like Malthus before him, in 1969 Ehrlich did not see much of a future for England. “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”5

In 1976, he went beyond predicting food scarcity and took it upon himself to make unfounded pronouncements about natural resources. “Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.”6

Economist Julian Simon won a bet with Paul Ehrlich on whether the price of five strategic metals which Ehrlich chose (copper, chrome, nickel, tin, tungsten) would rise or fall in a ten-year period from 1980 to 1990. All five metals went down in price. Ehrlich lost the bet.7

First it was the inevitability of Global Cooling, then it was the inevitability of Peak Oil, and now it’s the inevitability of climate disaster if the government doesn’t step in and save Planet Earth. Of course, it’s going to cost a boatload of money, but it will be worth it!

  1. Quoted in Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulations as a Basis for Social Policy (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 67. [↩]
  2. Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (Binghamton, NY: Sierra Club, 1969), 36B37). [↩]
  3. Jeff Nesmith, “6 Billion and Growing Fast,” The Atlanta Journal/Constitution(October 10, 1999), D3. [↩]
  4. Paul R. Ehrlich, The End of Affluence: A Blueprint for Your Future (New York: Ballantine Books, 1974). [↩]
  5. Quoted in Michael Fumento, “Doomsayer Paul Ehrlich Strikes Out Again,”Investor’s Business Daily (December 16, 1997). [↩]
  6. Quoted in Fumento, “Doomsayer Paul Ehrlich Strikes Out Again.” [↩]
  7. For an account of the wager, see John Tierney, “Betting the Planet,” New York Times Magazine (December 2, 1990), 52. Copper is being replaced in the communication’s industry by “fiber optics.” Two hair-thin fiber optic strands can carry 24,000 telephone calls. It would take 48,000 copper wires to carry the same number of calls. [↩]

How Gun Control Advocates Could Take Your Guns With One Law

4 Comments

This is from Godfather Politics.

If this law was to pass I can see hundreds of thousands of lost or stolen gun reports. 

I thought about whether I should write an article on how gun control advocates might go about confiscating guns with almost no physical force. They might actually do it just like this.

“So, I would like you to explain with 350 million guns in 65 million places, households, from Key West, to Alaska, 350 million objects in 65 million places, if the Federal government wanted to confiscate those objects, how would they do that?”

This was a question that was asked in the great town hall gun show starring Barack Obama.

It’s simple: Pass a law that if people do not turn in their guns they will be fined $250,000 for each gun.

Will everyone turn in their guns? Probably not. But any use of them would almost bankrupt the typical gun owner.

Look what happened to the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa for not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding. They were fined $135,000 and had their bank accounts emptied.

Consider what New York City is doing with a draconian law that could fine someone up to $250,000 for using the wrong pronoun for any number of sexual preferences.

Read related article: “You Could be Fined $250,000 for using the Wrong Pronoun.”

The government doesn’t need to go door-to-door for full gun control. It only needs to make it very expensive for gun owners ever to show or use their guns.

In fact, since most guns are registered, the government could send gun owners a bill for $250,000 for every registered gun. The only way gun owners could get the bill cancelled is to turn in their guns. Failure to do so could be very expensive.

criminals love gun control

Of course, criminals would not have to worry about these huge fines if their guns had been stolen since they could not be traced to them. Any gun owner who did not report his gun stolen would be out of luck.

Like drugs, guns could be purchased at a premium on the black market, but if an otherwise law abiding citizen ever used an illegally purchased gun in self-defense, the shooting victim could very likely sue the shooter. He could claim that he only broke into the house because there was a law prohibiting gun ownership.

If guns had not been outlawed, he never would have broken into the house.

Conceal Carrier Politely Rebuffs Gun Control Fanatic

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This is a very classy response to a gun control loon.

Over the years I’ve had a number of opportunities to converse, debate and even argue with anti-gun people who want more gun control and fewer people owning guns.

I’ll admit that some of those conversations have gotten rather heated on both sides. Yes, I’ll also admit that I’m as fanatical about protecting my Second Amendment rights to protect my family and myself.

I’m sure if had the opportunity to speak face-to-face with Barack Obama or Michael Bloomberg that it wouldn’t take long for the conversation to get rather heated and intense.

Saying that, I have to admit that I could learn a lesson from a conceal carry gentlemen who recently had the displeasure of riding next to an anti-gun fanatic on his commute to work into Boston. The fanatic was on his phone talking to someone and expressing his opinions rather loudly.

Knowing my impetuous nature, I would have probably confronted the man right then and there, but the conceal carrying commuter opted for discretion at the time and then wrote a letter to the Boston Globe rebuffing the fanatic. He elegantly penned a response that is very much worth sharing:

“TO THE man I sat next to on my way in to Boston:

When I boarded the commuter rail, you were already in the midst of a spirited phone conversation and didn’t seem to care about how loud you were talking. You were talking with someone about the Paris train attack and the growing epidemic of gun violence in America.

You spoke about the ‘murderous NRA’ and ‘bloodthirsty gun nuts’ who were causing our schools to ‘run red with blood.’ You spoke profanely of the Republicans who opposed President Obama’s call for ‘sensible gun control,’ and you lamented the number of ‘inbred redneck politicians’ who have ‘infiltrated Capitol Hill.’

I found myself amazed at the irony of the situation. While you were spewing your venom, I sat quietly next to you with my National Rifle Association membership card in my wallet and my 9mm pistol in its holster. You were only 12 inches away from my legally owned semiautomatic pistol. I suppose I didn’t look like the ‘bloodthirsty gun nut’ you thought I should be. It apparently didn’t register to you that I could so cleverly disguise myself by wearing a fleece coat, Patriots hat, and khakis.

So, to the angry liberal who sat next to me on the commuter rail: I don’t hate you. I don’t have any ill feelings toward you. I don’t wish to do you harm. And I don’t regret sitting next to you. On the contrary; I feel bad for you. It must hurt carrying that much hate inside of you.

You obviously have strong opinions about this hot topic. So, let me say this as plainly as I can: If a bad guy with a gun had decided to walk onto that train and start shooting people, I would have been prepared and able to use my gun to defend my own life and the lives of everyone else on that train, including yours. Although you may hate me, a gun owner, I would risk my life for you.

Opinions and ideologies make a pretty thin shield against the bullets of a madman. Your liberal self-righteousness and ignorance may have made you feel superior and comfortable, but during that 40-minute train ride to Boston, my gun kept you safe.

A. Linden
Dighton”

To use an old cliché, the pen is mightier than the sword and A. Linden Dighton used his to masterfully slay the fanatic’s rant and instead of doing it front of just a few fellow commuters he did it in front of the entire city of Boston and then some.

When he wrote about the irony of the situation, I can’t help but think about how other anti-gun fanatics like Barack Obama surround themselves with armed guards. He boldly travels around with who knows how many armed Secret Service agents. His girls attend a private school with at least 11 armed guards on duty during school hours.

Michael Bloomberg enjoyed the protection of armed security and/or police officers while he was mayor of New York City. Whenever he took the opportunity to condemn guns, he was only feet away from his armed protection detail. The same is true with Hillary Clinton.

Many of the people that blame guns for violence fail to realize that guns are what helps to keep them safe and secure in their homes. In most cases, a nation is only safe and secure because it has enough guns and weapons to protect itself. It’s no difference with the people in a community. You don’t see some idiot walking into rob a bar frequented by off duty law enforcement officers. Instead you see them targeting places that are known to be gun free establishments like schools, theaters, government facilities and certain businesses.

The bottom line is that if it wasn’t for so many Americans being armed and ready to use their guns, America would have been lost years ago, but sadly that’s a fact that liberals fail or refuse to accept and acknowledge and it’s up to us to educate them as politely as A. Linden Dighton.

The Gun Control Song” is a Must See and Hear

2 Comments

This is from Godfather Politics.

It’s sung to Billy Joel’s “Only the Good Die Young.” It’s sure to be conservative classic that you’ll want to share with your friends and maybe some of your gun-foe, anti-Second Amendment frenemies.

“On December 16, satirist Dan Joseph released ‘The Gun Control Song,’ mocking President Obama’s habit of responding to high-profile shootings by calling for more gun control while “blood is still fresh on the ground.”

“Joseph uses the song to address Obama’s habit of politicizing tragedy — for the purposes of pushing gun control — by calling for gun controls that would not have stopped the shootings in the first place. He also points out the hypocrisy of using the behavior of criminals as a springboard for new laws on law-abiding citizens and points to the foolishness of pretending criminals — who already ignore gun control — could somehow be constrained by more of it.”

This is one of my favorite lines: “So go up to Chicago, stay there a bit, soon you’ll wish you had a concealed carry permit. Because the laws there ain’t worth a bucket of spit, but break into my house and you better run, cause I’m a good guy and I have a gun.”

Update: It seems that some people didn’t like the song and complained by using the old “copyright infringement” ploy and blocked the video after I posted it.

At this point in time, I found another link that’s operable:

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/27232/the-gun-control-song-is-a-must-see-and-hear/#7Zfm3xdOJFph8ejH.99

ACLU Board Member Urges People to Kill Supporters of Donald Trump

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics. 

Just think of the Hell that would be raised if some nut case, claiming to be a Conservative advocated killing supporters of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Liberals apparently don’t know the meaning of the word liberal. “Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.” Liberal used to mean “liberty.”

Today, liberalism means “if you don’t do what we say as liberals, then we will persecute you, force you out of universities, fire you from leadership roles in high-profile companies, and label you as Nazis.”

Now add to that new definition the threat of real violence in the name of “justice”:

“A board member for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado has resigned after urging people to kill supporters of presidential candidate Donald Trump.

“Loring Wirbel’s Facebook post was captured by The Daily Caller – a right-leaning online newspaper.

“The post states, ‘The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, “This is [Joseph] Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before Election Day.” They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there’s always force, [as Laurie1 would say] …’” (H/T: CBS Denver)
Loring-Goebbels

So while comparing Trump to Goebbels, the ACLU’s Wirbel adopts the political remedy Goebbels had used — death to the political opposition!

Notice his faux solidarity with the victims of the Paris massacre in the upper left-hand corner of his post — Eiffel Tower overlaid with the French flag — and yet he is an advocate of the same type of misguided and evil “justice” as the shooters.

  1. From a line in Laurie Anderson’s 1981 song “O Superman (For Massenet)” [

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/27102/aclu-board-member-urges-people-to-kill-supporters-of-donald-trump/#JwIIHoUX1beRuZJv.99

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: