Global Warming Disproved Once and For All

July 29, 2011

NASA has just released satellite data proving that CO2 has not caused global warming. It would seem that the “deniars” were right and the ultra left wing whackos like Gore were all wrong. In addition to the NASA satellite data, here is some science explaining in laymen’s terms why global warming is just not possible based upon the published reports of the “willing accomplices in the media”

At least the unethical and/or the leftist scientists do. The Scientific Method was invented by Galileo to insure ethical research protocols independent of popular thinking. Galileo was persecuted by the scientific community when his research indicated that the Earth revolved around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the Earth. This contradicted popular consensus of the time. He died penniless, persecuted and correct in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus.

Today ethical scientists abide by the Scientific Method in their research. The unethical scientists and leftists have abandoned that protocol in favor of “consensus”. The IPCC, Al Gore and the media keep talking about consensus about Global Warming theories. They don’t talk about any proofs derived through the Scientific Method because there are none.

Part of what makes the Scientific Method credible is the solid foundation that requires any scientific hypothesis to be verifiable, testable, repeatable and open to critique by any scientist in the world. In fact scientific journals are published to disseminate research findings and make them open to scientific peers. In response to that, we have scientists complaining around the world that they are “blackballed” from getting their refutation articles printed in scientific journals. We have had had a Congressional hearing about the widespread censorship preventing scientists from coming forward to expose the fraud. We have had mainstream professors and research scientists complaining that the IPCC suppresses any dissenting articles and does not even report that there are any. We have Nancy Pelosi openly threatening any scientists who don’t toe the PC line on global warming to cancel their research grants. That is not only a violation of scientific protocols and the Scientific Method, it is felony extortion. Similarly, we have had the head of The Weather Channel, Heidi Cullen suggesting that any meteorologist who contradicts the global warming tenants have his credentials revoked. This is also felony extortion. These women have not been called on it much as less prosecuted.


We are also troubled by environmentalists who view it a as secular religion. For them it is about faith and feelings. They can’t be bothered by facts and logic. Facts and logic do not resonate with them. They have adopted an alternative religion and for them it enables themselves to have a positive self-image. Whatever is stated in the name of saving the planet is never ever questioned or fact checked. To question it or fact check it to the environmentalist is a Christian’s equivalent to heresy. It is if we are denying God’s existence. Critics are dismissed, criticized, maligned and rendered irrelevant. For the environmentalist, there is no room for discussion. It is “us against them”. The resemblance between radical environmentalists and cults are eerily similar.

What is observed are the global warming cabal’s own writings. They characterize themselves as culturally and intellectually superior. They condescendingly refer to anyone who disagrees with them as: “The Cro Magnin Fringe”, Deniers, “under-educated” ignorant and so on.

Here are some scientific refutation facts that you should be aware of: Man caused global warming due to increased CO2 is a theory based upon a flawed computer model on the part of the IPCC. That theory posits that CO2 will rise into the atmosphere and stay there for 100 years. The IPCC claims that this will be cumulative and causing a “green house effect” thus causing the earth to warm.

Here is the scientific refutation. CO2 has a specific gravity of 1.52 which means that it is 152% heavier than air and thus sinks to the ground when released. This is why we use it in fire extinguishers. The CO2 sinks to the ground and starves a fire from oxygen. You can’t do away with the Law of Gravity. Now it is true that we have wind blown particles of CO2 in the air, just like we have wind blown dust particles in the air. The truth is that when the wind dies down, gravity pulls the dust and the CO2 out of the air and it settles back down to the ground. We went from 300 PPM (parts per million) before the Industrial Revolution to 380 PPM over the last 100 years. That is an increase of 80 PPM. The fractional equivalent of 80 PPM is 8/100,000ths of 1%. That is a trace amount by any objective standard. Trace amounts are allowed in our food. The FDA even has standards for trace amounts of rat droppings in our food. People urinate in the pool while they are swimming. We all know that and yet we all swim in the pool. The amount of urine compared to the whole volume of the swimming pool is so small that it is not a factor.


Black Balloons is the title of a commercial that epitomizes the kind of outright rank fraud being perpetrated by the global warming cabal. You can see it for yourself by simply punching it into your search engine. Gore touted this commercial in a segment with Larry King. It is a slickly and professionally produced commercial with a voice over narration by Tommie Lee Jones. It depicts black balloons ostensibly being filled with CO2 from different appliances. The balloons fill and then break free from the appliance and float up to the ceiling and out a window joining thousands of other balloons to illustrate how we pollute the atmosphere. What is fraudulent is that they filled those balloons with a lighter than air gas of Helium. If they had in fact filled them with CO2, they would have sunk to the ground. The media never made an outcry over this rank fraud. It is illustrative of the fraud going on the movement.

We are told that we are at a “tipping point” and that we are all in imminent danger thus requiring drastic alterations in our lifestyle, or at least mitigate it with carbon taxes.

Around the world, we put billions of cubic feet of CO2 into the atmosphere from distilling beer, wine and hard liquor. We also put billions of cubic feet of CO2 into the atmosphere from bread making. We even manufacture billions of cubic feet of CO2 to put fizz and taste into our soft drinks. In this country alone, the per capita consumption of soft drinks is an amazing 47.2 gallons. Ask yourselves, if we are at a dangerous tipping point that requires immediate cutbacks of CO2 into the atmosphere, why are the scientists not asking or demanding that we cease production of these carbon offending products? This is of course a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious. The public would revolt and we would not get any agreement at all to give the radical environmentalists what they are asking for.

In the mainstream media, we have been subjected to numerous scare tactic claims. We have been told that: we are going to have massive flooding due to glacier melt and ice burgs melting, that we are going to have “massive saltwater fish kills” due to that same glacier melting, that polar bears are either going to drown or starve due to the ice pack melting. We were previously told that we were going to have global warming because Freon was eating a hole in the ozone.


One of the big scare tactics by global warming alarmists is massive flooding due to ice melt. They conveniently forget to tell you that Newton ‘s Third Law of Physics has not been disproved. His law states that: FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION. This means that if we have ice melting due to warming temperatures, there will be an exponential increase in the rate of evaporation from the oceans. This evaporation is part what is called THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE. The Hydrologic Cycle simply means that the rivers run into the oceans, the sun evaporates water from the ocean surface, distilling it and removing the salt in the process, the water vapor rises into the atmosphere where it is dispensed in the form of rain or snow which falls on the ground and runs off into the rivers where the rivers run back into the ocean. So in actuality, the oceans would actually decrease in height due to global warming not increase.

Al Gore stated that the floating ice burgs melting would also cause flooding in his movie; AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. You can disprove this yourselves because of Archimede’s Law of Displacement. You simply fill a Styrofoam cup above the rim with ice cubes to simulate ice burgs. You then fill the glass to the rim with water causing the cubes to float like ice burgs. Allow the ice cubes to melt. You will not have any water leaking over the side thus easily disproving Mr. Gore’s claim.


We have been warned that there would be massive saltwater fish kills due to the fresh water infusion into the saltwater environment from melting ice pack. This sounds reasonable on its face. If you go back to the Hydrologic Cycle, we have rivers running into the sea all over the world. Examine The Mississippi River . It is the third largest drainage basin in the entire world. Its flow rate is 4 million gallons per second. Now ice melting could never equal that flow and in spite of it, there are no saltwater fish kills at the mouth of the Mississippi River . This is due to the Diffusion Principle. You can be reminded of that Diffusion Principle back to the urination in the pool.


If you look up in any scientific text, you will find that polar bears are classified as marine mammals like seals or walrus. You will also note that in that text, it will tell you that polar bears can swim 60 miles non-stop at a speed of 6 mph, more than twice as fast as a human. Drowning is not a factor in a healthy polar bear.


Polar bears primary diet is seal pups. Seals try and protect their pups by hiding them in snow caves below the ice surface. Bears smell the pups in the caves and try and catch them by breaking the ice surface to reach the cave and the pup. Bears are only successful in about 1 out of 6 attempts. If the ice pack melted, then the seals would be forced to having their pups on land. This would result in a veritable buffet of seal pups for the bears, thus causing the bear population to actually increase due to the extra food available. It is a little known fact that animals increase or decrease their rate of reproduction according to the available food in their habitat.


Remember that scare tactic back in the 1970′s? Scientists have quietly backed away from that claim. This is because we outlawed Freon in 1989 and it has made no difference in the ozone. The difference it has made is to increase the cost of an alternative coolant over 500%. Despite the fact that their theory was disproved, scientists have not made such an admission and pushed for re-legalization of Freon which is much cheaper for cooling.

Confronted with this contradiction to their theory, scientists are now claiming that it is CO2 which is causing a “Green House Effect”. There was never an actual hole in the ozone. There was only a seasonal shift in the thickness of the ozone layer at the poles. The thinning is a natural occurrence due to the fact that it at the poles where the earth spins on its axis. This would naturally cause what is defined as a vortex. You see a thinning of the air in the center of a tornado which is another naturally occurring vortex. The thinning changes during the seasons because of Boyles Law and Charles Law of Gasses. Scientists never bothered to explain their theory in view of the evidence that: Gasses have no magical magnetic properties that would cause them to race thousands of miles to the poles and then magically re-concentrate themselves into this toxic soup to eat a hole in the ozone. They also did not bother to explain how Freon could then rise up into the Troposphere where the thinning occurs since Freon is a heavier than air gas weighing 134% more than air. Scientists also did not bother to explain why there was no atmospheric thinning over the land masses in the warmer climates like Florida and California and Mexico where the Freon was actually released.

Global Cooling

NASA quietly and without fanfare corrected their temperature records because a blogger reminded them that the warmest year on record was actually back in 1934 during the Great Dust Bowls. This is long before the expansion of the Industrial Revolution and its corresponding increases of CO2.

We have had atmospheric cooling for the last 8 years with record lows being set around the world. For example, San Francisco never got above 71 degrees in June this year for the first time ever since we have been keeping temperature records. This flies in the face of global warming theory and is an utter contradiction. Scientists and Mr. Gore have quietly changed their rhetoric to talk about “climate change” instead of global warming in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Now that Congress is poised to inflict carbon taxes and Cap and Trade legislation, it would behoove us to look at both sides of the issue which are conspicuously absent in the mainstream media. Carbon taxes are sure to be a business killer. We are in a deep recession with thousands of businesses going belly up. There are tens of thousands more businesses, just barely hanging on. President Obama said during his campaign he “he would tax businesses out of business if they did not meet his carbon requirements”. Businesses need to start lobbying Congress for their own survival.

What then as a society should be our role? Should we blindly accept increased costs and taxes based upon a flawed and disproved theory ? My answer is no, what is yours? What will you do about it to give voice to your concerns?</

Sexual Advice For Single Women

July 27, 2011

It is no wonder that you women are more confused than ever. You have been bombarded by multiple conflicting messages about sex and relationships. In a case of “Art Imitating Life” the TV show entitled: Sex in the City demonstrated women’s sense of conflictedness about sex and relationships. They proved to be ultimately clueless and tended to reinforce their own stereotypes. Carrie, the supposed expert on sex based upon her column was just as clueless about men and relationships as the rest of her girlfriends. This illustrates a problem in our society. We do not have any male advice columnists. If you are having trouble with a man, does it not make sense that you would go to a man for advice and counsel? The problem is, is that there are no nationally published male advice columnists.

I have confronted women’s magazine editors over the issue that their advice to women is always written by women. Invariably, these advice writers rarely confront women to tell them that they are doing anything wrong or damaging to their relationship with their man. What you get effectively from these writers is that they pat women on the bottom and reassure them that they are fine and it is the man’s fault. I will address this further in another chapter on how the feminists and the media are ruining your sex life. I will also explain the word MISANDRY in that chapter. It is a word and a concept that you really need to become familiar with and to be proactive in combating.

I differ from women advice columnists in that I am equal opportunity proponent. I take on men when they need to be confronted, and I take on women as well. I explain how each hurts their relationship, wittingly or unwittingly. If you really want to learn things and make things better in your relationship and are willing to hear critique, then I am your guy. If you just want me to be patronizing and pat you on the fanny and tell you that you are wonderful, don’t read my column.

Not only will I take on the feminists and the media, I will take on the church as well. I can do this because I was formerly a Baptist minister.
The church ignores the sexual issues that are contained in the Bible. There are numerous positive messages in the Bible about sex. There is even a school for sex mandated in the New Testament for women in how to love their husbands that you never hear preached or taught on.
According to the Bible, sex is a gift from God. All you ever hear in church are the “thou shall nots” about sex, you never hear any positive messages on sex or the positive commands about sex in the Bible.

You can’t trust the media either. All they ever want to do is print the sensational and the salacious. Truth is rarely found in the pages of the media. For example, according to the media, they often quote: “The world’s oldest profession” is prostitution. This is not even close to being true. If the media had any integrity, and believe me they don’t, they would tell you about all of the other professions that came before prostitution. You can find these professions listed in the Bible in succession: Shepherd, farmer, contractor, rancher, musician, blacksmith, hunter, boat-builder, winemaker, well digger and then prostitution. None of that of course is sensational and would not sell newspapers, so they sacrifice truth for sensationalism, expediency and profits. Trust nothing that you read in print without checking it out with numerous other sources.

Now let me give you some very important advice about sex and men, especially if you are single. Sex in dating has become so devalued that it is looked on as little more than a good night kiss. It is not a question of if, but only when you have sex with a guy you are dating.
I submit to you that you need to become much more selective about engaging in sex. Women have adapted the practice of having sex with the guy and hoping for the best. You are invariably disappointed. You are looking for that “knight in shining armor” to sweep you off of your feet. You want the “happily ever after” of love marriage and children. I submit to you that you need to get to know early on what the man is all about and what his goals are in terms of love and marriage. Often guys are just looking to have fun with a woman and have casual sex. In other words, many of them are just looking to get laid. You need to get rid of those guys before you ever let them into your bed and into your pants. You really don’t want to just be used as someone’s piece of ass.

Too many of you are so taken with romance that you don’t want to ask any hard questions up front, to your own detriment. The problem is, that for every guy that you sleep with that does not develop into a relationship, you become a little harder, more jaded and cynical and less trusting. You must guard your heart and your body. We have epidemic venereal diseases today, some of which are lifelong, or even fatal. Before you let that guy into your pants, you need to see a very recent negative Aids test and testing for all other venereal diseases like Herpes. I know that sounds very cold and unromantic, but I am trying to be pragmatic here and protect you. You need to protect yourselves. Any guy worth having will not have a problem with doing this for you. If he is unwilling, run the other direction.

The other thing is that you want to know that he has a good job that he can provide for your family. You also want to know if he is seriously marriage and family minded. What kind of father does he aspire to be? These are questions that you need to have answered before you ever engage in sex with him. If he passes on all of these questions and you are still considering sleeping with him and he still wants to be with you, he needs to pass one final test before you have sex with him. You need to ask him to read the part of this book that teaches men how to make love with you. Sadly, there is no “SCHOOL FOR SEX FOR MEN” out there to teach them how to make love with you and satisfy you. You already know from experience that what I am saying is true. Most men are just clueless about making love with a woman. Even if he is reasonably okay in bed, reading my instructions will make him fantastic in bed. Don’t you want to have a great sex life? So bottom line is to have him read my instructions and reassure you that he is willing to follow those directions in bed. If he does this, then have sex with him.

This will take 3 or 4 dates to find this information out. You could take matters into your own hands and go online to dating sites and put all of this in your profile. You don’t need to date a lot of men, you need to date a few quality men that are already pre-screened by your clear description of what you are looking for in a man that is contained in your profile. Yes, I know that it will scare a lot of men off. That is my idea. You don’t need the men that it will scare off, you need the men who read it and it makes sense to them. We have a model of what a good man should look like in the Bible as listed in the following verses:

Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it;…so men out men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the church;…For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh…Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; Ephesians 5: 25,28,29,31,33

Likewise you husbands, dwell with them according to the knowledge, giving honor unto the wife as the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life that your prayers might not be hindered. I Peter 3:7

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking who he may destroy. I Peter 5:8

I would even encourage you to put these scriptures in your profile in describing the kind of man that you are looking for. You are then again by using these scriptures in your profile pre-screening guys that are not seriously marriage minded.

I know that you still dream of the “happily ever after”. According to David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead who are co-directors of the Marriage Project at Rutgers University, they have found the following factors yield the best chance at long-lasting satisfying marriage: having similar goals and interests, know each other well but don’t live together before they get married, come from intact families, marry after age 25, and are not expecting a child, similar in age, race, religion, political beliefs, education, intelligence and values. The payoff of a good marriage is personal happiness, more and better sex than singles, economic success, health and long life, and very positive benefits for the children.
This is the kind of advice that I have given to single women in my family. If you follow it, you have a much higher chance of having “happily ever after”.

We The People Can and Will Vote You Out Mr President

July 23, 2011

We The People Can and Will Vote You Out Mr President.

Hey Guys, Here are 10 Tips From Women On How To Get Them To Give You More Sex

July 22, 2011

We got women to confess what makes a man irresistible. Follow these tips to become that guy.

1. Play the Name Game
“Say my name, often. It makes me feel as though you’re totally focused on me.”

2. Pay Up
“Be generous when we’re on a date—offer to pay, tip well. It will make me think you’re just as giving in bed.”

3. Get Your Hands on Her
“Touch me on the arm while talking to me, on my shoulder if standing above me, on my hips if standing behind me, around my waist if walking beside me. It’s a subtle but effective way to let me know you’re genuinely interested.”

4. Ace a Classic Move
“On a cold night, wrap me up in your coat and kiss me on the forehead. It’s a movie-style move that makes me go weak in the knees.”

5. Excite Her Entire Body
“Sweep the hair away from the back of my neck and kiss me there. It sends sexy tingles everywhere.”

6. Be a Gentle Man
“Be gentle when you’re touching my clitoris—I can always thrust towards you to show you I need more pressure.”

7. Speak Softly
“Whisper in my ear while we’re having sex. Tell me how amazing my skin feels, how sexy I am and how good it feels to be inside me.”

8. Get Rough with Her
“I love it when a guy is playfully rough in bed—a tender bite, a bit of hair-tugging—it make sex feel even more passionate.”

9. Be Her Alarm Clock
“Wake me up at 5 a.m. by heading down under. I may be half asleep, but I’ll soon be smiling all over.”

10. Say Something
“Make contact the next day. This rule holds true forever.”

Read more:

Atheistic Hate Speech Demonstrated Against A Christian and Christian Woman Turns The Tables On Them

July 21, 2011

This is a guest blog post by a fellow blogger Susan Shannon who wrote with me on another blog called Rants and Rage. The owner, Lyn May allowed a homosexual atheist to write all manner of vile hate speech against me. I implored Lynn to stop the name calling and hate speech and he refused. Susan then turned the tables on them with the following hate speech turned on them and they could not take it. Then Lyn kicked Susan off and I had already left the blog for good. I encourage you to send to Lyn your persoonal comments regarding this.
His personal email is

Want to See Atheist Relative Morality in Action?

Posted: July 19, 2011 by short little rebel in Politics, Religion
Tags: Atheism, Christianity, God, relative morality, religion, universal morality

Church Protested This Atheist Billboard

My friend a co-writer, Lyn May- an avowed atheist, posted an article about a church protesting a sign that advocated the atheist lifestyle. He wrote that this was an outrage. Needless to say, the comment section became a dialog between conservative bloggers and atheist bloggers. While most of these discussions degrade into fruitless badgering, this discussion has become a living example of relative morality espoused by those who reject the notion of God & Universal Morality and Christians who believe that all humans are innately aware of morality through their acknowledgement of God- the maker and definer of absolute morality.

Blogger Short Little Rebel decided to turn the morality table around on the atheists and began some rather nasty name calling. She uses the EXACT arguments from the atheists to protect her disgusting activity and is challenging them to ‘prove’ she is in the moral wrong- according to their own philosophy.

Thus far, no answer is forthcoming. While somewhat amusing, this discussion is a critical one for Christians confronting atheism today. Short Little Rebel seeks to prove, through this microcosm, the only logical outcome of relative morality: hell on earth….. Come see if you can answer the questions posed by both sides….

OOPS ! Guess what happened everyone? Lyn May, the owner of Rants & Rages has surprised me exceedingly by kicking me off the blog (today 7/19/11)- thus proving my point: liberal atheist progressives are 100% intolerant of Christian speech. He gave no other reason other than ‘artistic’ differences. Even though his original idea for the blog was to have ALL sides represented! Ha! No Christians remain.
The reality is this, my friends: I used a tactic to prove the complete inability of the atheist philosophy to ensure ‘decent’ behavior from anyone.

Atheism simply piggy backs on the goodness and laws created through Christian values. In fact, it counts on Christian morality to kick and scream and spit against. It hopes we will live up to our Christian values. On it’s own, it can not produce a single reason why someone should stop behaving vilely. I behaved by their rules. And they didn’t like the result: they couldn’t figure out a way to tell me it was ‘wrong’ to make fun of an atheist homosexual. This same atheist homosexual attacked a Christian writer by calling him names, was horribly sarcastic and worst of all worst: he refused to address the valid arguments of the Christian author. This Christian author (the single best author on the blog based on the number of hits & traffic he generated) asked Lyn May to stop the name calling and harrassment by the atheist. Lyn said he had no intention of censoring ‘free speech’ onhis blog. The Christian author finally left due to the lack of journalistic standards on R&R.

Things came to a crux when I read the article and the comments and decided to turn the table on the atheist. I gave him a chance to understand that his name calling was ‘wrong’ by any measure through logical reasoning. This atheist remarked that:
1. He could call names because the Christian was ACTING like the names he called him.
2. Just because he was a tiny minority who wanted all references of God taken from government didn’t mean that the majority should get its way. He stated that ‘majority rules’ is only appropriate from ‘super villains’.
3. He also sneered that Christian morality was hateful and judgemental and had no right to judge anyone else. He cited the superiority of atheism in the creation of a new ‘morality’.
What could I do, readers, but turn the tables on this atheist? I decided to act vilely toward him and his homosexuality. I told him that I could do that because no one, under his own rules, could make a moral argument why I should stop it.

Did I taunt him? Yes. He refused to answer my question: Why should I stop? On what moral basis do you stand? What makes my actions ‘wrong’ under atheist morality? I can call you these nasty homosexual slurs because you DO these things. According to his Rule #1, I can use your actions to determine the names I call you. And I said that even if he got all the homosexuals together and got them to agree that I was ‘wrong’, it wouldn’t matter because, according to your #2 Rule, no matter how small a minority is- it can not be ruled by the majority opinion. Lastly, he eventually got angry and wished for the death of my loved ones. That is when I referenced his Rule #3. His comment (which I knew would eventually come) proved that the only thing that is produced by the relative morality of atheists is chaos, ugliness and hate. My strategy worked brilliantly- as we were both now spewing hate and bile. My point exactly.

I explained that when there is no absolute, Universal Morality or God, then mankind cannot find any kind of answer to define ‘good’ or ‘moral’ human behavior. I showed 100% the atheists’ failure to provide any kind of ‘moral’ argument to stop what was so clearly an immoral action on my part. Via personal email, I explained all my thoughts & intentions to Lyn, which he claimed to understand.

And then….. I got an email from Lyn asking me to apologize to the Homosexual Atheist! Why? For calling him names! He pretended to miss the entire point of my strategy & comments. The Homosexual Atheist was a privileged class! This atheist complained to Lyn and quit the blog in a big huff. Apparently, another atheist author had flounced away earlier in the month from the blog due to the other Christian author’s posts. Lyn told me that this atheist’s reasons for quitting were completely understandable! (cause I made fun of his homosexuality). I made a deal with Lyn: have the atheist apologize to the other Christian for the names he called and have Lyn apologize as well for allowing the name calling (since he now had come to his senses concerning name calling) and then I would apologize to trouncing the atheist commentors so publically. But I refused to apologize for the names I called him because I had made it 100% clear that I didn’t mean them and was using them to force the atheist to use his ‘relative morality’ to make me stop. It was clearly a tactic on my part. On the other hand, the atheist meant every insult he flung at the Christian author. I wouldn’t apologize for zero intent to harm.

Funny, it was when the special class (the homosexual atheist) got ‘insulted’ that Lyn chose to ‘censor’ the blog. Verrrrrry In-ter-es-ting. (use a german accent when you read that).
Please visit the R&R blog soon- I’ll bet you a million dollars he removes the comments from the article- or the entire article soon. He can’t stand to allow atheists to look so helpless and WRONG for long.

3 Great Sex Positions for A Change

July 21, 2011

The 3 Best Sex Positions

This is another great guest post from Men’s Health Magizine online

Forget the dining room chair and vibrating drier routines—for incredible sex outside of the bedroom, keep her on her feet. Try these three stand-up positions the next time the moment strikes:

Against a Wall
You’re face to face, with her back against the wall for stability. Lean your body weight into her, and hold one of her legs up with one hand (if she’s super flexible, have her put her leg on your shoulder). The higher her leg, the more you can thrust, and the more contact you’ll have with each other. The upward thrusting will also increase the stimulation of her clitoris, making it easier for her to orgasm.

In the Shower
Shower sex is tricky—the ground can be slippery, and water washes away natural lubrication—but it’s an excellent location for manual foreplay. Stand pressed up against each other—back to front—facing the wall, so that the shower spray hits your sides. This will allow you both to support yourselves with one hand against the wall, and the person behind to easily titillate the person in front. For added lubrication, try hair conditioner or a silicone-based lube (unless you intend the foreplay to segue into safe sex—silicone degrades condoms and doesn’t wash off with water).

Bent Over a Countertop
It’s traditional standing doggy-style, but doing it in the bathroom or in front of her boudoir—wherever there’s a sink or a tabletop with a big mirror—will add an extra level of intensity for both of you.

6 signs That She is In to You

July 14, 2011

This is another guest post from Men’s Health online magazine. Enjoy

Tune in to the right signals during a dinner date and you’ll satisfy more than just your palate. “Romantic meals allow for powerful courtship exchanges,” says Heather T. Remoff, Ph.D., author of Sexual Choice. “Women drop vital clues during a meal—read them right and dessert could be her place.

She Gives You Her Undivided Attention

If she snags the seat facing the wall, odds are she’s there to focus on you. So give her something to look at. “Women are far more skilled at interpreting body language,” says David Givens, Ph.D., author of Love Signals. Display confidence and masculinity with open palms or steepled fingers, a “showcase of mastery and thoughtfulness,” says Givens. If she chooses to face the room instead, watch her eyes: Is she easily distracted?

She Dries You Off

If you spill a drink, loudly drop a fork, or fumble the bread, watch her reaction. “If she turns away, embarrassed, or does nothing at all, she’s suppressing her maternal instincts for a reason: She has no connection to you,” says Givens. But if she lends a helping hand, there could be chemistry. Letting her help will strengthen feelings of attachment.

She Tastes Your Tenderloin

Offer her a bite of your entrée. If she takes the fork from you and brushes the food onto her plate, hit the brakes, Casanova. “When you offer her a bite, look her in the eyes and move the fork slowly toward her mouth,” says Sandor Gardos, Ph.D., a sex therapist and the founder of That way she can refuse gracefully if she’s not ready to be fed. “In my research, I’ve never known a woman to sleep with a man who didn’t first feed her,” says Remoff. Bonus points: She offers a bite back

Women yearn for kudos, but on a first date, keep compliments confined to her jewelry or clothes. “She spent plenty of time making those choices, so she’ll appreciate your attention to detail,” says Givens. If she starts telling a story about the earrings or, even better, returns the compliment, it shows she values your opinion. A halfhearted “thank you” may be a brush-off.

She Uses Praise in the Conversation

Women yearn for kudos, but on a first date, keep compliments confined to her jewelry or clothes. “She spent plenty of time making those choices, so she’ll appreciate your attention to detail,” says Givens. If she starts telling a story about the earrings or, even better, returns the compliment, it shows she values your opinion. A halfhearted “thank you” may be a brushoff.

She Grills You

Throw out a random question—about Maoist rebels or her high-school prom—and see where it leads. “If she finds a way to work it back to you, that’s a great sign,” says Gardos. Women approach dates as fact-finding missions, so thoughtfully answer any personal questions beyond the obligatory, and reciprocate with inquiries of your own.

She Gushes Over the Chocolate Volcano

Does she snack stoically on her dessert, or does she close her eyes and moan softly, savoring the velvety texture? “This means she appreciates the sensual, hedonistic side of life,” says Gardos. “She’s just had an orgasm on her tongue,” agrees Laura Corn, author of 101 Nights of Grrreat Sex. “Piggyback off that.”

Read more:

Why Are So Many People Incensed Over the Death Of Caley Anthony When Women Murder 4,000 Innocent Babies a Day in Our Country Through Abortion

July 11, 2011

Why Are So Many People Incensed Over the Death Of Caley Anthony When Women Murder 4,000 Innocent Babies a Day in Our Country Through Abortion

We have murdered over 53,000,000 innocent babies since Roe Vs Wade in 1973. We have murdered 3.6 million in the last 3 years that Casey Anthony was in jail

Here is the definition of murder
mur•dered, mur•der•ing, mur•ders
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.

Can we not say that dismembering a baby without even using any anesthesia is brutal and inhumane and definitely killing it?

Ironically, the Jews wail about “never again” over the genocide done to them by the Nazis and yet they are one of the few mainline religions that supports legal abortion. It makes no sense to me.

The then ultra liberal Supreme Court showed cowardice in 1973 over abortion claiming that they could not tell nor could the experts tell when life begins. This is preposterous. LIFE begins at conception. Let us take a reverse engineering point of view here however. We can and do determine when there is death by the cessation of a heartbeat and brainwave activity. Since that is how we determine death, it should also be the guide to determine life. We can detect a fetal heartbeat just 18 DAYS FROM CONCEPTION. We can detect fetal brainwave activity just 6 WEEKS FROM CONCEPTION.
The penalty for damaging a bald eagle egg is 1 year in the federal penitentiary and a $100,000 fine. This is a potential eagle. I have also included the very stiff fines for cruelty to animals resulting in death in the link below.

Here are the cruelty to animals statutes state by state. Read them and get infuriated. So if you are an eagle or a beagle, you are thrown under the jail for hurting them but if you are an unborn baby it is open season.

Click to access AnimalCrueltyLaws.pdf

Ironically, if you are pregnant and I hit you with my car and cause you to lose the baby, I will be charged with vehicular manslaughter but if you are pregnant and don’t want the baby, we treat you as god and allow you to declare that it is not a baby and can in conjunction with your doctor kill it.

Every abortion is done by dismembering the baby. The nurse is responsible for counting the body parts because if they leave any inside you, then you can develop septicemia and die from the infection. This is of course for early abortions. In late term abortions they can still dismember the baby with forceps or do a partial birth abortion. The difference here between first degree murder and legal abortion is only 4 inches. The four inches represents the diameter of the baby’s head. They turn the baby into the breech position (against all known medical practice) and deliver the baby’s body but leave the head in the birth canal. The doctor then stabs the baby in the base of the skull and suctions out the brains through the hole and then finishes delivering the baby’s collapsed head. If the baby slips all the way out, it is first degree murder, but as long as the baby’s head is in the birth canal it is legal abortion.
Is this schizophrenic or what?

Your 13 year old daughter who can’t get an aspirin from the school nurse without your written permission can climb on an abortionist’s table without your knowledge or consent. Uncle Sam thinks that he can be a better parent than you. Ironically a parent can also force a minor daughter to have an abortion.

Let us go to the bible to see what it says about this:

Numbers 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

Psalm 106:38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Leviticus 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
There can be no more innocent blood than the blood of an unborn baby.

The most dangerous place statistically is in the mother’s womb. It is out of sight and out of mind. The number one cause of death in our country is abortion.

Women claim that they can do whatever they want with their bodies. This is not true.
This would be like a father claiming the same right of privacy to sexually abuse his daughter using the same arguments supporting abortion.

The greeks who had 3 different words for love in the bible only had one word for baby in the womb, or a newborn or even a toddler, it was BREPHOS. Clearly God sees no difference in the unborn baby.

Here is another scripture to give you pause to consider, it needs no interpretation:

Deliver those who are drawn toward death,
And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
12 If you say, “Surely we did not know this,”
Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it?
He who keeps your soul, does He not know it?
And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?
Proverbs 24:11-12

Many people would support abortion for rape of incest. They think incorrectly that somehow it will make the woman un-raped like they are just suctioning the semen from her body. In actuality, it rapes her all over again. Think of the procedure where she has to climb on the table, spread her legs wide and place her feet in the stirrups.

The doctor then inserts a speculum in her vagina, forcing it open and then dilates her cervix. Once that is done, he inserts a suction canula up into her cervix and turns on the screaming suction machine and she is forced to hear her baby dismembered and the slurping sounds that the machine makes as the body parts are ripped off and suctioned out of her.

Would it not be better for her to have the baby and give it up for adoption. Is that not a more humane and positive way for her to deal with her rape? Here is what the bible says about this:

Deuteronomy 24:16
16The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

In effect you are putting to death an innocent child for the sin of the father. Too often the rapist is not even charged but we kill the baby. This makes no sense to me.

Here are a couple of final pieces of scripture for you to ponder on:

To them that know to do good and do not do it, to them it is sin. James 4:17
Whatsoever you do unto these the least of my brethern, you also do unto me. Math 25:40

Can we not agree that an unborn baby is the least of Jesus brethern?

Guys Here Are 10 Examples of Poor Sexual Etiquette That You Need To Avoid

July 10, 2011


10 Examples Of Poor Sex Etiquette
The Frisky
2:00PM, 06/02/2011 Comments

Perfectly good sex can be ruined by really bad manners. There is an unwritten code of sex conduct. Follow it, and your partner will likely be a repeat customer. ‪Break it, and you may screw the likelihood of boning again. After the jump, some examples of bad manners in the bedroom that will get you kicked to the curb.

Trying out a kink without asking. If you’re into spanking, panty ripping, golden showers, or salad tossing, for example, that’s totally cool. But please discuss it with us before doing it to us.
Talking about your sex life with an ex. Unless we ask, don’t regale us with stories about the jade egg your ex could hold in her vagina all day. We don’t want to know.

‪Not offering a tissue to wipe up your spunk.‬ If you got your baby batter on our face or body, it is only right to get a lady a tissue or a washcloth to freshen up.

Dirty sheets. If you expect us to roll around with you, wash your goddamn sheets first.

Recycling sex toys. Using the same vibrator on more than one woman is not only insulting, it’s disgusting. I don’t care if you washed it. Get that thing away from us.

Coming on face or in mouth without asking. It is only polite to request the pleasure of coming on one’s face or in one’s mouth without consent.

Not having any condoms on hand and saying, “It’s OK, I’ll pull out!” Bitch, please! No condoms on hand, no sex. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Not offering sleepwear. If we’ve learned anything positive from The Situation, it’s that a woman likes to be offered something comfortable to wear while sleeping over. An old—but laundered!—T-shirt is much appreciated.

Ruining clothing. Do not throw our cocktail dress on your unswept floor. Do not chuck our bra and panties with the dust bunnies under your bed. Do not cover our new pants with lube. We’re all for ripping off clothes in the heat of the moment, but be mindful of our duds.

Not spending the night. The only way to get out of spending the night together post-coitus is to discuss it before you’ve done the deed. Anything less and you are an ass.

What do you consider poor sex etiquette? Add your own examples in the comments.

Obama’s Stimulus Jobs Cost Us $278,000 a Piece

July 8, 2011

How Much is Obama’s Fake Jobs Scheme Costing America?

Sometimes magic tricks just aren’t that great, and even the most innocent, wide-eyed child can’t be fooled by the illusionist’s flourish. Such is the case with the rabbit the White House is trying to pull out of its magic hat by claiming that President Barack Obama’s stimulus has created or saved 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion, all while the United States continues to suffer 9.1 percent unemployment. If you do the math, that comes out to around $278,000 per job.

That information comes from a White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) report released last Friday that desperately tries to maintain the illusion that Obama’s stimulus has saved the day for struggling Americans.

If you take the CEA at its word, you might be a bit confused. Two quarters ago, it claimed that the stimulus added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs. That’s 288,000 more jobs than it claims the stimulus has created or saved today. (The Congressional Budget Office has downgraded its claim of the stimulus’ “success,” too.) Compare that to the President’s promise to create 3.5 million jobs by 2010—the economy, instead, lost millions of jobs, leaving Obama 7.3 million jobs short of his goal.

As critics slam the report—and the high cost of the jobs the stimulus supposedly created—White House officials are scurrying to offer up a defense of an economic policy gone wrong. They claim that the President’s critics are using disingenuous calculations that don’t take into account other factors. ABC’s Jake Tapper reports:

Then, as now, White House officials note that the spending didn’t just fund salaries, it also went to the actual costs of building things — construction materials, new factories, and such. So the math is flawed, White House officials say, since reporters are not including the permanent infrastructure in the computation, thus producing an inflated figure.

In reality, the White House is probably better off fighting over those numbers than over the unemployment statistics staring the President in the face. Those stats are based on real-world facts—a tally of the millions of unemployed Americans—not “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers” that are the stock-in-trade of the CEA’s rosy predictions.

The facts are these: Last month, the average length of unemployment stood at 39.7 weeks, the longest since the Department of Labor began tracking it. The unemployment rate increased from 9.0 to 9.1 percent, 13.9 million Americans are unemployed, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, and the labor force participation rate remained flat at 64.2 percent, an all-time low for the fifth straight month.

According to yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “the economy’s improvement since the recession’s end in June 2009 has been the worst, or one of the worst, since the government started tracking these trends after World War II.” And things aren’t getting better anytime soon. In short, the stimulus did not work. Jobs were lost, not created, and the economy is suffering the effects.

The Heritage Foundation’s James Sherk writes that a slow recovery is likely, despite the White House’s much-vaunted claims. At an average of 260,000 net jobs added per month, unemployment will not return to its natural rate until August 2014. At an average of 216,000 new jobs per month, it will take until October 2015 to return to normal. But, Sherk warns:

These are optimistic assumptions. The late 1990s was a period of unusually strong economic growth. During the 2003–2007 expansion, employers added an average of 176,000 jobs per month. If the recovery takes that more recent pace, unemployment will not return to normal rates until January 2018.

What if the economy continues at its current pace? In that case, Sherk says, we’ll be stuck with high joblessness into the distant future—the unemployment rate in January 2021 would stand at 7.4 percent.

The stark reality of America’s unemployment picture aside, there remains the notion that stimulus spending on infrastructure could have “created or saved” jobs in the first place, whether the price tag is $50,000 per job or $700,000. Brian Riedl, formerly of The Heritage Foundation, disputes that theory:

[M]any lawmakers claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus can create 47,576 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion from the private economy, which will then lose at least as many jobs. Highway spending simply transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another.

As Heritage Foundation economist Ronald Utt has explained, “The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven.”

Manna has not descended from heaven, and a rabbit is not emerging from the White House’s hat anytime soon. But like an incompetent fire department trying to save the basement of a building burnt beyond recognition, the White House is trying to salvage the remains of an economic policy gone wrong.

History should be the President’s guide. According to Riedl, in the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending—yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. Fast-forward to Japan’s 1990 recession, in which the country passed 10 stimulus spending bills over eight years, which resulted only in a stagnant economy. And in 2001 and 2008, President George W. Bush attempted to stimulate the economy with tax rebates, neither of which generated economic results.

President Obama would do better by the American people if he gave up the fiction he is trying so desperately to maintain and recognize that it’s the private sector, not government, that creates jobs and keeps the country running—without costing the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

%d bloggers like this: