The UN Climate Summit is giving leftists a chance to complain about freedom and standards of livings unavailable to the oppressed citizens of their own countries. It makes them look bad, but we have a opportunity to play the dictators game.

I see global warming as our big chance to demand concessions from the rest of the world the way dictators do from us. We now have something to bargain with and demand some form of preferential treatment. Since we will be giving up more than most countries by way of standard of living to comply with any global warming pact we should receive concessions. I can't think of anything better to get than oil :)

Nothing makes me more paranoid than threats to the right to keep and bear arms individually. People opposed to the right, fit exclusively into two groups. They are either gullible or socialist. They either view people in general as too stupid to own guns or they are too stupid to own guns.

I wrote the following response to an atheist who was saying religion contradicts reason. She contacted me and said she was offended that I called atheists willfully ignorant.
          "I said that atheism is a form of willful ignorance and I did not discuss evolution. I think you may have me confused  with some of the other users. Christians come in all stripes as do atheists. I doubt you would like to be grouped with some of the radical atheists like Christopher Hitchens. His positions are incredibly simplistic and hopefully embarrassing to you just as ignorant Christians who want to impose a religious state on everyone are embarrassing to me. What is not embarrassing to me is my belief in God. I understand the frustration that atheists feel when arguing with people who choose to accept a method of observation not subject to third party evaluation. It would certainly make arguments easier if evidence of god were more observable. That does not change the fact of his existence. If we simply ignored everything that we cannot prove through controlled experiments with objective data subject to third party review, science would be a much less substantial subject.  There is an incomprehensible amount of data and much of the relevant data to understanding the functional causes of natural phenomena are unobservable. That leaves speculation or lowered standards for evidence gathering which creates a great deal of uncertainty about the causal relationships. Yet scientist rely on the lower standards. The only element missing for the test for the existence of God is third party observation. I have performed the experiment and I cannot deny his existence."

I had to be sparing in my words since the method I used to respond had a word limit.

I want to make a few comments about a column I read about the North American Union by John Hawkins. I agree that there are bigger issues threatening the sovereignty of the US than a centralized government over the US Canada, and Mexico. However, I do not think that is unlikely that some policymakers are working towards that goal as a step towards centralized world government. Some may be doing so inadvertently. For instance, by strengthening economic ties with the corrupt Mexican government and the leftist Canadian government we are opening our doors to many of the same legal policies that bound the United States together, removed power from the states, and put it in the hands of federal government. Free trade means restraint on a participating governments ability to enact measures that could have protectionist effects. Ultimately these free trade compacts can be used to justify centralized regulation. The plain meaning of the commerce clause was broadened to allow regulation of anything that had an economic affect on interstate commerce. It is very likely that any grant of authority to a centralized governing body similar to the european Union would result in that type of a power grab.Fortunately we are a long way from that. Mere speculation about the potential for a North American Union showed very clearly the american people would not stand for even small steps in that direction.

It is not unreasonable to believe that there are large segments of the population who might support such a union. Leftists generally accept larger forms of government because they believe sovereignty prevents relevant stakeholders from being involved decision making. They believe essentially in global problems that require global central planning. It is not crazy to be a vigilant guard of sovereignty even from far off attacks like the North American Union.

I am impressed that people on townhall have the time to comment and post as much as they do. I work and go to school and run a student organization so my days are busy but I am sure the other people on here have similar strains on their time. What I find sad is that the people who seem to post the most say many of the dumbest things. They are the ones commenting a hundred times about how everyone on townhall is a bigot. I occasionally see posts from one of my favorite non-sense posters Gabby. Gabby is convinced that Mormons are an evil secret society. Any time Mitt Romney's name comes up there is a Gabby post. I can only conclude that she is so prolific because she personally despises Mormons. I emphasize the personally. I read an interesting series by Mike Adams about an LDS psychology student who was discriminated against by Purdue faculty. In the comments a couple of homosexual posters repeatedly posted ridiculous interpretations of Adams column. The posters were obviously offended by the LDS position that homosexual sex is a sin. The posters would not  shut up. By the fifth segment of the column most of the homosexual posters had moved on. But Gabby keeps coming back. I can only guess something the church must have really offended her if she will not give up but homosexuals who have decided that sex is the most important defining characteristic in their lives eventually even tire of ranting. Poor Gabby. Or maybe she does it for a living as part of someones campaign.

The discussion in the comments of Muscleheads recent anti Mormon blog led me to an important conclusion. We are playing Calvin ball. Calvin Ball is a game from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes. The players make up the rules and objectives as they play in whatever way best served each player. By defining what qualifies a religion as Christian, certain Bible thumpers have set up the inevitable result of the game. Basically they are saying we define what beliefs a religion must have to call itself Christian. I think that is a very presumptuous move. What gives them the authority to define who gets to use the word Christian. The primary distinction that Protestants rely on to distinguish Mormons from other Christians is the acceptance of the Nicene Creed. Mormons reject the Nicene Creed. The Creed was a resolution reached several hundred years after Christ  that concluded that God is a schizophrenic deity who appears in different forms and talks to himself. These are the same protestants who say that the Bible is the exclusive word of God.

Since this is Calvin Ball I am changing the rule. In order to be called Christian your religion must accept the divinity of Christ. The new rule would not allow many Protestants to continue their claim to Christianity. After all many Protestant churches have rejected the divine sonship of Jesus. Others continue their affiliation with Christianity solely out of tradition.(Go to Germany for a couple of years you will see) I hardly think it is fair to include churches that do not believe in Christ within Christianity while rejecting Mormons because they do not accept a questioable politically motivated compromise reached without any divine authority.

I happen to like the word Christian. It refers to the head of my church and I think it only fair that I get to use an appropriate term to refer to myself as a follower of Christ. It is very misleading to say that Mormons are not Christian since it implies that Mormons do not follow Christ's teaching.  I think I could take the Calvin Ball rules a little farther just to illustrate the deceptiveness of this anti-mormon technique. Since I believe that my church teaches the truth regarding Christ, no one that belongs to another church may call themselves Christian. Thus protestants are not Christian. I win. Lets not play Calvin Ball.