https://omny.fm/shows/20twenty/what-role-does-god-play-in-the-weather-climate-cha
The following report is a disgrace to the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. ‘A Fort Dodge man argued in Webster County District Court on Monday morning that the $500,000 cash-only bail he was being held on was “punitive” and his attorney advocated for a District Court judge to lower the bond amount.
Jordan Dee Andrew Webb, 29, is charged with second-degree sexual abuse with persons under the age of 12, a Class B felony; incest, a class D felony; and child endangerment, an aggravated misdemeanor.
After hearing testimony and arguments from both the state and the defense, District Court Judge Christopher Polking ordered the bond amount lowered to $75,000.
The case was prompted by a Webster County Sheriff’s Office investigation into health concerns involving a juvenile. According to a release from the Webster County Sheriff’s Office, the department was alerted to the concerns on April 8 and the concerns “warranted an emergency removal from the guardian’s custody.”
During the Sheriff’s Office and Webster County Attorney’s Office’s investigation, a search warrant was executed on the residence at 1940 225th St., southwest of Fort Dodge. The property is owned by Harvest Baptist Church and is used for its Harvest Baptist Bible College.
Webb was arrested on April 25 at the Fort Dodge home of Cameron Giovanelli, a registered sex offender. According to testimony from Webster County Attorney’s Office Investigator Larry Hedlund, Webb had also been driving Giovanelli’s car that week.
Assistant Webster County Attorney Bailey Taylor argued that Webb’s “significant” ties to St. Lucia as well as other locations across the United States makes the defendant a flight risk.
According to a now-deleted Facebook page and website for Webb’s “Christ in the Caribbean” missionary work in St. Lucia, Harvest Baptist was the “sending church” for his mission work.
Marvin Smith IV, assistant pastor and missions director at Harvest Baptist Church, submitted a letter in support of Webb for the bond hearing.
“His current living situation is with a great man in our community that is more than willing to help him and if needed keep him accountable,” Smith wrote. “I don’t see any reasons why Jordan would need to be continually held in jail as I don’t see him as a risk to society nor do I see him fleeing the city.”
Smith testified that Webb’s passport is currently expired.
Smith also testified that Webb was not an active missionary for Harvest Baptist Church at the time of his arrest.
“The moral standards that we hold for our missionaries, he did not uphold that moral standard,” Smith said.
Taylor asked if that was because of the allegations against Webb in this case, and Smith said it was because he had cheated on his wife.
In a text message conversation submitted into evidence by the state, Smith wrote to Webb, “I’m gonna need to write a check to you for the lawyer fee. Pastor said it will look better than the church being responsible for extra cost after the $25,000.”
Abigail Webb, wife of the defendant, was asked about an internet search found on her phone that led to a webpage about “how to get a second passport.”
“I assume because we travel a lot, it popped up as an ad,” she said.
She also testified that she doesn’t believe the defendant is a flight risk.
Polking lowered Jordan Webb’s bond amount to $75,000 cash or surety. If Webb bonds out of jail, he will be under pretrial supervision of the Department of Correctional Services. He will have to surrender his passport and wear a GPS monitor. He will also not be allowed to have contact with any person under the age of 18.
Also on Monday, Webb entered a written plea of not guilty to the charges. No trial date has been set.’https://www.messengernews.net/news/local-news/2022/05/judge-lowers-bond-amount-for-webb/
‘Since June is Pride Month for the LGBT etc. crowd, I expanded and rewrote a 2019 column that produced late-night phone calls, death threats, and scores of hate-filled emails from the “peace-loving,” “all opinions have equal worth,” “fair-minded,” and always “compassionate” homosexuals.
No doubt, many homosexuals—maybe most of them—agree with the thesis of my article while disagreeing with my criticism of homosexuality which is still legal in America. Both homosexuality and my right to disagree with it are legally protected—for now. But the Homosexual Lobby will not permit any honest disagreement with their positions.
You know, like the knee-jerk response of some homosexuals to the Tampa Bay football players who refused to give credibility to perversion by wearing a rainbow version of the team logo on the team’s “Pride Night,” because of their religious beliefs. It seems everyone has a right to make up his own mind as long as you don’t imply that homosexuality is wrong.
The journalists at Newsweek had every right to accuse me, attack me, and even assassinate me (symbolically) but not use illegitimate and spurious and twisted information to do their job.
I’m not whining about Newsweek, just wanting to hold their feet to the fire. After all, they did spell my name correctly and pulled a good photo from one of my lectures at the University of North Dakota.
The Newsweek piece, about my article published on numerous conservative websites, was filled with errors. Even the first word of the headline was wrong! It yelled, REPUBLICAN PREACHER RUNS SHOCKING BLOG POST ABOUT PETE BUTTIGIEG, CLAIMS GAY PEOPLE DIE YOUNGER THAN ‘NORMAL PEOPLE.’ I have not been a Republican for decades, although I admit to voting Republican most of the time, I’m politically independent as a hog on ice.
Journalists, including news magazines like Newsweek, should try that sometime.
A quick phone call or email from the author would have kept him from adding to the escalating charges of fake news. All journalists are taught to verify the facts; maybe he was sleeping during that class.
The author called my article “Pete Since You Brought it Up, How ‘Gay’ Are You?” offensive, and of course, it was. It is impossible to deal with perversion (and politics) without being offensive; however, if we deal with the details, it would be disgusting.
The author suggests I was offensive because I mentioned that homosexuals don’t live as long as normal people. Well, that may be offensive, but it is also a fact according to Columbia University. Of course, they suggested homosexuals died early because of an anti-homosexual environment rather than their perverted practices.
Another widely cited study from Vancouver revealed, “life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.” This was supported by a study done by Paul Cameron, Ph.D. It revealed the latest CDC report “tends to strengthen the overall finding based upon obituaries: that the lifespan of MSM [males who have sex with other men] is shortened two to three decades by AIDS and, possibly, other causes.”
However, the last study was done by a Christian psychologist who is viciously hated by the LGBT crowd. Cameron is allegedly biased by his biblical worldview, but somehow, homosexuals are not biased, blinded, and bigoted by their twisted lifestyle which they cannot defend. The Homosexual Lobby doesn’t understand that facts don’t lie, but that can’t be said about the radical left.
Most mainstream journalists like the ones in Newsweek deal in fantasy, falsehood, and fiction—not facts. They have an agenda that must be disseminated without regard for reality.
Homosexuals die about 20 years earlier than normal people because their lifestyle is really a deathstyle. The human body was not made to endure violent attacks—their use of illegal drugs; their autoerotic playtime; their bondage and sadomasochism; their fisting; ad nauseam—all shorten lives. After all, if eating fried foods will shorten your life, living the dangerous, diseased, and depraved life many homosexuals live will be more deadly than eating fried chicken.
The hit piece charged, “The former lawmaker [this writer] said it was his right as a voter to ask ‘how gay Pete is’ and if his medical records would be made public. Boys, asserting that ‘homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous,’ made a series of baseless claims and suggested Buttigieg should address them.”
It is interesting but common that Newsweek did not list any baseless claims, and they rejected my well-documented charges knowing few readers would discover their deception. And, yes, a politician must answer questions (most Democrats are sorry they did not ask about Biden’s health) but then maybe Pete has been given a No Obligation to Answer Card. That isn’t surprising since homosexuals have demanded and received numerous special rights from cowardly judges, legislators, college presidents, media personalities, and Hollywood.
And everyone, even some Conservative and even Christian websites are careful not to offend them by suggesting that perversion, like fornication, is always wrong, even wicked. The safe pitch is that each person can make his own decision about such issues and then we will all “live and let live.”
The almost universal message is to be very careful what you say about homosexuality. However, an American does not have to worry what he declares as long as it is truthful. Moreover, no one, especially a Christian, should be malicious, hateful, or even unkind.
Newsweek’s use of claims suggests that my assertion about homosexual promiscuity is not true when everyone with an I.Q. equivalent to his ring size knows it is true. It’s like saying some people claim the earth is round.
The hit piece suggested that homosexual promiscuity is dubious, so let me be clear: no honest, informed, and sane person disagrees, debates, or even sees a need to discuss the issue—homosexuals change partners as often as they change socks—almost.
A 2006 study of 2,294 homosexuals in the homosexual magazine The Advocate reported that 248 men admitted to having more than 300 sexual partners with fewer partners for the others.
The classic Bell and Weinberg study, produced with the help of the American National Institute of Mental Health, consisted of about 1100 men. That pre-AIDS report revealed that 83% of the homosexual men in their survey said it was likely they had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, while 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners. But it gets worse because 28% had sex with 1,000 or more partners!
Even if they are “married,” male homosexuals set aside a “night with the boys.” Of course, there are exceptions, but let’s say it all together now, “Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous.”
The claim that homosexuality is not influenced by family or trauma was shot down by Neil E. Whitehead in the Journal of Human Sexuality: “It is simply a myth that there are no sociological data showing influence on adult sexual orientation.”
Newsweek reproduced significant points of my column, which added some much-needed juice to their article: “Purporting to cite ‘the largest study ever conducted,’ he said 23 percent of homosexuals ‘participate in golden showers.’” The writer was careless in his use of purporting. He used the wrong word because I did not purport—or claim or assert or allege to cite “the largest study ever conducted” that revealed that 23% of homosexuals “participate in golden showers.” I cited the report and received no rebuttal.
He was trying to denigrate the study without dealing with it, which is common among desperate people. The Gay Report was done by Karla Jay and Allen Young and involved 4,400 respondents. In that study, homosexuals admitted to their usual vile practices, and homosexual leaders criticized it from its publication. Critics never have revealed that the authors were “gay!”
It is much worse today. In a 2006 study of a group of “male S&M practitioners,” 47.3% admitted participation in “watersports” according to The Health Hazards of Homosexually.
Since Pete said: “I’m gay as a… I don’t know, think of something really gay, that’s how gay I am.” I want to know what he meant. No doubt some homosexuals are fairly strait-laced compared to others but just how “gay” is Pete? No one expects him to go into details, but on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most degraded, diseased, and dangerous, where is Pete?
Most people expect a national magazine to produce quality work but not this time. Newsweek’s source, the Friendly Atheist, is such an embarrassment it would make any honest reader run for a barf bag.
My article appeared on May 15, and was picked up by Joe.My.God. on the 17th, the Friendly Atheist on May 18, and was critiqued by Newsweek on May 21. Newsweek did not do any original reporting, just some ramblings from the Friendly Atheist and some of my brilliant comments. So, it was not a total loss.
The Friendly Atheist piece supports the would-be censors out there who want to eliminate bad writing. The blogger is Hemant Mehta, whose claim to fame is “selling his soul on eBay.” He titled his blog “Christian Bigot: Pete Buttigieg Can’t Be President Because Gay People Die Young.” Hemant is right in calling me a Christian but completely wrong using the B-word. Evidently, he is infected with the virus that makes leftists lash out rather than support their position. Accusations are much easier to make than answers and argumentation. Hemant probably doesn’t even know he is infected. Tragic.
Far leftists don’t seem to understand that an American can disagree with their agenda and not be a hater. Disagreement is healthy. It is good to challenge people to analyze an issue and produce their reasons for believing it. Facts are not emotional. Unstable, dishonest people often are.
He then accuses me of declaring that Pete would not be a good president, but I never suggested that. Far leftists have a difficult time reading or comprehending or telling the truth.
In response to my demand that Pete release his medical records, Hemant seems to run off the rails. He charged, “His bigotry [mine] isn’t worthy of a response, but it should be noted that Donald Trump never released his proper medical records.” However, the president is examined annually, and his medical reports are released.
Voters have an obligation to make decisions about a candidate’s total life: his family, education, associations, criminal record, politics, etc., when deciding whether to vote for him.
After many embarrassing gaffes, Hemant dug a deeper hole by writing, “The rest of the article is no better, with Boys arguing that we should know everything about Buttigieg’s sex life.” I did not write that we should know everything about Buttigieg’s sex life. As a voter, I want to know if his “gay” lifestyle will affect his effectiveness as president.
Buttigieg is in Biden’s cabinet, and will no doubt be a national candidate again so I still want to know if his lifestyle might affect his ability to serve Americans.
Hemant continued with his convoluted tirade by charging, “Boys doesn’t bring up how Donald Trump had an affair with a porn star (without protection).” Hemant failed (again) to research the facts. Had he not been so lazy or incompetent, he would have discovered many of my critical articles about Trump. I voted for him because the alternative was Horrific Hillary. Trump’s affairs were despicable, deplorable, dumb, and double dumb without protection— just as homosexual perversions are dumb and disgusting.
Finally, Hemant runs out of steam, takes a deep breath, wipes the foam from his quivering lips, and writes, “This is conservative Christian ‘logic’ for you. A gay guy in a monogamous marriage is somehow a threat to family values, but President P****grabber is somehow a man of virtue.” I wrote nothing about Pete’s “monogamous marriage,” and neither Hemant nor I know if Pete’s “marriage” is monogamous or not, although many studies do not reflect faithful monogamous homosexual “marriages.”
The national homosexual magazine, The Advocate reported in 2006 that less than half of homosexual “couples” were monogamous, a fact supported by the Male Couples Study and others.
It is a fact that homosexual “marriages” or live-in arrangements last two to three years, according to Male and Female Homosexuality, by Saghir and Robins and other studies.
Moreover, I did not refer to family values nor refer to Trump as “a man of virtue.” I doubt if Trump can spell virtue, but he at least did what he promised, something few presidents have done in a hundred years.
Is Pete traveling in the homosexual fast lane that always comes to a dead-end?
Voters have a right to know just how “gay” Pete is.’https://donboys.cstnews.com/newsweek-hit-piece-attacks-and-slanders-me-because-of-my-question-to-pete-buttigieg-2
They would all be fired if working for a profit seeking company.
‘After a decade of denial and delay, Australia deserves a better future – one with cheaper power, more jobs, and less emissions,’ said Energy Minister Chris Bowen, in his last media release prior to gaining government.
Mr Bowen advocated replacing coal generators with wind and solar, with their shares of electricity supply to increase from 30 per cent to 82 per cent by 2030. To facilitate this, he proposed spending $80 billion on transmission, thereby quadrupling its present costs.
He also ridiculed a Morrison government that ‘does not believe renewables are the cheapest form of energy, or that the world’s climate emergency is Australia’s jobs opportunity’.
Following the May election – the ALP, along with Greens and Teals – received all their Christmas presents at once with an energy supply shortage where a third of the coal generators were out of action, bringing an eight-fold increase in wholesale prices.
After two weeks in office, the new government is now silent on its ludicrous claim that its replacement of coal with high-cost wind/solar generation will save households $275 a year.
The June 8 meeting of energy ministers endorsed the transmission part of the ALP plan only to see this undermined the very next day with the announcement of delays in a crucial element – the conversion of the Snowy Hydro system into a renewables-supportive pumped hydro facility.
Panicked by the tenfold increase in electricity prices, the energy ministers announced measures to patch up the wounds in the market caused by the very political controls they were amplifying. These included giving regulators powers to trade gas, with no consideration of the effects of this on other suppliers’ actions.
Energy ministers also announced replacing the existing ‘energy only’ market with a UK-style ‘capacity market’. Such a system ostensibly offers more funding to controllable supplies like those from coal, gas, and hydro. But it is less effective and more expensive than having decisions on supply reliability made by retailers who need to balance contracts between many different sources. Western Australia operates with a ‘capacity market’ and it has added costs without improving availability.
The recent bankruptcy of half of the UK’s energy retailers demonstrates that a capacity market does not give greater security.
Fundamental harm has been done to the energy system as a result of politicians meddling in commercial matters. The creation of the National Electricity Market and privatisations two decades ago has brought to Australia the world’s most efficient, lowest-cost electricity supply.
There are two reasons why it has since gone pear-shaped.
First, governments have subsidised wind and solar, making coal and gas generators unprofitable and forcing their closure. Governments made it clear that coal generators, which supply 60-70 per cent of our electricity, have a very limited social license to operate. They inhibited access to new coal supplies, accepted activists’ attacks on coal, and closed their eyes to policies of banks that refused loans and of insurance companies that refused cover.
Secondly, governments have foreclosed exploration and development of abundantly available gas in South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales. Astonishingly, in face of consequent shortages, the Victorian energy minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, advocated diverting Queensland gas to Victoria. In response to criticism of this policy, Premier Daniel Andrews suggested it was only possible for Victoria to supply gas if we ‘frack up the joint’ which he claims (contrary to all the evidence) will harm our prime agricultural land. The state Liberal Party shares the same policy to the great detriment of the people the politicians supposedly represent.
The industry has been treated as the playground of politicians. They have compounded their own errors in subsidising renewables that undermine the whole system by funding the will-o’-the-wisp (which is hydrogen power) and by appointing activists to bloated regulatory agencies and to their own departments.
Creating the damage is easier than repairing it.
The subsidies to wind and solar will continue to poison efficient supply for many years to come. But as a start, governments must abandon all subsidies, free up regulatory restraints, and disengage from controls over retailers and generators. Efficient electricity supply, like that of groceries, telephony, and cars, requires market – not government – control. As has been demonstrated, the latter brings especially perverse outcomes when it seeks to specify particular technologies.
Rectifying the damage also requires restoring the social licence to build new coal power stations and nuclear power. This involves correcting an environment whereby financiers have joined regulators and activists in preventing new investment.
Government leadership is required to undo this damage, including by upholding laws that prevent trespass, abandoning requirements on firms to conform to concocted environmental pressures, and making all businesses aware that discrimination against energy suppliers is alien to government policy.
This will not be easy.
Ministerial statements demonstrate an ignorance in blaming the cause of the current crisis on gas and coal. Both Labor and Coalition politicians have, for the most part, listened to activists and subsidy-seekers and drunk the kool-ade that wind/solar is not only necessary to save humanity but is also cheaper. It seems the situation will need to deteriorate even further before there is a realistic chance of policy reversals.’https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/06/politicians-have-sabotaged-the-energy-market/
‘Labour MP Rupa Huq is making another attempt to introduce new legislation that would ban any sort of prayer, protest or support offered to people outside of abortion clinics across the country.
In an amendment to the Public Order Bill, the proposed text suggests that anyone found within these censorship zones – which constitute a 150m radius around abortion clinics – could face a fine or six months’ imprisonment, and if found for a second time, could even face up to two years in prison.
To be clear, these punishments are reserved for anyone who “interferes with any person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone.”
However, ‘interferes with’ is further broken down, making it clear that it targets anyone who might be there to offer appropriate support and advice to women looking for help. The amendment lays out that ‘interferes with’ can be defined as:
“(a) seeks to influence; or
(b) persistently, continuously or repeatedly occupies; or
(c) Impedes or threatens; or
(d) intimidates or harasses; or
(e) advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion; or
(f) informs or attempts to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal or written means; or
(g) sketches, photographs, records, stores, broadcasts, or transmits images, audio, likeness or personal data or any person without express consent.”
The effort to shut down the pro-life voice by any means is sadly not new. In fact, the proposed amendment is simply the re-tabling of the same amendment brought forward by Ms Huq in 2021, which ended up not being put to a vote after opposition from Parliament and the public.
However, an increasing number of local councils have gone out of their way to enact Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), which essentially have the same legal effect as creating a so-called ‘buffer zone’.
Most famously, in October 2019, Christian Hacking became the first person to be arrested for publicly praying in front of an abortion clinic, in violation of the UK’s first ‘buffer zone’ in Ealing, West London. Since then, two more ‘buffer zones’ have been created in the UK, effectively silencing the pro-life voice outside abortion clinics.
More recently, Birmingham City Council has consulted on creating a new PSPO around another abortion clinic, arguing that it was in the ‘public interest’ to protect residents from allegedly ‘violent protestors’. Pro-life group 40 Days for Life, which regularly sets up peaceful prayer vigils outside abortion clinics (far enough away from the entrance so as not to cause disturbance), was accused by the council of sending ‘violent protestors’ to the Robert Clinic, Birmingham, who allegedly harass and interrogate the public. Yet the council failed to recognise that in reality, it is the pro-life volunteers who regularly face harassment from the public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_sGmizYSQs Lots of foul language against those praying for those seeking an abortion.
Yet in reality, these zones are really ‘censorship zones’. The real purpose of them is shut down any form of pro-life action, prayer or support, outside of abortion clinics. In effect, this gives priority to a pro-abortion viewpoint over a pro-life viewpoint.
Even pro-abortion MP Kit Malthouse seemed to point out the hypocrisy of so-called ‘buffer zones’ during the second reading of the Public Order Bill in the House of Commons, commenting:
“I am honestly and genuinely perplexed by the argument about buffer zones … I understand the sensitivity in that particular situation, but why is it that we object to and are willing to restrict that particular form of protest, but not others?”
The pro-life presence outside abortion clinics in the UK is a peaceful one, with most groups setting up prayer vigils or silent demonstrations, with the occasional leaflet or booklet being offered to those who pass by.
Many women – and men – have been helped by these pro-lifers outside abortion clinics, being shown there are other options to abortion. For example, Danny and Carla were helped by 40 Days for Life outside an abortion clinic when they felt they had no other choice than to terminate Carla’s pregnancy. They are now proud parents to baby Betsy.
Similarly, the testimonies of those helped by abortion pill reversal suggest a growing number of women who regret choosing abortion, and point to a much-needed pro-life presence outside abortion clinics.
It makes sense for the pro-life movement to be present outside the very place it objects to; much as you might find animal rights’ protestors outside shops that sell fur or products tested on animals. The difference is, those with a pro-life point of view are effectively being told their views aren’t valid and must be shut down, even when they cause no disruption.
In turn, this essentially allows ideological abortion providers to hide all opposition to what they’re doing to where no one can see it. It lets them keep women, who may be being coerced or uncertain about their decision, on the abortion conveyor belt that always ends in the ‘choice’ to abort.
These censorship zones effectively breach freedom of religion and belief by banning a pro-life viewpoint from being expressed within a certain area. They are also a wildly disproportionate response to the activity that generally goes on outside abortion clinics.
Article 9 of the Human Rights Act in the UK protects freedom of thought, belief and religion, which Article 10 protects the right to freedom of expression. Similarly, Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights provides freedom of assembly, meaning that everyone, no matter the cause, has a right to protest, demonstrate or march in a public space – which includes outside abortion clinics.
The universal introduction of so-called ‘buffer zones’ would inhibit these freedoms and may well be ruled to breach human rights.
On various occasions, both Parliament and the public have opposed the introduction of these areas of censorship around abortion clinics.’https://christianconcern.com/action/praying-outside-an-abortion-clinic-could-land-you-in-jail-for-two-years/