Mike Curtiss (29 Dec 2012)
"The Damage of Fear"

 

Hi Brother Jay and All Doves, 

    Fear has no place within the heart of a Christian except fear of

the Righteous Judge. Make no mistake, there's a considerable campaign
underway to scare the American people into living inside a cocoon of
isolation and away from healthy relationships with other members of their
community.
      Brother Jay has authored a long series of posts, which breathlessly warn
us of the first shots fired in a new global conflict. I'm no military expert, but
I do know a few things about struggle. There has been an unending war
between the armies of darkness and the bearer of the truth since 'the Fall
of man' All rebellion stems from this multi-millennial conflict. In fact, at this
present time all mankind is deeply embroiled in the final conflict.
      I pray none of the pilgrims who gather here confuse what I have to say about the current state of affairs here or abroad.
Our ancient enemy wants us quaking behind doors, armed to the teeth and
depressed to the end by a lack of trust with our fellow man and woman. Trust me Jay, I don't want any of you to suffer from fear. Why is fear so
damaging to a Christian? It renders our love for the lost and our love for the
Brethren mute.
      Fear only comes in two flavors, rational and irrational. Rational fear can be a lifesaver, because it warns us to runaway, hide and live to fight another
day. However, irrational fear is almost always something we here from remote reports, stories attributed to unnamed sources, or pernicious rumors
concocted to create irrational fear. Just imagine how damaging this bogus published accounts are of N. Korean ICBM's being able to reach the USA with nuclear weapons?
      First, the article doesn't bother to admit to the reader that at best the NorK's have only marginal success in producing nuclear fission. The have do have so called 'dirty bombs' , which are made up of radioactive waste from
x-ray machines and scattering it across metropolitan areas. No credible evidence exists that the NorK's possess routinely dependable nuclear bombs.
      Second, to compound their utter stupidity, the NorK's have a truly abysmal record of staging successful launches of their ICBM's, which
really should be renamed intercountry fireworks displays for the Dear Leaders current international shakedown schemes. As a nation starving it's
people to death those fireworks must be very impressive. In the past 25
launches, the NorK's managed just seven missiles leaving the ground. Of those, four separated into a second stage and or third stage.
      Finally, with the most current knowledge of the NorK's prowess in the use of this 'rocket technology' are any of you frightened of the Fat Boy's 
firework's? The Bible uses the term 'fear not' or 'do not be afraid' 365 times.
This can be no accidental number, because 'the ancient of days' controls
the content and outcome of every single day to come. He demands that His
children keep their eyes firmly fixed upon Him. Only them can we led lives worthy of his sacrificial death, burial and resurrection unto eternal life.     
      Remember James 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'
I hope Brother Jay's not offended by my remarks today. I'll leave any Dove
who's read this far a challenge, which proves the media's fanned the
flames of fear beyond all proportion when it comes to the issue of America
becoming overwhelmed by undesirable minorities. What percentage of the 
American population is made up of people who call themselves caucasians?
Please don't cheat, or Google the answer please.

                      The Lord Jesus' agape Love to You,

                                                                  Mike Curtiss        
          

                                                


News Writers: Stop Trying To Scare People With Made-Up Storm Language

Hurricane Sandy wasn't a "superstorm." Not because it wasn't a "super" "storm," but because "superstorm" is an imaginary scare-term that exists exclusively for shock value.

Superstorm? Robert Simmon with data courtesy of the NASA/NOAA GOES Project Science team
Superstorm [suːpər ˈstɔrm]
Here is a short list of major news organizations referring to Sandy as a "superstorm": The L.A. TimesCBS NewsTimeThe GuardianBusiness Insiderthe Toronto Star, and the Wall Street Journal.
Here's what Professor Alan Blumberg, professor of ocean engineering at the Stevens Institute of Technology and director of its Center for Maritime Systems, says a "superstorm" is: "It's a media invention. There's no real meteorological term called 'superstorm.'"
The storm we know as Sandy has gone by several different classifications. Storm classifications are fluid, just as the storms are: what is a Category 3 hurricane in one part of the world might be nothing but a cyclone by the time it reaches another part. "You typically talk about a storm's category depending on where you are," says Blumberg. Sandy was, according to the Saffir-Simpson Category Scale (that's the scale that decides what category a hurricane is, based mostly on wind speed), a Category 2 hurricane when it made landfall in Cuba, early on the morning of October 25th. But when it made landfall near Atlantic City, on the evening of the 29th, it was a tropical cyclone, due to its reduced strength from its trip up the coast. (Well, technically, it was a "post-tropical cyclone," as it had ventured out of the tropics but retained the wind speeds of a tropical cyclone.) A hurricane is a specific type of tropical cyclone, with sustained winds of at least 74 mph. The Sandy that reached New Jersey was not moving fast enough to retain its hurricane status, so it was a mere tropical cyclone.
It gets even more complicated when we talk about the storm that hit northern Appalachia in West Virginia, western Virginia, and central Pennsylvania. Sandy took an abrupt turn west and south after it made landfall in New Jersey, which means for those areas, Sandy was actually classified as a nor'easter (it was coming from the north and east, you see). So Sandy had lots of names. But none of them was "superstorm."
On October 29th, Fox News ran a story called "Hurricane Sandy: Five Reasons It's A Superstorm." The reasons are indeed valid reasons why Sandy is a very big and scary storm--the awful timing of high tide, arctic air coming down from Canada, that kind of thing. Mostly, the reason it feelsokay to give Sandy this scary new name of "superstorm" is that Sandy merged with an unusually cold storm to its west which had been hurling early snows down on West Virginia, forming one giant storm that gave Sandy more power and also pushed it west--very unusual for a tropical cyclone, says Blumberg. So, two storms in one = superstorm, right? Well, no. A super storm, perhaps, as in a "very large or powerful" storm, but not a superstorm. There's no such thing as a superstorm.
But the phrase "superstorm" took off, perhaps because "post-tropical cyclone" sounds not as scary. And, in the defense of those repeatedly insisting on the superiority of this storm, it was a very awful and destructive weather system! You could make a reasonable argument that the term is descriptive or evocative rather than scientific, and you could make an argument that playing up the super-ness of the storm served the function of scaring people into protecting themselves. But it's important not to pretend scary-sounding words--or even silly words, like "Frankenstorm"--are scientific classifications. Sandy wasn't "downgraded from a hurricane to a superstorm." Sandy was never a superstorm. There are no superstorms.