I Agree With.......Al Sharpton?!

Mark the date and time. It's 1:19pm CST on Monday March 22nd, the day after "Dependence" day. I was watching CSPAN last night when "reverend" Al was on Fox News, so I didn't see this until now (yes it's my late lunch hour). He is exactly right (see video below).

I have already had this same conversation with a friend today. This is our fault; we asked for it. By "our" and "we" I mean collectively as a country. It was all out there. There is no excuse for anyone not to have known exactly what Obama stood for; what camp he resides in. For those who seem to be so shocked by this revelation because A) the totality of news you get is by tuning into one of the major network evening news broadcasts for 30 minutes a couple of times a week, or B) you simply felt it was time for a black man to win the white house, or C) you got a chill up your leg when he spoke....you compromised 200+ years of blood, sweat and tears because of your shallow uninformed self interests.

The Most Dangerous Kind of Liar

Health Care Legislation - Besides all the back room deals and bribes, President Obama still couldn't get enough votes from his own party. How did he finally get the votes? He promised Bart Stupack he would issue an Executive Order which would circumvent all the pro-abortion language in the bill (which the dems claim isn't there).

Cap & Trade Legislation - The President never got the votes in congress to pass this socialist legislation, so he went around congress and issued an Executive Order charging the EPA to do it anyway.

Government Regulation of the Internet - Congress says no way. Obama issues an Executive Order charging the FCC to do it anyway.

The Debt Commission - The senate blocked it. Obama created the commission anyway by way of an Executive Order. He even had the nerve to say he would do it during the State of The Union Address.

Card Check? The President is still pushing that one through by any means even though congress has rejected it.

Where Do You Find These Angels?

Fishing Soon to be Illegal in the USA?

First you need to read two other posts I've written in the past for this to make sense:

All Hail Mother Earth: Kill The Humans!!

All Hail Mother Earth: Kill The Humans #2

And now two more articles of interest that I think piggy back nicely onto those. First, from our friends in Switzerland there are people taking other people to court over...catching fish. Yes, in these cases the fish is actually the plaintif! Scales of Justice: In Zurich, Even Fish Have a Lawyer.

But you say, "Oh those stories are from Europe, not the USA. Stop being so concerned over those cooky Spaniards, Brits and the Swiss." Oh really.....

From ESPN, Culled Out: Obama Will Accept No More Public Input For Federal Fishing Strategy

WAKE UP! This has been here for a long time and we are just now waking up to it. The progressives are making greater strides now that one of their own is in the White House. And don't think "We the People" will always prevail. The progressives have been indoctrinating the youth for years to where more and more every day things like this seem absolutely normal.

Farmers in the San Joachin valley of California are going out of business because extremist progressive environmentalists are protecting a fish! People suffer and are waiting in food lines because the animals have more rights.

It is evil.

Embrace Life! Always Wear Your Seat Belt

Yes I am pro-life. All life. I loved this video!

Understanding The History: Abortion 101

I know this is a more reading than you want. Heck, my ADD prevents me from reading most anything longer than one page UNLESS I find it fascinating or very important. To me all of this fits both bills.

While on one hand I tend to think our nation has "progressed" too far to ever turn back. On the other hand I know that with God all things are possible. What I am getting at is the possibility of eliminating abortion from our country...and the world.

This issue has a long and ugly history in our country. To understand how it came about you must read the following articles:

The History of Planned Parenthood: When reading this article if you come across a term you don't understand Google it! Learn about things like eugenics and the Supreme Court case of Buck v Bell. If you thought the Nazis were the authors of ethnic cleansing you don't know your history.

Margaret Sanger's focus was not to promote birth rates among the nations educated elite, but rather eliminating births among those deemed unfit, or as she called them "slum mothers". If you think that was then, but things are different now, here are just a couple of examples:

Hillary Clinton praised Margaret Sanger when she received Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger award in April of 2009 saying, "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision ... "

Or the interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg in the New York Times, July 2009. I've linked to it and the quote I use below is found at the top of page 4, but I recommend you back up to page 3 and read a couple of questions that lead up to her giving the answer. In answering about a case that upheld the Hyde Amendment which prohibits abortion funding for Medicaid, Justice Ginsberg tells how she was surprised by the ruling because she thought that Roe v Wade was intended to be for the poor. Why did she think that (emphasis mine):

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.

How about the fact that President Obama's advisor for Science and Technology co-wrote a book called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; in which he discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation including enforced population controls, like forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, placing sterilants in the nations water supply or ever better, forced abortions for certain undesirables.

This only scratches the surface of the evil behind what has cleverly been branded health and reproductive rights.

It's Sundown in America

Honestly; does this sound like the America you want? Again, I appeal to common sense. Even if you do not believe in The one true God or any god, must you also take that right away from those who do? Yes, you have to take that right away because it is afforded all Americans in the US Constitution.

Following an ACLU lawsuit filed against Santa Rosa School district in Florida, Judge M. Casey Rodgers ruled to deny prayer in the counties schools. Evidently the school district decided to come to an agreement with the ACLU without fighting it, also called a consent decree. Trying to overturn the decree one of the teachers gave this testimony:

During testimony in December, Michelle Winkler broke down on the witness stand when describing how a coworker sought comfort from her after losing her two-year-old child. The two hid behind a closet door to pray because they feared the consent decree. Denise Gibson, an elementary teacher for 20 years, testified the order forces her to tell parents she cannot respond if they talk about church or their faith. She may not even respond to an email from a parent if it contains a Scripture verse or “God bless you.” Instead, the District requires her to open a separate email to respond rather than hit “reply,” in order to eliminate any trace of religious language.

Also:

• School employees are prohibited from “communication with a deity” when in their “official capacity.”
  
• They are considered to be in their “official capacity” even when not working – whenever they attend a “school event,” which includes events during the day, including breaks, after-school events on or off campus, and privately sponsored events on campus for students.
  
• Employees cannot bow their head or fold their hands and must prohibit others from praying, even in meetings such as Good News Clubs or privately sponsored baccalaureate services.

I mean come on! You may not believe in God, you may want to have all personal prayer banned from public school, but are you brave enough to say that this cannot happen because the US Constitution protects it?!

The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Scientific Censorship

I keep writing on this theme, but that is because again and again and again I am seeing old long held scientific theories of the origins of life and of evolution fall into greater doubt. Yet another one is now falling away and that is the idea that the first life arose in tidal pools in a theory widely known as primordial soup. Here is a good article that is a quick read which gets to the heart of the issue: New Research Rejects 80-year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life.

I've written about the fallen long held theory of dinosaur to bird evolution. I've shown the debacle behind the hype of "Ida" and also how vested interests are the enemy of sound science. Just click on the "Science" label on the right hand menu of this blog to read what I'm talking about.

When I first saw the title of the article rejecting the primordial soup theory I was excited, but quickly I realized why a secular scientific journal would allow it to be published. The reason? Because in it's place another BS theory was introduced. The fact is the scientists have had no success in remotely replicating or proving the primordial soup theory. They continued for years and each attempt met failure. The only way they are willing to move away from it was if they could come up with another theory that not only would buy more time, but also wouldn't challenge their preconceived idea as to what they need the end result to be. And so instead of life arising in primordial tidal pools they give us the alternative theory that (drum roll) life arose from gases and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by "mother Earth" at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent.

So we go from primordial soup to primordial vents?

This science will continue to demonstrate that a theory of life coming about in the absence of a living Creator falls short of reality. This failure will not be due to the quality of the science, but rather because their goal is to discard anything the doesn't fit into the particular belief system of the scientific elite. Censorship never leads to good science.

Pro-Choice Hypocrisy

If you've been following the uproar over the not yet released Tim Tebow Superbowl ad, you've seen the hypocrisy of the pro-choice advocates; at least in their leadership and spokes persons. To me it unveils the true intentions of the so-called pro-choice lobby. They are not pro-choice at all, but rather pro-abortion. This is something I have written about time and time again.

At the time of this posting this ad has only been seen by it's producers and some of the execs at CBS. Yet, even though the pro-choice lobby hasn't seen it (and they admit they haven't seen it) they know they hate it, making claims that it aims to "deny a woman's right to choose". This is ridiculous. The ad tells the story of a woman who did choose and her choice was to give birth to the baby rather than abort it, even against the advice of her doctors. That's it!

The pro-choice movement isn't interested in choice at all. They want you to get an abortion, period. They are consumed with the "right" to control life and death and by doing so, to me, they reveal their true intentions. Complete autonomy. I see the world through spiritual eyes and it is the same lie that caused the fall of the first man and woman; the promise of being a god.

Here is a great article from the Washington Post to read and I've also linked to a video interview that shows the extent the pro-choice lobby will go to make their point. I know that there are many ordinary people who are pro-choice that have no issue with a positive story that celebrates the CHOICE of life. But there is an element within the pro-life movement that is focused on death. They err towards death at every opportunity and to them I say, may God have mercy.

Sorry I couldn't embed the video, but here is the link.

Freedom of Religion and the Constitution

In support of free speech I say you are entitled. Quoting the article on the Fox News website:

An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."

Now to exercise my free speech:

Yes, once again we hear from the imbeciles over at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Their name says it all. To think that you can rid any and all religious references, hints or appearances from life is so brainless. Not to mention this "right" to rid us from religion is not theirs! The first amendment clearly states that all citizens of the USA have the right to freedom of religion not a freedom from it. Why do they think they can force it out of lives? Oh yes, because of that silly idea of "separation of Church and state". Laughable; show me where that is in the constitution.

Those who have twisted that non-constitutional phrase into something that could or should possibly shape our society are fools. You incorrectly think it means that God should stay out of the government's business. Make it mean whatever you want it to mean, it doesn't apply because it is not in the constitution. What is in the constitution clearly states that the government must stay out of the business of how the people chose to exercise their religion. A stamp with Mother Theresa, or Moses, or Buddha or Muhammad or Jesus, I could care less. But no person or institution has the right to say no to it.

I do take exception to the Post Office having a regulation that says they won't honor individuals whose achievements are religious in nature. That is nothing more that a politically correct cop out and what fuels these complaints. I can protest that decision and do my best to convince them to reverse it. But, the Post Office can freely choose to display anything they want on their stamps and I have no right to force them to do anything, so long as the image doesn't violate any law.

Do you believe the Constitution contains timeless truths; things that are true for all people, in all times? Not if you think like the stream of so called intellectuals that have come along over the ages. One sits in the White House now. In Mr. Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" he states:

Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.

Not me. Our founders laid down a blueprint for a government this world has never known before. It has provided it's citizens a standard of living far greater than any country has ever had in the history of the world. It must be interpreted today as the founders laid it out then. To stray away from it would mean to stray away from what and who we are as Americans.

Killing The Unborn - A Fundemental Right?

This past Friday (Jan. 22, 2010) President Obama commemorated the 37th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision by releasing a statement:

Today we recognize the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirms every woman’s fundamental constitutional right to choose whether to have an abortion, as well as each American’s right to privacy from government intrusion. I have, and continue to, support these constitutional rights. I also remain committed to working with people of good will to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and families, and strengthen the adoption system. Today and every day, we must strive to ensure that all women have limitless opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

A statement artfully crafted with doublespeak in order to support this evil act. He couples the right to an abortion with every American's right to privacy from Government intrusion. He say he supports more prevention of unintended pregnancies and couples that with his stance for limitless opportunities for women to fulfill their dreams.

As I write this our nation has allowed the killing of nearly 45 million unborn babies since Roe v. Wade. Abortion is the number one method of killing Blacks and Hispanics today. The President himself has said that he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" as the result of an unintended pregnancy. Supreme court justice Ruth Ginsberg admitted in a Dec. 2009 NY Times article that she voted in favor of Roe v Wade because she saw it as a method to rid the nation of certain "undesirables". Evil!

The big question I have to ask is ultimately where do rights come from? For those who believe in God the only answer you can have is that rights come from God. Our founding fathers believed this; read the Declaration of Independence. For the unbeliever rights are granted by the government and the government determines rights, not based on what the majority want, no. Rather, the government decides what rights we have based on the ideas of a few elitists who just happen to be in power at the time. When a people allow their government to supplant God, it never ends well. Refer to Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China under Mao, and the darling of today's elitist progressives, Communist Cuba and the dictatorial regime in Venezuela.

The hypocrisy of our President knows no bound. He calls himself a man of faith yet embraces the elitist power structure that brings huge government control over our lives. Didn't he say that a person's right to abortion was a victory against government intrusion into our private lives? Just asking....

All rights come from God and God never gives us the right to do that which is as inherently evil as the act of abortion.

Responding to AARP - Eddie Style!

It's my first post of the year! There has been a lot happening in the world of politics, but I'm not going to write about every little things going on out there. I focus mostly on pro-life issues, constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and religion, and creation science. But I couldn't pass up this one.

My birthday was on December 19th and I turned 49 years old. Then somewhat unexpectedly, only 16 days later, IT came in the mail. IT is the dreaded AARP membership letter. Honestly I could care less about my age and even if there was a brief wince when I saw the letter, that quickly subsided because I know AARP could care less about the age of their members. They want the membership dues and to sell seniors medicare gap insurance. It's money that drives them.

If you keep up with politics you know AARP is a very left leaning organization. I'm not going to go into all of the facts of this, you can do the research and decide for yourself. For me though, I would never join this organization. So when I received the membership letter I knew right away that this deserved more than just tearing it up and tossing it! So I thought I would document how to do it Eddie style.

Ah yes, the dreaded letter.



The contents. The membership form showing all of the sweet benefits, the coveted AARP membership card and of course the postage paid return envelop.



Here is what they will receive when they open the envelop. The AARP card meticulously cut into strips and a heart felt note from (tee-hee) moi.



And it comes back to them in the same unsuspecting way they sent it to me. Postage paid.

Christ is Born!

With all the giving that's about to happen, please remember that God is the original author of giving. The words give, gave, gift, etc. appear over 2,100 times in scripture. Ultimately God gave Himself to an undeserving world and tonight we celebrate the arrival of our Savior, the greatest and most expensive gift ever.

Merry Christmas.

The Abortion Trick

Great. Our Health and Human Services Secretary just luuuvs the accounting trick in the Seneate Health Bill that will not only allow abortions, but mandate everyone pay for them. But that can't be true! She said it's not for abortions.

I honestly hate these people. Listen to the double talk from the one with the forked tongue.

What's The Problem? Kids Do This Stuff All The Time

Before watching this video wrap duck tape around your head to prevent it FROM EXPLODING!!!!

If you get an error saying the video is not available click this link.



I don't even know where to start:

1. First - Hey Mom holding that pillow or blanket or whatever it is over your mid-section doesn't hide the fact you have a weight problem. Moron!
2. "[My] Biggest concern was him being out there, getting kidnapped, getting run over, the alcohol, having to have his stomach pumped." - My biggest concern is that YOU are a moron and has custody of a child!
3. "He runs away trying to find his father. He wants to get in trouble so he can go to jail because that's where his daddy is." - SHOCKER!
4. Speaking of the beer the child got a hold of, "He got it out of my father's cooler in the back and how he got it open I don't understand because it was one of those tab beers." - Yes those "tab beers" are so mentally challenging for us we're not sure HOW a 4 year old could figure it out! He must be like super-freaky smart.
5. "Going to the neighbor's house and taking their presents, very embarrassing," - Embarrassing for who? MORON!!!
6. "Kids do things like this and it's out of your control, you can do the best you can as a mother, everyone makes mistakes, it was an honest mistake," - WHAT?!! Kids do things like this?! AHHHHHHHHHHH!

And if that's not bad enough, I read that Child Protective Services is going to let her keep the kid. What does it take? Let's see:

• Mom is a moron (opening a "tab" beer is like on the order of completing a Rubik cube)- check
• Dad likes drinking in the streets and is well known to do so by his kid - check
• Dad's now in jail - check
• Mom's father leaves unsupervised beer in cooler out back that is easily assessable by children - check
• Child skilled at disarming safety devices on door knobs - check
• Home not secure enough at 2:00 am to prevent a child from getting out into the streets - check
• Child is known to want to get into trouble, drinks alcohol, is adept at breaking and entering, theft and enjoys a little cross dressing - check
• Mom is too stupid to know that this not only really dangerous behavior, but seems to not even understand it is ALL HER FAULT. CHECK!!!

Scientific Reasoning - This Is How It's Done

Watch the video. It's a little over 10 minutes, but well worth it. In it you will see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears the two dominant and opposing thought processes of the people in this world. The majority of us fall into one of these two camps. Neither are unreasonable. The two carry out a conversation that is civil and calm.

I have to admit that what makes this exchange so valuable is the combination of two things. 1) The ability of the interviewer to present the facts and ask pointed questions, and 2) the willingness of the Green Peace activist to continue with the interview so we can all witness for our selves why her thinking is flawed. Understand it's not just her data that is flawed; no, it is how she thinks that is the root cause.

The apex of the argument occurs at the 7:25 mark. She admits that her belief in the crisis of "man made" global warming is based on faith; faith in sources that support her own pre-conceived ideas that man made global warming is true. Many have said to me that my faith in God is the same thing as someone's faith in global warming and I would agree with the exception of one major difference. If anyone can prove that my sources for believing in God are false I would give up any belief in God. But again, proof is objective facts that is outside of what I feel or want to believe. The woman in this video refuses to want to do that.

Beer, Guns and Making Good On A Bet

Question: What's the last thing said before someone called 9-1-1?
Answer: Hold my beer and watch this!

Pro-Abortion? You Know The Truth.

I keep saying this; I just don't get it. Watch the video and you tell me, how do the answers given make you feel? Deep down in your heart of hearts is this right or wrong? Or is it a gray area?

Gray?! What could be gray about the issue of abortion. The doctor is very clever with his answers. For example when the woman asks the doctor what will be "removed" and the doctor answers "a fetus..but a fetus is not a baby", is that a truthful answer? In one way it is; a fetus is not a baby. However, the next question that the woman should have asked is "Is a fetus a living human?". The answer to that question is absolutely YES. From conception to natural death we are always a living human. A zygote is a zygote, an embryo is an embryo, a fetus is a fetus, a baby is a baby, a toddler is a toddler, a child is a child, a teen is a teen, a man is a man. All are stages of human life.

I've written before about this and you can read more in my article The Logic Cop Says It's A Human Baby. Also click on the Abortion topic on the right menu bar for more heart stopping sadness.

Science Becomming Scandalous

At first I didn't want to write about this, and I am sorry it's such a long article, but I have a lot to say. I get so tired of putting forth these arguments, trying to shine a light on how scientist's preconceived ideas is what determines the final result even if the data does not fit what you want it to be. Just click on the Science label on the right side bar of my blog page to read them.

Let me state again for the record: If the data is honestly and exhaustively examined and it shows a result, and that result is repeated in a vast majority of samples, I will hold the result to be true and that truth will formulate current beliefs of reality. What does that mean? If someone proves to me that there is no God, understanding that proof is something outside of us, proof is not influenced by what I think or how I feel, it is objective; knowing that, if someone proves there is no God, I will stop believing in God.

But that goes for scientists too. It's what makes science dependable and based on integrity. If the data disproves what you thought is true, you must change what you believe to be true, period.

We've seen this in the recent Climategate scandal. At least that scandal is finally being exposed so the public can see for themselves what's being done. We also have seen this in the science of Darwinian evolution, which I have written extensively about, specifically in the area of soft tissue being found in dinosaur fossils that are supposedly 60-80 million years old. Scientists say that it is impossible for soft tissue to survive that length of time, even saying they doubt soft tissue can survive longer than a million years tops. Yet when faced with finding soft tissue and being quoted as saying it is impossible for soft tissue to be present in a 60 million year old fossil, do they say "we have to rethink the science behind how we determine the ages of these fossils"? No, they just say "I know it's impossible, but there you have it. Isn't it amazing?".

To provide you with a visual, I've included a link to a video from the TV show 60 Minutes. This dino soft tissue story has finally made it to the main stream...after 10 years! It's about 13 minutes long and you have to endure a Viagra commercial but it's worth it. Watch it with a ear tuned for how they carry out their science. A few notes about this video:

• Jack Horner has been around for a long time. I was reading his work back in the 80's and he's been the leading scientist that supports the theory that dinosaurs evolved into modern day birds. I was surprised to hear him still pushing that theory because I've read that it has all but been abandoned. Read my article called More Scientific Backtracking.
• When the soft tissue find was first published the scientific community's first response was harsh criticism. Funny how that is. Instead of verifying whether it's true or not, the first reaction is to kill the messenger.
• Watch the video, I think it's around the 6:30 mark when they start talking about the soft tissue find; even with the evidence in front of their eyes, and despite their own incredulity, the two still accepted the story that organic remnants that should have rotted long ago had somehow been preserved for longer than many current species have supposedly existed on earth.

Why manipulate the data?

In regards to the Climategate scandal, best case, this scandal means that scientists are manipulating the data to show man made global warming is true when it is not because they want to tap into the billions of dollars in research money available. Basically fabricating a desired result to get themselves and their institutions rich. It's a circular cash-cow. They produce false results, everyone panics and says it's a coming disaster, money pours in to study it further, and they produce more false results to perpetuate the con.

Worst case it is a massive fraud, a global redistribution of wealth that is intended to socialize American and bring down our standard of living in order to perpetuate the communist idea of social justice.

Here is the 60 Minutes video:



Watch CBS News Videos Online

Vested Interests Are The Enemy Of Science

In my 11/20/09 article titled The New Scientific Method: Remove The Data That Doesn't Support My Theories I talked about what is now being called "Climategate". The purposeful effort by climate change scientists to alter the data to suppport their preconceived theory.

This scandal is not going away, at least not in the blogosphere (you won't read anything about it in the main stream media), and I finally read a great article in the Wall Street Journal titled Climategate: Follow The Money. In that article (read it, it's short and to the point) was this fantastic quote regarding the organizations that receive ever increasing grants to study climate change because those very same organizations keep ringing the warning bell of climate change ever louder:

None of these outfits are per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Emphasis mine. I couldn't have said it better.