It's a Man Caused Disaster All Right

I know this isn't typically what I focus on. As a reminder I tend to write about God and His Christ, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, support of life and creationism. But now and then I get wind of something that I just can't let go by without a [wise] reply:

A few weeks ago, to my unbelieving ears, Secretary of State Clinton announced that the U.S. no longer would use “war on terror” to describe the fight against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other affiliated terrorist groups. Huh? Shortly after, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano went so far as to suggest we avoid the word "terrorism" altogether in favor of “man-caused disasters”. Double-huh?

Surely we can be a little more creative than that! Here are a few of my choices. Feel free to suggest some yourself:

1. Grievance Flare-ups
2. Hoo-ha Eruptions
3. Objection Breakouts

Why do we allow these fools to rule? The reasons are in the Bible.

I Want Freedom of Religion!!

How far we've drifted. I know society progresses, but our founding fathers would not even recognize our nation in it's current state. Doesn't that say something about the direction we're headed? I know that not everyone believes the same thing, but our nation was setup to allow open and free expression of our beliefs. If you choose not to believe, then fine, just don't impede my right to freedom OF religion. The loud minority has succeeded and is continuing to succeed in erasing any public expression of religion and we've allowed them to succeed based on a lie; separation of church and state. Where in the constitution is that found?

"To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there." Benjamin Franklin 1787 speaking to Europeans thinking of relocating to America.

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay, 1797, the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington.

"Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament." Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration and a member of the presidential administrations of Adams, Jefferson and Madison.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." George Washington, Farewell Address.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Declaration of Independence

"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." 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, NOT freedom from religion. Let's elect people who will return us to this original condition.

Let's Fight Muslim Bashing by Bashing Christians

A British charity funded by the British government published a cartoon story entitled Standing Up For What You Believe In, appears in the latest issue of Klic!, a quarterly magazine aimed at children aged from eight to 12. The charity set up in 1992, is described on the cover as ‘the best ever mag for kids in care’ and is widely distributed.

In the cartoon strip, a boy wearing a large cross around his neck is shown telling a friend that a smiling Muslim girl in a veil looks like a terrorist. He later confronts her and shouts: ‘Hey, whatever your name is, what are you hiding under your turban?’ She replies that the garment is called a hijab and it is part of her religion, ‘like that cross you wear’. The girl is then shown standing up for another boy, who is being bullied, and her behaviour is contrasted with that of the boy wearing the cross.

This is typical of what is happening in the world that makes Christians easy targets for prejudice and discrimination. Can you imagine if a Christian organization published such a thing only with the roles reversed?

Christian religious leaders requested that the publisher withdraw the article and apologize, but the publisher replied that they had no intention of withdrawing it, describing the cross as ‘bling’ rather than a religious symbol.

You know what, it's no biggie. It'll all work out in the end.

Choices!

I read this on Yahoo news this morning, "100,000 secular Britons seek 'de-baptism".

I have mixed emotions about these things. The most powerful emotion for me is sadness and pity. I believe there is a God and I know this God to be Grace and Love, but also a God of Holiness, Truth and Justice. We are responsible for the choices we make in life and even a God whose very nature is defined as perfect Love will not drag a person kicking and screaming into heaven. You could say he answers our prayer. If we reject Him in this life, He'll honor our desire to have Him out of it forever and will reject us in eternity.

One good point of understanding that I read in the article was found in this quote:

John Hunt, a 58-year-old from London and one of the first to try to be "de-baptised," held that he was too young to make any decision when he was christened at five months old.

That is something that I hold to be True and is one of the main reasons I do not ascribe to infant baptism; let me explain. I am not in favor of any baptism that is conducted as a "scheduled" tradition. I was baptised as an infant in the catholic church and I know others who were baptised at a very young age, say 5, 8 or even 12 years old. God wants us to make our own personal decision to follow Him. That decision is based on our understanding of how our sin has violated His perfect law and, as God clearly tells us, the punishment of sin is death. BUT!! The good news is that God has paid the penalty for us, He himself in the flesh died on the cross for our sins and paid the penalty for us, all we need do is accept it and our acceptance is marked in a covenant ceremony called baptism. That decision can only be made by a person of mature mind at a time that is known as the age of understanding. What age does that occur? It's different for everyone, but I know for sure no infant is able to make that decision on their own. Typically the age of understanding occurs around 12 or 13 years old, but I've seen some people younger than that be able to show a clear understanding and make a decision. I didn't come to fully understand this until I was 39 years old and when I did, I chose to be baptized into Christ at that time even though I was baptized when I was an infant.

The people in this article understand this and are making a decision opposite of mine. They are choosing to reject God and the forgiveness He offers us through Christ, where I and others like me choose to accept it and be baptized. Asking to be de-baptized shows their ignorance of the Truth. Not that I suppose to know the mind of God, but I am certain God does not accept "forced" salvation.

Two last thoughts:

1. It may not be clear to us when a person reaches the age of understanding, but God knows when it is. If a child dies and was not old enough to understand what sin is and how it violates God's law, that child is considered innocent in God's eyes and therefore is covered by God's grace. Notice this has nothing to do with whether the person has ever "heard" the gospel or not, it's totally dependent on whether you are mature enough to understand it IF YOU HAD heard it.
2. If you are reading this and believe you are beyond that age of understanding, and have not made a personal decision whether you believe or not and whether to be baptised, then you have a decision to make. Honestly, I hope this weighs heavy on your mind. Listen, the gospel is a very easy concept, so easily understood that even a 12 year old can understand it and choose whether to believe or not. Yes, there are a lot of questions and learning and understanding that still needs to come. But once you see how it is possible that there is a God and His plan of salvation through Christ could be true, act on it and be baptised. If you die and you have not taken this step, it's too late.

Digging for "truth"

I came across this ABC video of a news piece produced by John Quiñones called "What Would You Do?". I don't know if it's a stand alone show or part of the 20/20 program, but this one caught my eye so I watched it.

To me this is nothing more than a media stunt and ABC should be ashamed for passing this stuff off as valuable, or even remotely informational.

In order to demonstrate the horrible intolerance of mainstream American culture they plant a gay couple in an average "straight" bar in New Jersey. Knowing they may not get the reaction they hope for, ABC also plants other people; a heterosexual couple and a straight guy to sort of goad the unknowing bar patrons on.

Bottom line, every attempt to show how supposedly intolerant and hateful average Americans are failed. Every time the bar patrons supported the gay guys and harassed the "plants" that were harassing them. Only one person got singled out by the news show because he muttered under his breath that he was disgusted by the two men showing affection and kissing.

Even worse, the host never pointed out the positive results that might indicate that Americans are not a bunch of homophobic hate mongers.

He's Right

In my opinion, this is exactly what I've been feeling lately. Here here to Glen Beck. It's a long piece, but listen to it all. I especially like the way he exposes Bill Maher, one of the most hateful men I know on TV.

Ummm...Uh-Oh

You Can't Hide From God

This from the South Florida Sun Sentinel: Chaplain at Hospice by the Sea in Boca Raton resigns over ban on word 'God'

Why do some people who choose not to believe in God try so hard to take it away from those who choose to believe? Like Bill Maher's film "Religulous". The title is a combination of the words religious and ridiculous, which is exactly what the film was about.

Let's say there is no God. Why spend the time and effort to destroy something that harms no one! Certainly not the people dieing at this hospice. Yes I know all about the Spanish inquisition and the Crusades. Note: Not all things done in the name of Christ is Christian.

I'll tell you my theory as to why they do this. Because they can't silence their conscience. Deep down inside they fear that there really might be a God. And if this God is the God the Christian bible describes, then that God is going to hold me responsible for my actions. So I must try and remove all reminders of this God and hide from Him. Does that sound familiar? In Genesis after the fall of man what did Adam and Eve do? They hid because they were ashamed of their sin.

News flash: We've all sinned and God will hold us all responsible. God judges us against His Holy standard. He doesn't compare us to other people, like we do when we say "Well, at least I am not as bad as him!"

The Good News: We don't have to hide. God loves us so much that He Himself, the only one who is able to pay for our sin, paid the price for us. God in the flesh, Jesus, dies upon the cross to satisfy God's own Holy law that says the penalty of sin is death. He died for us and we receive His holiness in return.

Are you still hiding?

Funny Friday

I had to share this. It's from my favorite Canadian wise a$$.

Obama: "Man of Faith" and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I am really getting tired of Barak Obama's claim to be a "man of faith". I don't know what faith he is of..I take that back, yes I do. He believes in self. He is his own god as is many people in this world. If you don't like what the True Living God tells us is right and wrong, then we'll just make up our own god and make it look like we believe in the same god as all those other "people of faith".

Why am I so ticked off?

Yesterday I posted an article about the President's decision to reverse the 2001 executive order banning the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. I've read numerous articles about the pros and cons and I am surprised at how many articles put a slant on what is happening; they omit certain words. Unless you read really carefully one would think that the President reversed an all out BAN ON ALL RESEARCH, which is completely false.

Again, so why am I ticked off? Because today I went on the white house website and read some of the Presidents speech just after reversing the executive order. He actually said:

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering.

What a piece of work this man is. He speaks with a forked tongue and does the work of the devil yet he calls himself a man of faith. It sickens me. Here is what the One True God has to say:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! - Isaiah 5:20

We celebrate abortion in this country as a basic human right. We refuse to recognize our Creator as the author of life. We remove his Word from our schools, our offices, our courts, our town halls and the public square. Woe to us.

Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research

As promised, today the President lifted the ban on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We can debate the morality of this all day, but as I've said in the past (and the same goes for abortion), it's not whether you think the destruction of embryos is worth the potential discoveries. The big argument is do we want our tax dollars FUNDING THIS! I do not.

News flash: Embryonic stem cell research is NOT illegal. The companies doing the research can destroy all the embryos they want. The previous ban WAS NOT a ban on the research, it was a ban on federal tax dollars going to fund the research.

I am against this in all forms because I believe personhood begins at conception. That is my stance on the issue and I do not want my tax dollars going to fund it, the same way I do not want my tax dollars funding abortions. Why is our government in this business?

OMG!

Where do I start on this one? Today Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. As a symbol of the U.S.'s desire to "reset" our relationship with Russia, Secretary Clinton presented Mr. Lavarov with a gift; a red button on a black base with the Russian word "Peregruzka” printed on top, which means "Reset" in Russian. I've provided a video clip below, but there is much more to this than the obvious:

First the obvious problem was that the word "Peregruzka” DOES NOT mean reset, it means OVERCHARGE! The Russian Minister tells her this in the video clip. You have to listen closely because of the background noise and his accent, but he says "No you got it wrong". It's really pretty funny, but also embarrassing too. I bet after the meeting Mr. Lavarov called Moscow and told the Russian intel folks they can relax, because obviously the US government doesn't know how to translate the Russian language! Sheesh.

The thing that is not so obvious (except to an ex-Navy, cold war spook like me). Do you really want to hand the Russians a BIG RED BUTTON?! I mean, what's next? Are we going to send the North Koreans a "Trip Wire of Friendship"?

God help us.

They Have To Be Stopped...And I have To Stop Them

I don't get it. This fallacy that suggests there is a separation between Church ans state and that this idea is actually law; where did that come from? Do you know there is no such thing mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

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.

I understand that to mean:

1. Our country will not establish a state sanctioned official religion. This stems from persecution found in Great Britain back in the day. The Church of England was the official church of that country and if you weren't a member you were persecuted. We believe in freedom!
2. The government WILL NOT PROHIBIT the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION. In other words, unless your religion involves breaking the law the government will stay out of your business.
3. All citizens have the right to free speech. If you don't like what I have to say, tough. Then say something back that I don't like. So long as I don't say something that breaks the law e.g. defamation or slander, I can say whatever I want.
   

OK. With that in mind why are Christians being told to stop talking publicly about God? Especially in school! Where does this come from?

Read the article by clicking here and make sure you scroll down and look at the before and after pictures of the posters. Also, remember that the phrase "In God We Trust" is...our...national... motto.

This Is Why We're Fat #3

Hot dog with twinkies for buns covered in Cheese Wiz.

It's Been Kinda Quiet

Yes, I know it's been a slow couple of weeks. Mostly because I want to focus in on certain topics like abortion, attacks on Christianity/religious freedom, debunking evolution, etc. and well there hasn't been much to talk about lately.

A couple of things to keep your eyes on though:

1. There is talk of President Obama rescinding the "conscience" clause as it relates to abortion laws. This clause states that no doctor, nurse or health worker will be forced to provide birth control or abortion services if it violates their conscience for religious or moral reasons. I haven't written much about it because only a few articles have come out regarding this. But watch for it. No matter what President Obama says in regards to him wanting fewer abortions, he is a very pro-abortion person. We've seen this in his voting record, he has overturned the Mexico City policy, he's picked a equally pro-abortion person to head up HHS, and I do not doubt that he will rescind the conscience clause as well as sign FOCA into law. We'll see though.

2. Keep an eye on this administrations policy towards Israel. Israel is the only democratic nation within a very radical Islamic part of the world. Because of our long standing peace and friendship with Israel we've been able to calm much of the issues between Israel and all the surrounding nations that would like nothing more than to wipe Israel off the map. If we turn our backs on Israel I would expect hostilities to mount against them and I would not blame Israel, a nuclear nation, to defend themselves. Many people have doubted Mr. Obama's words that he supports Israel, but once again his actions are all anti-Israel. Most recently his pick for the top intelligence analyst post Charles Freeman. Many republicans are calling for the president to withdraw him as nominee for this position because of some very controversial statements Mr. Freeman has made in the past. He said the Chinese government acted too slowly to crack down on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Mr. Freeman has also criticized American policies supporting Israel. So keep an eye on how our relations with Israel go.

That's it for now...

Yes We Can!

I like this guy. His name is Steven Crowder and he does a great job at using his comedic talent to speak his mind on the issues. You can search his name on YouTube and watch many more. The one he has knocking PETA is hilarious!

This is How To Protest!

I love this! It is a great example of how to protest! This in comparison those idiot, arrogant NYU students who took over a university cafeteria to protest more bathroom breaks and more student aid for Palestinian students.

These youngsters are spot on and the message is very effective.

Cold Play - Viva La Vida

Great song. Interesting Lyrics. I read it has to do with the rise and fall of Napoleon:

From LYRICSMODE.COM lyrics archive

Lyrics | Coldplay lyrics - Viva La Vida lyrics

Relativism Run Amok

Can I call 'em or can I call 'em? OK, try and stay with me as I set the stage. On February 10, 2009 I posted an article called No Liberal Bias Here! in which I highlighted Helen Thomas' question to the president where she referred to those a$$holes hiding in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan as "So Called Terrorists". (Side note - those so called terrorists released a video the very next day showing them beheading a polish engineer which they kidnapped). Then on February 18, 2009 I posted an article called Moral Standards? in which I talk about moral relativism. In that article I used the example of how right after 9/11 I heard people say "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and how that is an example of how our society has drifted away from moral absolutes of right and wrong. Rather, in the world we live, right and wrong are relative to each individual.

WELL, today (Feb. 22) I came across this clip of Helen Thomas explaining why she used the term "so called".




Here is a little history lesson. After World War II the Allied forces brought the worst Nazi criminals up on charges and held war crime trials called the Nuremberg Trails. The initial defense used by the Nazi's to explain how they could kill millions of Jews along with thousands of Catholics, the retarded and deformed people was this (in a nut shell):

"In our culture what we did was considered OK. In our culture we are taught that there is nothing wrong with doing these things. Who are you to come into our culture and force your values on us?"

When everything is relative, who decides what is right and wrong? And the more we work to remove God and His laws out of our schools, businesses, courts and government the worse it will get. I mean can you imagine in just 8 years since 9/11 we have actually come to this point? I am praying God doesn't allow another yet far worse "wake up call" to our nation. But if it brings us to our knees in terms of recognizing the God is Sovereign, then I say bring it on.

This Is Why We're Fat #2

Sloppy Joe on a Glazed Krispy Creme:

The Fairness Doctrine: President Obama's Decision

I was glad to read yesterday that the President is against the Fairness Doctrine. But, I'm still skeptical. Why? First, it was not a quote directly from the President, or by his press secretary, his chief of staff or any other high ranking official in the white hose. Rather it was reported to come from an unnamed white house spokesperson. After all, it is the President who says that he supports the traditional definition of marriage of being a union between one man and one woman, yet supported California's Prop 8. He also says he is a follower of Jesus Christ and honors all life, but is the most pro-abortion liberal ever. So excuse me if I am not impressed by this news.

The Wall Street Journal had a good Op-Ed piece called Mr. President, Keep The Airwaves Free, written by Rush Limbaugh. I am not a Rush listener, but I do agree with most of his views when I come across them. It's worth a read.

The Pope and Pelosi

You may know that Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has been in Italy this week. She's met with Italian government officials, but also met with the Pope yesterday.

Many people have anxiously awaited this meeting because Mrs. Pelosi is an ardent pro-abortionist and pro-contraception (as seen most recently in the Porkulus bill where millions were earmarked to shower our land with condoms, for everyone not just the legally married). Both of these positions are in strict opposition to the teaching of the Catholic church, not to mention that Nancy calls her self an ardent, practising Catholic!

Here are the two press releases that came out after the meeting. One from the Vatican and the other from Madam Speakers office:

From the press office of the Holy See:
Following the General Audience, the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage. His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception until natural death, which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists, and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of development.

From the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:
It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, today. In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show His Holiness a photograph of my family’s papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren.

Were the Pope and Nancy Pelosi in the same meeting?

Here is where Mrs. Pelosi stands on the issue. Notice in the interview she incorrectly states the position of the church saying "St. Augustin said life begins at 3 months"; not true. She states that the church's stance that life begins at conception has only been around for "about the last 50 years"; completely false!



Side Note: In that clip we see Barak Obama tell us that to say when life begins is above his "pay grade". What a cop out! If I read between the lines that must mean that he doesn't know for sure. And if he doesn't know that must mean that he must allow for the possibility that life does begin at conception. And if that is a possibility, he still errs on the side of death. May God have mercy.

Moral Standards?

I read an article from the Denver post that provides an interesting view of an atheist. The article was standard stuff and it had a humorous twist. I wasn't offended by it. I sort of pity people who have this view, but I respect their view all the same. You can read the article if you want by clicking here.

What I did want to bring up was something you would probably miss, or maybe you did miss if you read the article. In the article the author mentioned a gathering of the various -ists at an event called Human Light. Here is the quote:

The festivity, according to the organizers, envisions "a future in which all people can identify with each other, behave with the highest moral standards, and work together toward a happy, just and peaceful world."

That's interesting. Did you see it? "a future in which all people...behave with the highest moral standards". All of these people are absolutely convinced that there is no God, but they believe in moral standards. Question: If there is no God, whose standards do they ascribe to?

This is classic relativism. As a Christian I believe that God sets the standard or what is moral and what is not. The standard, God's law, is something outside and apart from me. That's important because I am flawed. Between you and me, sinning is sometimes fun. But if God says it's wrong and immoral, then it's wrong and immoral and if I really am dedicated to obeying God, then I will admit that it's immoral and I will do my best to get it out of my life.

Now let's use the same logic without God. I like to sin because, hey, it's fun. But I get this twinge when I do this thing I'm doing because society thinks it is immoral. So what am I to do. I know, I'll just change the standard. I'll protest and sue people over my right to commit this sin. More people will come out of the woodwork and agree with me. And you know what? the more people I can get to do this thing, the better I feel about myself. Suddenly I don't feel like it's immoral anymore and that little twinge I felt before is gone. This is so freeing!

This is the exact thing we witness in the real world. One day abortion is unthinkable, and illegal. The next people are celebrating it as a right and persecuting people who shine a light on the horror of that immoral act. Why is it this way? Because in a godless society morality is relative. Right and wrong is relative. You heard it after the attacks of 9/11, it was said by some people, "Well, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - That is relativism.

Our country; our world is sliding more and more toward this way of thinking. Don't you be caught in it's trap. Know what God's Word has to say and believe it. Atheists think Christianity enslaves the mind, but it is in fact the very opposite. The world says having premarital sex with many partners is freeing. Yet people will tell you after they become a single parent or when they are diagnosed with a venereal disease that they feel trapped. They will wish they never did what they did. But God says to abstain from sex except within marriage (marriage as God defines it) with only your spouse, and you never have to worry about any of those things happening. Now isn't that really freeing?

Way To Go North Dakota!

That is not sarcasm. I love this:

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion. The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder. Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot, who sponsored the bill said, "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

That is exactly what I want. A State law like this is exactly what is needed to begin the process of overturning Roe v Wade. But, we need all of this to happen before that old prune Ginsberg retires or dies and is replaced by Obama with an ultra-liberal baby killing machine like judge.

Update on AZ Rancher

Ok; that's it. Like I said on February 9 in my post called "Illegal" Only Means Something if You're A US Citizen", it's over. That AZ rancher was fined in this case:

A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn’t violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed that he detained them at gunpoint in 2004. The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn’t liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment. But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive. Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.

Incredible.

This Is Why We're Fat #1

I'm starting a new series today and will post follow ups from time to time. So, whithout further delay, here is Why We're Fat #1:

Junk Food Pizza - Large meat pizza covered with potato skins, mozzarella sticks, mini taco’s, jalapeño poppers and onion rings.

The Fairnes Doctrine: Who Are We Becomming?

One of my favorites, Megyn Kelly, provides a sound argument against the "fairness"......

The argument for this is so weak, so unintelligible, and so un-American. Yes, everyone is entitled to state their opinion, but that doesn't make all opinions pro-American!

The Fairness Doctrine: Trampling the Constitution

I am speechless after reading this in the online version of The American Spectator and I continue to be baffled by this:

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is moving forward with discussing ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine”. Waxman is also interested in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them." One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.

They say it’s all about “diversity in media”? Listen, if I don’t like what a radio or TV show is talking about, I don’t have to listen. If a website is “heavily trafficked” do they link to other sites that present alternate views?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

Now they are talking about having media advisory boards that “watch” what the media outlets do and if they don’t think it conforms to their ideas of so-called “fairness” they can prevent license renewals! News agencies that don’t conform will be penalized by the inability to stay in business. All controlled by what one group of elitist people think!! This is communism!!

As Promised: Natural Selection

This post is a follow up to the February 8, 2009 post Called "Old Blue Eyes". If you haven't read that yet, or maybe it's been awhile since you last read it, go read it and then come back and read the rest of this. It will make more sense if you do.

Since a discussion on natural selection begins with living organisms already in place, I want to remind the reader to keep in mind the question of how did any life appear in the first place? More than that, why is there anything at all in reality? Why is there something rather than nothing? When we discuss any topic of biology I think we should do so within the framework of logic and the most important law of logic is that something cannot come from nothing. It violates the law of non-contradiction and I welcome anyone who can give me proof positive that shows where something did come from nothing.

I'm about to ask you a question and want you to carefully think about it. I mean really, think about it. If ever there was a time when there was absolutely nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, not even God, what would there be today?

What Secular Science Teaches:
Science teaches that natural selection, also known as survival of the fittest, is evidence for the idea of molecules mutating over time to become more and more complex life forms. The life forms that develop and adapt best are the ones that survive.

In scientific circles when one talks of natural selection, it is understood that you are talking about evolution and the most influential thinker in this space was Charles Darwin. Darwin in fact formed his initial ideas about natural selection from the previous work of Edward Blyth. Blyth wrote that an organism may possess some inheritable trait or characteristic which in a given environment gives that organism a greater chance of passing on its genes to the next generation. Over generations that trait or characteristic has a good chance of becoming more widespread in the population. Darwin’s continuing work theorized that in such ways creatures become more adapted and better suited to the environment in which they find themselves.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:
Darwin believed this “fine tuning” to the environment to be a process that was creative and without limits. He saw new varieties that given enough time would create new characteristics and given even more time would evolve into a totally new creature.

I ask you to think about that in light of the “something from nothing” question. What Darwin is theorizing is that given enough time a life form will create characteristics in a world where those characteristics never existed before. In a world where there is no such thing as seeing or sight, and never has been prior to that point in time, a life form’s genes somehow determined that it needed to see in order to survive and over time the eye was created. Remember, science teaches us that life was formed when lightning struck a primordial tidal pool that contained previously inanimate random molecules (see my January 13, 2009 post called "Close Only Counts With..."). It is believed that the first life on earth was in the form of blue-green algae. But, prior to that point there was no life and certainly no genetic information because there were no genes. No DNA.

Alternative Theory:
The alternative theory is that adaptation is degenerative. I believe this is true because this is the process that is actually observed in nature. What is observed is that life adapts by the elimination of genetic information.

The price paid in adaptation is always a permanent loss of information and once it is lost it cannot be regenerated. It starts with a parent that contains all possible combinations in it’s genes and natural selection “specializes” offspring into different kinds, but never creates new information that was never there to start with.

A simple example of this can be seen in the breeding of animals; for example dogs or horses. From a parent that contains a broad selection of genetic characteristics you breed out the traits you don’t want and keep the traits you do want in order to achieve the desired results. Once it’s achieved you can’t go backwards. The only way that new genetic information can be introduced back into the animal is if you interbreed the one kind with another kind. But the genetic information wasn’t crated from nothing.

Consider these two theories in terms of what is most logical. Is it Darwin’s “uphill” limitless process that proposes that the eye, lungs, feathers, and all the specialized variety seen in life today arose from a world where those things never existed before and in which the genetic information was not in existence? Or that natural selection is in fact a process of culling, of choosing between several genetic traits that are already in creation.

I contend that the bottom line is that natural selection, by itself, is powerless to create. So where did all the variety we see come from? I say, that given the more logical explanation that natural selection is a degenerative process starting with a genetically broad parent, doesn’t the creation account given in the Bible make more sense now? God didn’t create all the variety we see today. While God is The Creator (the original cause) of all the firsts of everything (the effects), He started by creating a genetically broad first. There was one or maybe a limited few kinds of dog, cat, lion, turtle, bird, fungus, algae, etc. Over time these life forms changed given their environment, but only by the removal of genetic information that was already there.

The same is true for humans. The first man and woman were created by God and they contained all of the genetic information for all people. Over time as people spread over the earth, environment, diet, etc. caused the removal of some genetic information, which resulted in specialization. One example is skin color; originally the first people contained all the genetic information and probably had dark skin. Not black, not white, but more likely dark brown. Those who migrated to colder climates adapted by losing the genetic ability to produce melanin, the bio-compound that's found in dark skin. The darker the skin, the more melanin; the lighter the skin, the less melanin. Those on the equator kept the genes that produce melanin and therefore have the darkest skin. This is needed because it’s hot and the body needs to produce more sweat to keep cool and darker skin absorbs heat and produces more sweat. Not sweating when it’s hot reduces the survival rate. The further away from the equator one is the lighter the skin because sweating in the cold is not good for survival.

Did you know that the biological differences between all people groups on earth; white, black, yellow, brown, so-called "red", is less than .1%. Blacks have more melanin, Asian's eyes are like that because they simply have a little more fat in the skin surrounding their eyes, etc. All very minor surface feature differences. Also, notice I said "people groups". I try not to use the term "races" when talking about different people because I believe we all descended from one man and one woman and therefore there is only one race; the human race. We are all technically related. Darwin's view of evolution, if true, would support discrimination. I mean if we all came from different slime pools what's to stop me from enslaving you or even killing you. I mean after all, it's survival of the fittest!

If your interested I have an explanation for why there are different people groups and languages. I'll post that at some point in the future.

Religous Freedom?

Just a couple of articles I found today. The world thinks it's ok to be a Christian so long as we keep it restricted to our homes and in Church. No public displays please.

In Los Angeles

To the UK

Voting on the Issues...A Reminder

Keep in mind the below video was made on election day...

Depression

I know the word “depression” is being tossed about regarding the economy. Last month 600,000 jobs were lost. Businesses are closing. Banks are failing. Wall Street is in a panic. People are afraid. But truly, our country, given its history has survived much more than this and can survive much worse. But the depression I am talking about is my own depression.

Why am I depressed? Carol and I have jobs. And they are good jobs with stable companies. We have good health, good family and faith in God. Thank you God for your provision. So what am I depressed about? It’s because of the changing face of our nation.

I’m sure that part of this stems from me becoming more mature every day. Yes, in most cases older does mean wiser. I also believe in the God of the Bible, so He shapes my world view and every day I see the world more clearly and all the things that go on in it. God is the standard by which I compare everything that happens in reality.

Let me explain what I am seeing.

Last month the entire nation celebrated US Airlines pilot Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger III. “Sully”, saved 155 lives by landing that plane just right—level wings, nose up, tail down, glide that baby in, get everyone out, get them counted, and then, at night, wonder what he could have done better. The national collective reaction was to shake our heads in awe and jump for joy with tears in our eyes. He is cool, modest, competent, and tough in the good way. He's the only one who doesn't applaud Sully. He was just doing his job. This is why people are so moved: We're still making Sullys! We're still making those mythic Americans, those steely-eyed rocket men like Alan Shepard in the Mercury rocket: "Come on and light this candle!"

But Sully, 58, Air Force Academy '73, was shaped and formed by the old America, and educated in a culture in which a certain style of manhood—of personhood—was held high. The fact is, Sully’s are becoming more and more rare every day.

There are many examples on the other end of the spectrum. One is “Octamom” Nadya Suleman. The dizzy, selfish, self-dramatizing 33-year-old mother who had six small children and then a week ago eight more because, well, she always wanted a big family. Suleman doubletalks with the best of them. She had needs and took proactive steps to meet them, and those who don't approve are limited, which must be sad for them. She seems aware of the predicament but she doesn’t care about anyone else but herself. She doesn’t care about the health and welfare of the children, her parents, or the state which is left holding the financial burden for her selfishness.
Another example is society as a whole. Each generation of Americans become more selfish, greedy, entitlement expectant, blame shifting, and out of touch with our National heritage and the people that made this country great.

During the presidential campaign it was clear that a majority of American’s prefer a government that will give them stuff and the new Democratic party is ready to give it to them. I turned away from the Democratic Party around the 2000 election. Although I was on the fence at that time I did vote for Al Gore in that election (excuse me, I just vomited a little in my mouth). I had voted democrat in every election in my voting past. I was all for the call of JFK “Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country”. At the time of Al Gore and Howard Dean’s campaign I began noticing a shift in the Democratic Party. More and more to the left with an ideology heading toward socialism. Their policy was “You give us your money and we’ll take care of you”. Now, I am all for responsible social programs intended to help people in a time of crisis. But it’s like the old analogy of the tow truck. A tow truck is intended just to get you from the point of your trouble to a place where you can get your car repaired and back driving on your own again. Tow trucks are not meant to drive you all over the place forever! Apply that to our welfare system and soon to be welfare state.

The first Republican I voted for was Mitt Romney when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. This was the first election I paid close attention to and what I heard began a changed in me. First I am ashamed because I never really paid attention in the past, yet always voted Democrat anyway. Why this is true is explained in the last paragraph. Anyway, in this election the democratic candidate was State Treasurer Shannon O’Brien. I watched every single debate and was shocked to hear how she was radically pro-abortion, so much so that it shocked me! By the way, at this time I was firmly planted in the pro-choice group. But she was in favor of all abortion methods, at all times, for everyone. She was against parental notification. She was for gay marriage. She was for wiping out any mention of religion in schools and science class was to be centered on evolution only. The list went on and on.

Now we have President Obama. Although he didn’t win by a land slide, 53% to McCain’s 46%, he is exactly what a majority of the nation asked for. We have seen the shift happen and the shift is toward a nation of greedy consumers who, when faced with tough times, point fingers and say gimme-gimme-gimme!

During one of Obama’s election rallies a reported interviewed Peggy Joseph who was excited after hearing Obama speak. Ms. Joseph was asked why she was so moved by the experience, to which she replied “…I never thought this day would happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him He’ll help me.” Click Here to watch the video.

Last week President Obama travelled to Florida to promote the Stimulus bill. Some of the questions posed to the President were all about how is the government going to provide for me? Click Here to see a news report that talks about the very thing that is upsetting me and shows these peoples questions.

Bottom line. If the parents are greedy, lazy, entitlement minded people, so will their children and so forth and so on. Steel is refined by fire. In tough times you make tough decisions. If you make less today than you did yesterday, then you cut back, spend less, change your lifestyle.

People, please; open your eyes. The Democratic Party has changed. Look at what it is today and vote your conscience based on your values. Hey, if you are for unrestricted abortion, for gay marriage, for bigger government, for higher taxes, for open borders, etc. then vote Democrat. I respect that. But I refuse to believe that most Americans are for those things. They just vote Democrat because that’s what they’ve always done, their family has voted that way and that’s just the way it’s been.

But the Democratic party of today is, in my opinion, dangerous. Unless you want the USA of old wiped out and a new nation built.

One last thing. I firmly believe that those who vote Democrat are made up of a minority of people who truly understand the party’s values, agree with them and can verbally explain why they agree with them. The vast majority of people who vote Democrat are uninformed people who cannot even begin to rationally explain why they are a Democrat. They’ve been spoon fed by the main stream media. I’ve heard time and time again people say they do not understand how anyone can be a Republican. Just a week or so ago Cher was quoted as saying “I don’t see how anyone could be a Republican except maybe rich, white, Christians. That’s it.” Republicans, on the other hand, are the complete opposite. More Republicans have investigated the issues and have made a decision based on where they stand on the issues based on their values. It’s a rational decision based on fact and knowledge. A majority (but not all) Democrats base their decision on “feelings” but cannot tell you why they vote the way they do in a rational fact based manner. See my post from November 19 called “The Death of Journalism”.

My opinion; That’s it.

Fairness Doctrine Again

Hey guess what? Bill Clinton thinks we need more "fairness"

A Crystal Ball Into The Future

Here is a futuristic glimpse at a newscast from lets say, um, 2021. Although the clip is comedy, I see it as a possibility, so let me go with it...

Imagine if you will; it's the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The wacko conspiracy folks along with the Hollywood "I pledge crowd" have continued propagating their lunacy over the past 20 years until a vast majority of the country actually believes the 9/11 attacks were committed by the U.S. government and not Al Qaeda terrorists. Al Qaeda, which is now the governing authority over the new nation of The Islamic Republic of Iranaqseria Al Palestine. The Islamic Republic of Iranaqseria Al Palestine came into power after all US forces were removed from the middle-east in late 2009 and after the nuclear attack on Israel. Well Al Qaeda is now upset because they want credit for attacking the US, but the Socialist pig-dog Americans are taking all the credit!



"A lie told often enough becomes truth” - Vladimir Lenin

The Fairness Doctrine - You Have Been Warned

If you have not heard about the Fairness Doctrine, I hope you will look into it and learn exactly what it is. For me, I am shocked that something like this would even be contemplated in the US.

Here are the basics:

1. "Progressive" (aka liberal) talk radio has no audience to speak of. Again and again every attempt at successful liberal radio programs have left the airwaves because sponsors stop sponsoring the shows, not because of content, but because listenership is so low.
2. Conservative talk radio is very popular. Talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Laura Ingram and a host of other local radio shows have enjoyed long running success.
3. Democrats don't like the truth of the matter; that because of the poor ratings of liberal talk radio, their message isn't getting out to the folks.

So what's a Democrat to do? Introduce legislation called "The Fairness Doctrine". If you want the full explanation click here. But in short, the Fairness Doctrine forces radio programs to allow the opposite side equal air time to state their side. So, if a network plays Rush Limbaugh's show, they would be forced (yes, forced!) to have another show that poses the opposite view as Rush, no matter if no one listens and causes a net-loss in profits for the station.

Don"t think this is real? Below is just one radio clip of a Senator saying the legislation needs to be introduced. This is real! Democrats try and convince us that they are the party of all views and the ones who are really inclusive. The truth is they can't stand you if you have a different opinion than what the party line is.

The same would be true with the "Freedom of Choice Act", or FOCA, that I've written so much about. FOCA will remove all state legislation intended to limit and protect people where abortion is concerned, like parental notification. If FOCA is signed by the President, it will FORCE doctors to perform abortions even if they disapprove as a matter of conscience. A Catholic, Presbyterian, or Methodist hospital who may have chosen not to perform those services because it violates their Christian creed, would be FORCED to perform abortions or face fines and penalties.

No Liberal Bias Here!

Reporter Helen Thomas make me sick. The last time she was relevant was back in the Lincoln administration. She represents the most liberal anti-Christian, anti-Israel, Pro-Palestinian, PRO-TERRORIST arm of our nut bag filled country. It makes me sick.

Here is her question from last nights press conference, Obama's first press conference since becomming President:

Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and -- are
maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists?

"So-called TERRORISTS" !!!!! That's what I yelled out when I was watching on TV. Those people hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan would kill you and me AND HER in a second, given the chance. But she can't see it because all she knows is hate for Israel.

The second part of her question took me awhile to decode....

And also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?

At first I thought the question was an attempt to see if the President would say that one of those America hating, Godless countries had a weapon. But what she is really trying to get the president to say is "Yes, Israel". She's actually defending and promoting Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon simply because Israel has them!!! OMG! She should be hung in the town square.

One last thing on Helen Thomas; here is the first question she asked George Bush at his first press conference:

Mr. President, why do you refuse to respect the wall between the church and state? And you know that the mixing of religion and government, for centuries, has led to slaughter. The very fact that our country has stood in good stead by having this separation -- why do you break it down?

Our Future Is In Good Hands

A classic case of man meets Messiah.....all other words fail me.

Real Stimulus Idea Will Be Ignored

In the spirit of fairness I wanted to write about a very good alternative economic stimulus idea I came across. It was offered up by Rep. Walt Minnick, a House Democrat from Idaho. Minnick devised a stimulus plan that limits itself to real stimulus, rather than bloating itself into a package of pure “Porkulus”. It costs only $170 billion, and self-terminates when the economy recovers. Genius!

…And for that reason it is doomed to oblivion.

Here is the article I read:

While President Barack Obama goes on the road to shore up slipping popular support for the $1 trillion stimulus bill that he ordered up from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Walt Minnick, a freshman Democrat from Idaho, is pushing a better idea: The Strategic Targeted American Recovery and Transition Act (START). Minnick is a member of the Blue Dog caucus of occasionally conservative Democrats. His START plan is a $170 billion “bare bones” pure stimulus approach that would put $100 billion immediately into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans, then use the other $70 billion for basic infrastructure projects that create jobs. START requires that all funds not spent by 2010 be returned to the Treasury. START also stops stimulus spending when the nation’s Gross Domestic Product increases in two of three previous quarters, and all START payments are required to be posted on a public website.

Minnick introduced START as an alternative – just in case the legislative process stalls out, says press secretary John Foster. As one of the brave 11 Democrats who voted against Pelosi’s stimulus bill, Minnick explained to folks back home that he opposed the speaker’s version because it was so “Christmas-treed up” with wasteful spending, like $300 million for golf carts. Foster told The Examiner that the House leadership encourages members to do what’s best for their districts, so there has been no backlash. We’ll see how long that lasts.

Yet, President Obama in last night’s press conference had the audacity to tell the American public that the stimulus package that is currently on the senate floor has no “earmarks”. Really? I suppose it all comes down to what one’s definition of “earmark” is. To me it’s anything that doesn’t go to either A) cut taxes, B) promote growth in business, and C) create jobs. Here is a short list of some of the items I’ve seen in the so called “earmark free” stimulus package, and honestly it so hard to tell:


$2 billion earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions powerplant in Mattoon, IL
$39 billion slush fund for “state fiscal stabilization” bailout
$5.5 billion for making federal buildings “green” (including $448 million for DHS HQ)
$200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities
$275 million for flood prevention
$65 million for watershed rehabilitation
$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
$650 million for the DTV transition coupon program
$307 million for constructing NIST office buildings
$1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings
$100 million for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings
$300 million for constructing FBI office buildings
$800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities
$10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners
$1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for “science” at NASA)
$100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program
$10 million for urban canals
$2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars
$1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)
$300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
$198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters
$255 million for “priority procurements” at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)
$500 million for State and local fire stations
$180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities
$500 million for wildland fire management
$110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
$522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
$650 million for abandoned mine sites
$75 million for the Smithsonian Institution
$1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth
$412 million for CDC headquarters
$500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
$160 million for “volunteers” at the Corp. for National and Community Service
$750 million earmark for the National Computer Center in MD
$224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico
$850 million for Amtrak
$100 million for lead paint hazard reduction

"Illegal" Only Means Something if You're A US Citizen

Read this article from the Washington Times. I find it unbelievable that it would even make it before a Judge, much less make it to trial.

I'm going to watch what happens with this. If the judge or jury punishes this ranch owner, even in the smallest way, we're done. It's over.

Old Blue Eyes

Are they just making this stuff up as they go along? OK, I’m not a scientist and maybe my analysis is simplistic. But I am a student of responsible language and of logic. This just seems to be completely illogical.

A group called The Innovations Report ran a report called Blue-Eyed Humans Have a Single, Common Ancestor in which Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology made this claim:

Originally, we all had brown eyes, but a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch”, which literally “turned off” the ability to produce brown eyes.

The article goes on to explain how this switch turned off in the genes of this ancient person by saying “Nature shuffles our genes”.

Huh? That’s it? It happened because nature suddenly decided to “shuffle” our genes?! Was it a riffle shuffle or the classic hindu shuffle? [that was sarcasm]

A watered down version of the article made it to various major news agencies, like the LA Times which had this to say

For nearly all of human history, everyone in the world had brown eyes. Then, between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago, the first blue-eyed baby was born somewhere near the Black Sea. For some reason, that baby's descendants gained a 5% evolutionary advantage over their brown-eyed competitors, and today the number of people with blue eyes tops half a billion.

What? How do they know that? How can they pin point the location of the first blue-eyed baby. Read the articles for yourself and see if it passes the logic test. It doesn’t for me.

So if I reject this theory; what’s my alternative theory? Good question; and yes, I have an answer. Look for my post called Natural Selection.

Go Where The Evidence Leads? Not In Science!

Today I read that media personality Ben Stein backed out of a previous invitation to be commencement speaker at the University of Vermont (UVM). This comes as a result of Stein's 2008 documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", which shines a light on the ugly practice of percecuting scientists that dare question neo-darwinism.

UVM President Dan Fogel said he received hundreds of e-mails beginning Saturday -- including only about a half-dozen from people at UVM -- contending, generally, that Stein's views of science were "affronts to the basic tenets of the academy".

I attended a graduation ceremony at UVM in 2006. The commencement speaker was Gustavo Esteva, a prominent Mexican writer and social activist who promotes government as a more effective way to promote social change; in other words he's a Socialist. Mr. Esteva's qualifications obviously were a better fit for those who guard the sacred tenets of the acedmy. I remember he promoted smoking marajuana during his commencement speach which brought cheers from the crowd (except me. I boo'd him which brought many stares and a sharp elbow from my wife).

Anyway, there is a hostile directive in the scientific community that you can not question the theory of evolution or else. Watch the movie trailer for a quick idea of what this is all about.

All Hail Mother Earth! Kill the Humans!!!

The spiritual person will know who is really behind all of this; and so it continues. In a Feb. 1, 2008 article in the British newspaper the Mail, reports a government official Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, stating:

Couples who have more than two children are putting an 'irresponsible' burden on the environment. I recommend we divert money away from curing illnesses and more towards contraception and abortion services to limit the country's population and help in the fight against global warming.

I’d like to know which diseases he prefers to underfund so the state can shower the land with more condoms.

Furthermore, Mr. Porritt continues:

We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.

So the role of the state should be to convince ambivalent mothers to abort them?!

I would hope that this thinking is way out on the fringe. Bur I've learned that it is in fact the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. So many of our policies have been shaped because of the loud (and may I add grating) voice of the minority.

This report comes on the heals of Al Gore appearing before a Congressional committee at which he professed his gloomy news about global warming. Mr. Gore, whose pundits affectionately call him the "Goracle", had this to say:

Current climate trends will bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change.

These lawmakers took turns asking Al Gore for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball. I am sure the report telling us of the impending death of human civilization will find it's way into legislation even though a majority of scientific data shows no such trend. As it turns out we don't have to wait long because $400 million of the $800 billion stimulus plan awaiting a Senate vote is for Global warming research.

We better watch out because that $400 million may go towards contraception and abortion. No better way to reduce the country's carbon footprint than to prevent more human footprints from ever appearing.

God help us.

I Couldn't Say It Any Better

I really like this guy. Check him out at Macho Sauce productions:

A Teency-Weency Request

A small request to Catholics (and this goes for certain Protestants too, but I only have the data on Catholics, sorry)... next election, be it Presidential, Congressional, Gubernatorial, Mayoral, Selectman on down to the dog catcher; next election PLEASE pay attention to what the candidates voting record HAS BEEN. Do your homework and discover the facts and truth about the candidates, not the tingly feeling you get when a certain candidate speaks.

Barak Obama's voting record both as a State and U.S. Senator showed him to be pro-abortion. Every opportunity to vote went the way of supporting abortion and against every opportunity to oppose legislation limiting it, which includes voting NO on banning partial birth abortion and the Infant Born Alive Act. During the Presidential campaign he said repeatedly he would reverse the Mexico City policy and said he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as one of the first things he does as President. Yet, 2008 poll data shows between 53% to 56% of Catholics voted for Barak Obama, 13% to 16% more than John Kerry, a Catholic, got in 2004.

Now I read that the Very Rev. David O'Connell, president of the Catholic University of America said every Catholic he's spoken to in recent days has expressed disappointment in Obama for reversing the Mexico City policy, and Catholic voters wonder if FOCA will be passed into law.

I've got news for you; over the next few weeks, Obama will most likely undo several more pro-life regulations, such as the ban on the use of federal funds for embryonic-stem-cell research and the “right of conscience” ruling (which allows medical personnel to refuse to participate in practices they object to, such as abortion). In addition, when he committed to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives, Obama indicated he would curtail religious groups’ ability to hire based on religious considerations—a decision that would tear the soul and the effectiveness out of these groups.

You know the old saying, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it PROBABLY IS A DUCK!!! For crying out loud!..what does a stroke feel like?

PREDICTION: The next big "dissapointment" will come from all of those left leaning Jewish people who voted for Mr. Obama only to find out he's really anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. WHAT?! I never knew that!

Donkey Economics

I read these two stories just minutes apart. Click the title to be brought to each article

Pelosi: Contraception is Good Stimulus for the Economy US News January 26, 2009

[Japanese] Workers urged: Go home and multiply CNN International January 26, 2009

So which is the best economic policy? At the time of my writing this we are fast approaching 45 million abortions since 1973 and now the left is promoting contraception! (Check out my abortion counter on the right to see the current repulsive number).

More than just promoting contraception, they want it funded with our tax dollars! I just don't get this unabashed anti-life agenda of the liberals. It makes no sense. Even if you do not agree with my staunch pro-life stance, surely you can see the benefit of having more tax payers in the system. If you do the math there are roughly 25 million less tax payers today because those babies were aborted. And now phase II is launched; government sponsored contraception.

As I was writing this an idea dawned on me. The reason the liberals see contraception and abortion as "good" for the economy is because they all share the same socialistic economic policies. If there's less people then that equates to a savings because liberals all believe in the "ask what your government should do for you" mentality promoted by the Democratic party and famously endorsed as a fundamental "right" by Barak Obama.

Here We Go (sigh)

In just the third full day of President Obama's administration, he begins making good on his promises to push his radically liberal agenda concerning abortion. Just today:

-President Obama lifts a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush. (Note to the President: waiting until late on a Friday evening to recind the previous Presidents order really says a lot)

-First Embryonic Stem Cell Trial Gets FDA Approval (this is not directly the action of the President, but it is penultimately a result of his policies and the Democrats being placed in power)

Next up I am sure he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into law. If you are not familiar with FOCA, read my post on Oct. 31, 2008 called "Obama the Abortionist". Click this link if you want to sign the Fight Against FOCA petition.

Even if you are not staunchly anti-abortion as I am; even if you are in the camp of "It's a woman's right to choose", do you really want YOUR tax dollars going to fund abortions? Why do my tax dollars need to go to ANY organisation that funds abortions anywhere? Planned Parenthood already receives about $300M dollars per year in federal grants and last year posted a reported $51M profit! I don't get it!! This is so upsetting to me!!!

The fact that many in this country CELEBRATE this supposed "right" makes me sick.

Killing Potential

Future Shock

I came across this article by Dick Moriss and thought it was right on the button:

The Obama Presidency: Here Comes Socialism

The article, I think, hones in on exactly what we can expect based on Mr. Obama's voting record and through his campaign speeches and debates. It may not come to pass, but based on Obama's past, I think Mr. Morris takes it to it's most logical conclusion. You may be ok with this change, which is why you voted for Obama. That's ok. I personally do not like the writing on the wall.

Change We Can Believe In?

Funny how ever since the announcement that Rick Warren would give the invocation at the presidential inauguration, that the buzz was how the Obama constituency was offended by the choice. Warren, an evangelical pastor, is "guilty" of supporting traditional marriage and even has the audacity to pray in the name of Jesus! No doubt Pastor Rick would say something offensive if not offend some by his very presence.

On the other end of the spectrum was Rev. Joseph Lowery who rendered the benediction. No issues there; no buzz about anyone being offended by this choice or possibly having the Reverend say something that would be offensive, right?

My opinion:

Pastor Warren delivered a prayer and did it in Jesus name. He called for God's blessings upon the President, his family, the V.P. and all elected officials. He called for God to forgive us when we fall short and brought light on the need for us to unite even in our differences.

Rev. Lowery delivered a speech disguised as a prayer and every fair minded person in the nation should be offended by what he said, regardless of skin color. Oh, there were homily-like sentences in the speech, but the meat of the message was down right racists and anti-white. Hmmmm, sounds like the flavor of the week as delivered even more venomously by the Reverend Wright, the spiritual leader to President Obama for 20 years.

Here is the part I am talking about. It starts:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back,…

Sorry Reverend, those days ended long ago, and if not, it certainly ended when we elected the messiah President! (but I digress...)

…when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; …

At this point I began to think "Where is this heading, and what rhymes with 'white'?" Then it came...

… and when white will embrace what is right.

Am I mistaken or did the Reverend just go all "White-Devil" on me? I guess being white means I don’t have any moral sense. And, if I’m not mistaken, I think he just put together a construction that lines up the browns, the blacks and reds and yellows on one side and the unrighteous white man on the other.

The he finished with:

That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.

The crowd loudly responded with a great "AMEN!" Not just once, but three Times to the call of AMEN from the Reverend.

Is this the "Change" we are to expect? Honestly I do not think President Obama thinks this way. But I do believe that many people of color see the election of a black man as an excuse to air their racist ideology. Racism is not limited to one people group.

Close Only Counts With .....

Ok, the timing on this one is so perfect, it needs a little set up. How do I decide what to write about? It could be something I experience, I heard or read. But typically I don't know what to write until I think about it for awhile. Back on Jan. 8, I was taking my after lunch walk and as I walked I started thinking about DNA and how much of a miracle it is (...it's not weird for me). The result was my posting on Jan.8, the one just before this one, so go read it, then come back and finish this one.

Then, today I read an article that proves my point. It doesn't prove my opinion, but does prove just what I'm talking about. The link to the article is below, but to give you a snap shot, here is the opening paragraph:

One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this: Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago - perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with the help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets - to create biology.

Here is the link to the article. Judge for yourself: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab

Even though we all analyze the same data, why is that we come to different conclusions? It's called presupposition; these scientists WANT their inquiry to support what they already believe to be true. The same is true for ME! When I look at science I look at it from the point of view that there is a Creator God. Yet, in a world where we all bring our own presupposition to the table, we need to allow logic to rule. Starting with the fact that it is impossible to get something from nothing. See my other posts on this ( July 11, 2007 and July 23, 2008).

Upside-Down and Backwards

The thinking in this world really is upside down and backwards when it comes to the wisdom of God versus the wisdom of men. Take DNA; even the most basic definition of DNA screams the necessity of a pre-existent creator (aka the “Cause”). Here is a basic definition:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms. The role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is like a set of blueprints since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes.

Let me summarize; DNA stores information needed to create a living organism. Meaning when conception occurs a single cell containing DNA will begin to divide. With each division the cell becomes more and more specific to its intended purpose. All of the immense intricacies that make a living organism and especially that which make a human being; organs, skin, teeth, hair, eyes, ears, blood, nerves, brain, and on and on and on are made so by the instructions contained in our DNA!

Yet, a majority of scientists; mind you scientists who know so much more about how incredible DNA is than I do and therefore should understand at an even higher level of amazement how incredible DNA is, these scientists can look at DNA and say that it is created by blind forces of chance. By cosmic accident.

Even more amazingly, other scientists can spend billions of dollars to construct super-sensitive equipment that “listens” for faint signals from the furthest reaches of the universe. When they hear some signal that goes “bzzzzz-bz-bz-bzzzzzz” they cry out “INTELLIGENCE!!”

God has made it plainly clear for all peoples, in all places, in all times to know that He is God. Yet, as we are told in scripture, man has exchanged the truth of God for a lie. To uphold that lie as scientific "fact" takes more mental gymnastics than to just admit that a Creator, a Supreme Cause to all known effects, is behind all of this.