Obama's Speech at Notre Dame

So many thoughts...none make me feel less anxious.

I am really beginning to fear where our country will be in fours years, or perhaps after eight if he is elected to second term. He has commanded such a loyal following of the blind. It comes down to people not caring about right or wrong any more, but if Mr. Obama says it, it must be right.

I could write a lot about some of the things he said in his speech, but I'll restrict it to only two, plus a couple of links to two articles I've read so far today.

Two quotes with my comments:

"Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions" - Tell me Mr. President, exactly how much deciding, heart-wrenching or otherwise, does it take to make that which is wrong, right?

"So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions..." - Mr President, we are men of action; lies do not become us and you making it look like you are willing to reduce the number of women seeking abortions is an outright lie. You have had numerous opportunities in your political career to do just that and every time, 100%, you have always voted against any kind of restrictions and voted for removing restriction. You vowed to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which does just that; it removes all state imposed restrictions on abortion, things like parental notification (wouldn't that stand to reduce some abortions?). You voted against the Infant Born Alive Act which would require doctors to administer life saving medical attention to a baby born alive due to a botched abortion. Sir, you are a liar and a deceiver.


Links to articles:

US News & World Report - Obama's Notre Dame Speech Was an Alarming Violation of Church-State Separation

National Review Online - Obama and the 'Real Catholics'

To Get Jello You Need a Cook

I post this stuff, but honestly am amazed by how it defies logic. Honestly.

The article Chemists see first building blocks to life on Earth, is yet another glimpse at how science works so hard to 'wrench' data to fit an already pre-decided result. In the article US molecular biologist Jack Szostak hailed the research saying

It will stand for years as one of the great advances in prebiotic chemistry

Read the article and see if you think what they are doing deserves this praise. Speaking of the three base chemicals that form an RNA strand, one very good objection written in the article states

...doubters have been comforted by the failure to find any feasible chain of chemical events to explain how the three components all came together.

I just found another article on this same subject, but the title is much better: Molecules of Life Emerges From Laboratory Slime.

Review what I've written in the past about this in an article called Upside-Down and Backwards and then tell me if all of this experimenting of trying to recreate the primordial soup and zapping it with electricity, then heating it and cooling it and finding some chemicals joined together can account for THE VOLUMES OF GENETIC INFORMATION CONTAINED IN OUR RNA AND DNA!!!

Honestly, if take some chemicals and zap it with electricity, heat it and then cool it I get lime flavored Jello. When you see Jello do you think it got on the cafeteria line by way of the blind forces of chance? It just appeared there without the assistance of the cook?

Follow The Evidence

I wrote a number of weeks back about how a hiker in Australia came upon grove of trees that were thought to be extinct. It was likened to finding a living dinosaur.

Today I read about yet another discovery of a dinosaur fossil found with soft tissue intact. Two T-Rex fossils had been found previously, this time it's a Hadrosaur and the tissue includes blood cells and collagen.

While I find it amazing, especially because these discoveries are being made by typically pro-evolution scientists; for me it begs another question. Strict creationists, like myself, believe the earth is only several thousand years old. Evolutionists state that the earth is 4.5 billion of years old and the first microbial life appeared some 3.5 billion years ago. My question is why such a large delta between the two camps conclusion in the age of earth and of the first life? I'm going to start reading........

Hartache: Abortions Based on Gender

I came across this article: Sweden Allows Sex-Selective Abortions

For the life of me I cannot understand the rational behind being pro-abortion or even pro-choice. I know my saying that seems odd. I understand how odd it sounds because I used to be pro-choice. So, in an attempt to provide understanding, I honestly believe one can only be pro-abortion if you have elevated yourself to be a god. And I think you can only be pro-choice if you have your head in the sand and refuse to really understand what this is all about.

I Am a Recovering Pro-Choice Liberal Democrat

I turned 18 in 1978 and honestly I can’t remember what election year was my first time to vote. I can tell you that when I did begin to vote it was for Democrats. Why was that? I’m not sure other than my parents were generally politically uninformed, so that carried over I suppose. If asked what party I align myself with I would have told you (with nose raised in the air) that I don’t (didn't) vote along party lines, I “vote for the person not the party”. When in reality if you looked at the actual “persons” I voted for…they were all Democrats.

In 1999 the presidential campaign was well underway and the leading Democrats in the race were Al Gore and Howard Dean. I started souring on Dean because he seemed extraordinarily arrogant, so Gore was my man. Time for Confession: If you had asked me why I liked Al Gore over all other candidates and including why I thought he was better that George Bush, I would have answered because I thought he was smarter. Yup, that was my reason for voting for Al Gore. There was no substance behind my choice, I didn't choose because I determined what issues were most important to me. Nope, I liked him because he was “smarter”. Not my proudest moment.

I voted for Gore in that election and, well, Bush became President after a historic set of events in Florida. You remember the hanging chads and all. But this was my political involvement. Basically to not know anything about real issues and then vote Democrat. But, I also have to say that even though I was completely uniformed I did have opinions; most importantly an opinion on abortion. I was completely pro-choice and was one of those people who would say "Well I would never suggest a women should get an abortion, but who am I to tell another person what they can or cannot do with their body."

In late 1999 and early 2000 I was struggling in life, and while this is not the topic of this post, I have to say I had a spiritual awakening and committed my life to Jesus Christ in February of 2000. After that conversion I began questioning my thoughts and actions, and asking "who am I?"

Then in 2002 came the Governor’s race in Massachusetts, where I was living at the time. It was Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket and State Treasurer Shannon O'Brien on the Democrat ticket. Now 42 years old I decided for the first time to actually pay attention to what the issues were and decide on a candidate who best matches what I most strongly believe in. What I found was a Democratic candidate that didn't care to have a substantive debate. She had an attitude that oozed elitism and well, made me want to take a shower after hearing her speak. The attitude that came across from Ms. O'Brien was if you align with my thoughts you are a progressive thinker, and if you disagree with me I will simply tear you down while never actually debating you on the merits of my position. I didn't like it at all. I actually hadn't made up my mind until the very last debate they had. Mitt Romney gave clear and concise answers to why he stands where he stands on the issues. Ms. O'Brien was a condescending, nasty person who had no clue what she was about. The final straw for me was when the topic of abortion came up. Mr. Romney stated he was pro-life, but honestly stated that since the Massachusetts state house is a vast majority Democrat, he was not planning on attempting to challenge current law in Massachusetts. Ms. O'Brien on the other hand stated she did want to change to current abortion laws to make them easier to get an abortion at anytime during pregnancy and for any reason, INCLUDING for minors WITHOUT parental consent. It was like a dagger in my heart. Was this what I was supporting all those years?

I voted for Mitt Romney. And I did so on the issues.

In every election since then I have voted for pro-life candidates because I have seen that liberals have taken on a personality of arrogant elitism, and has continued to move more and more left so that they cease to recognize any standard of what is right and wrong. All is permissible and if you give us your money we’ll make it happen for you. Thanks, but no thanks.

I am so glad that I started paying attention. One last word; many so-called republicans want us to move more to the left as a way to achieve better election results. Thanks, but no thanks.

I was reading an article about the malicious attacks made on the character of Miss California Carrie Prejean by the self-righteous liberals and a really good point was made that goes along with my conversion from liberal to conservative. Here is the quote from an Anne Coulter article that describes exactly where I came from (liberal view of religion) and actually becoming a Christian:

Christians aren't people who believe they are without sin; they're people who know they're sinners and are awestruck by God's grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve. This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they're on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being "basically good" people -- and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil.

Pray On!

Triangular Triads

I said that this was inevitable. The debate over "same sex" marriage is not a gay-lesbian issue. It has nothing to do with gays or lesbians but rather the definition of something. Marriage is defined as something and once you change the definition of that something, it ceases to be that something anymore. It becomes nothing for everybody.

Read Threesome Marriages

If you can think up a relational combination, then you can bet that those who want to include that into the definition of marriage will be lining up very soon.

Creation vs. Evolution: Know Why!

Watch the videos.

Why does the congressman not just come out and say what he believes? Because he has not prepared himself to debate why he believes what he believes.

As for Chris Matthews, listen to the way he phrases his argument. His questions are ripe with the preconception that, as he stated evolution is fact. He asked "Do you believe in science or creation?", clearly showing the creationism is not a scientific endeavor. He asks, "Do you believe in the scientific method?", clearly to show that the scientific method proves the truth of evolution.

Congressman Pence missed a great opportunity because he wasn't prepared to give a defense, which by the way we are instructed to do in God's Word.




If Chris Matthews had asked me if I believe in creation I would have said yes. When asked if I believe in the scientific method I would have answered yes. Mr. Matthews' next step would have been to question me on how I can believe in the scientific method when it clearly proves evolution is fact. That would have been my spring board into showing how the theory of evolution actually breaks apart under the scrutiny of the scientific method, starting with how do you get something from nothing?

Follow Up: Here is another video with Chris Matthews on the same subject. You've got to listen carefully. Problem one, his CATHOLIC school taught, or allowed the possibility, that men descended from apes. This stuff just drives me crazy....

A Great Man With A Great Message

Watching this video is a must. Yes, it's nearly 30 minutes long, but it is eye opening; like discovering a time capsule.

How we need this man and his message today.



By the way, I don't think this is the Republican National Convention as the video is titled. I've read elsewhere that it is actually the 1964 CPAC Conference, but I could be wrong.

I've Got A Funny Feeling (Funny-Bad)

It's been building for awhile and it looks like it's coming together. Ultra liberal congress, super-liberal President, soon to be liberal supreme court, and right around the corner legislating "Hate speech".

I'll be keeping an eye on a few things, but most importantly whether or not S.909 and HR1913 the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passes congress. The ambiguous wording of this bill would allow for special prosecution of people who commit crimes that are

..motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Ttribal hate crime laws.

This means that someone convicted of a crime against a person who is considered a member of a special "protected" group of people will receive a stiffer penalty than if the same crime is committed against a person who is NOT in that group of specially protected people. Who are some other these specially protected groups of people? Some 30 groups of sexually perverse people! Read the list right here.

On the ACLU website you'll find this as the opening of their information concerning hate speech:

In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States.

I just happen to read an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that described a meeting in Fort Worth where the motives of American Muslims was being discussed. The article started with:

What are the intentions of Muslims in America? A local activist told a Republican club Monday night that Muslims are intent on overthrowing America. But the Tarrant County medical examiner, who is Muslim, denounced such remarks as hate speech.

I'm getting a real bad feeling about this. Anyone who "feels" like what I say is hateful can sue me or have me arrested? What if the preacher at Church speaks out against homosexuality? What if I write on my blog that I think Asians can't drive worth a crap, all Italians are crooks, women are notorious liars or all Jews are money grubbers. I don't really think that, but I'm making a point. Is not my speech free under the first amendment?

Again, the first amendment provides me the freedom OF speech, NOT freedom FROM IT. The first amendment provides me with freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM IT.

I don't think we'll have these freedoms for much longer. I'm not saying...I'm just saying.

Case in point, I've written a little about the fall out from Miss California simply stating her opinion on same sex marriage. The liberals and the gay-lesbian community are tearing her apart and doing everything they can to destroy her reputation. In the very near future they will have laws on their side to prosecute!

I could go on and on. I read another article today that described how over 30 colleges and universities in the US have adopted same room co-ed living arrangements and the reason for this is "to create a more welcoming atmosphere for transgender and homosexual students". Don't believe me? Here is the article and you can read many more just like it with a simple web-search.

Relativism in the Highest

The article I just read is so pregnant with quotable quotes I decided to just post a link to it below.

What’s at issue here is the same thing I’ve been writing about for awhile; the relativistic world view of liberal “progressive” people. To anyone who subscribes to that world view there is nothing concrete. No objective Truth, no idea that stays True for all time, for all people in all places. The liberal thinkers in our country apply that same ideology to our US constitution. Our constitution was written as a model for government that was to withstand the test of time.
President Obama’s view and the view of liberals is that the constitution is a changeable document that should be molded to fit our time. And this is exactly what we will get with the Presidents upcoming pick for the US Supreme Court.

It is destroying our country; LORD have mercy on us.

Here is the link to the article. Just think about what this potential Supreme Court Justice stands for.

Top 10 Tips For a Better Community Garden

#10 - If no rototiller is available, just do donuts with your car to loosen the soil.
#9 - Obtain "starter plants" by raiding outdoor cafe flower pots.
#8 - For residents that aren't into gardening, try installing vending machines.
#7 - Don't allow local pot heads to plant pizza slices as there is no such thing as a pizza tree.
#6 - If someone plants a flesh-eating plant, kill it before it has babies and takes over the neighborhood.
#5 - Allot adjacent spaces, one to a working class immigrant family who actually need the food they grow and the other to an affluent organic gardener opposed to non-native plant species; sit back and watch the class conflict grow and flourish.
#4 - Ignore the "fruitcake" and "fairy" comments being yelled at you.
#3 - Let the ugly dowdy people take the lead on the project.
#2 - Never eat the vegetables grown in your community garden. Are you kidding? That plot of dirt used to be the parking lot for the public works truck fleet.

...and the #1 tip for a better community garden...

Although bobcat urine is a good method to repel rodents that eat vegetables, it will also turn your garden into a place overrun with volatile, dangerous bobcats.

You're welcome.

The New Direction of Science Under President Obama

During his April 27, 2009, address at the National Academy of Sciences’ annual meeting, President Barack Obama called for focused scientific research aimed to improve the daily lives of American citizens. Among the advances that Mr. Obama said he would love to see come to fruition are “solar cells as cheap as paint; green buildings that produce all the energy they consume; learning software as effective as a personal tutor; prosthetics so advanced that you could play the piano again; [and] an expansion of the frontiers of human knowledge about ourselves and world the around us.”

Some of the loudest applause Mr. Obama received occurred when he said,

Next, we are restoring science to its rightful place. On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.

While the president refrained from commenting on any issues where people have used science’s ability to alter or destroy life as the justification for doing so, does Mr. Obama really believe that science is not influenced by the ideology of atheistic and evolution-only researchers? His decision to use federal funds to destroy human embryos for research made plain his scientific ideology, which is robustly supported by the scientific elite.

The closest science gets to operating free from ideological sanction is in the focused, experiment-based research and development that is doggedly fixed on producing the kinds of useful items the president appropriately detailed in his speech. Mr. Obama should redirect his influence to fully promote scientific achievement that really does foster good stewardship of this earth.

Progressive?!!!!!!!!

I have to admit I am writing this in anger.

I can only assume that by now you know what went down at this years 2009 Miss USA pageant. Miss California was asked about her view on same sex marriage and she gave an answer that was based on her opinion. I wrote about it a week or so ago and you can see the video by clicking here.

Below I've posted two other videos that show the tactics of the supposed "progressives". They either cannot or will not engage in substantive debate. They hate you if you have a different opinion and will stop at nothing to get you to shut up. They bully you with insults and personal attacks and scream to the world how you are a hypocrite and hateful, close-minded, etc.

Frankly it pisses me off. I have no problem with opinions other than mind. I enjoy good debate; I am not afraid of it. I hate bullies and hypocrites.

Note the factual and substantive argument in support of their point of view. That was sarcasm. They are hateful and call those who think differently from them hateful.

A Side Track

OK, again this is not my usual topic, but sometimes I can't resist. I am convinced that our nation is slowly but surely becoming a socialistic society and our citizenry is OK with that and wants it to be that way. In this video we can see the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Do you want the socialist method in which the government taxes you more and then provides us with a poorer quality product for less (or even free), or do you want the capitalist method where there is open competition and the customer decides with our purchasing power who will survive?

Abortion: Open Mindedness and Responsible Learning

I read an article about how Kathy Ireland has come out in support of being pro-life. While I am glad she is doing this, what impressed me most is how she came to be of this mindset. I've pasted the article I read below.

A few points to consider before you read the article:

1. Although was once pro-choice she approached the argument with an open mind. She investigated that facts asking experts on both sides for honest information. She allowed her decision to be based on facts.
2. Pay close attention to the quote they included from the pro-choice actress at the very end of the article.

I have a few closing points after the article, so read all the way through (please).

Supermodel Kathy Ireland Speaks Out Against Pro Choice

It’s no secret that the majority of Hollywood stars are strong advocates for a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to terminate a pregnancy, however former "Sports Illustrated" supermodel-turned-entrepreneur-turned-author Kathy Ireland has gone against the grain of the glitterati and spoken out against abortion.

"My entire life I was pro-choice — who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science," Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book "Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity."

"What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there."

However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life. "I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby. Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time," Ireland argued. "I’ve also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didn’t want to be pro-life, but
this is not a woman’s rights issue but a human rights issue." Ireland also asserted that she believes "no justification is adequate" (for an abortion) unless the mother's life is in danger.

"In that instant, your intention is not to kill but to save the life of another. If we’re about to demolish a building we make absolute certain there are no human beings in there before we take a wrecking ball to it, but the unborn doesn’t have a voice so it's up to us to speak for them," she added passionately. "If I see someone abusing a child I am going to stand up against that, and that’s how I feel about abortion. Women are not given all the facts, they’re told it is a harmless procedure and now it has turned into such a political football."

The committed Christian and devoted mother even dedicated the chapter "Faith & Your Family" in her new book to her foundations in Christianity and believes that this is what’s missing from so many American families today. "You have to figure out your own values and why you have them. People are going to try and push and pull at your convictions, so you have to have boundaries and put them in place," she said.

But on the opposite end of the spectrum, "Judging Amy" star Amy Brenneman has been busy voicing her views as a strong advocate of pro-choice over recent years. "My involvement is really through this feminist majority that I work with and it is
a very important issue that’s close to my heart. Unless a woman really has sovereignty over her own body we really haven’t come that far."

I believe the facts about abortion are the same no matter who considers them. We all approach this issue confronted with the same facts and we are left to make a decision regarding this issue based on those same facts. Some make a decision to be pro-life (aka anti-abortion), and other choose to support abortion. I think it all comes down to the question Amy Brenneman raised; who's sovereign? Is it me or is it God?

This is why I absolutely reject any person who claims to be Christian and yet supports abortion. The two are mutually exclusive world views. This even includes those in the so-called "pro-choice" camp. It is no excuse for you to say "I am against abortion but believe it is a personal choice" - NO! By being pro-choice and voting pro-choice you enable abortion activity. You have blood on your hands just the same as the most avid pro-abortion person out there.

By definition being a Christian means you have made God sovereign over your life. You have given your life over to Christ and asked Him to be your LORD! There is no doubt God hates abortion. The only position a Christian can have is pro-life, and being pro-choice is not being pro-life.

The Poor Will Be Made Rich

I love this article I just read. Beyond the obvious topic, it encapsulates exactly what the Love and Forgiveness of God is all about.

Jesus said that in the kingdom of God the poor will be made rich and the rich will be made poor. He also said the last will be first and the first will be last. What does He mean by that? Basically if you are full of yourself, if your pride is so great it will be impossible for you to ever see or accept the Love of God. It's only when you are broken and are sorry for the sin you've committed that you can see. Yes, God's Love and Forgiveness is available to everyone, but some are so full of themselves that they think they don't need it.

The poor will be made rich and you can see a great example of it in the story of that woman in the article.

The "Roose" of Christianity

I found this article to be fascinating. A must read: Ivy Leaguer `infiltrates' Falwell's university

It is about how a Brown University student named Kevin Roose transferred to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in an attempt to perform research for a book he planned to write about fundamentalist Christians called "The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University"

On one hand I have to chuckle a bit that Mr. Roose felt that Christians are a group worthy of some kind of anthropological study. But, I do have to give him credit for his approach to the project. He seemed to be fairly open minded even though he came to the university with a certain amount of negative preconceptions toward Christians.

IMPORTANT! This is all I ask of anyone and it is a rule I apply to myself. We all have preconceptions and assumptions. But are we brave enough to NOT allow our preconceptions and assumptions to affect the results? Too often this is what happens. In science and in journalism the truth is compromised because the results of research differ from what I want the result to be prior to beginning the research.

All Hail Mother Earth: Kill The Humans #2

I'm not sure this stuff will ever stop, but I remain hopeful that something or someone will stand up and stop this madness. A number of things I've read today are prompting this post.

First - The Spanish Parliament’s environmental committee approved a resolution to grant legal rights to great apes and is expected to enact it into law by June 2009. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University states:

Like humans, great apes are entitled to life, liberty, and protection from torture.

OK; no argument from me. My argument does not stem from protection of animals, I love animals. Rather my argument is that at the same time as these worshipers of "Mother Earth" hate humans. They promote and even celebrate abortion as a method to control population in order to "save the planet".

Second - Switzerland has declared that individual plants have “intrinsic dignity”; that “decapitating” wildflowers is a great moral wrong and when food crop research is performed, one should consider the plants dignity.

Third - Today (April 22, 2009) members of the EPA are on capitol hill discussing why American businesses should pay premiums to the government based on how they use energy. Everyone knows that energy is required to do everything we do in this country. Food production, transportation, even energy producers will be charged huge fees for using energy that emits carbon pollution. Everyone knows these fees will be passed right on to the consumer!

My argument here is two fold.

1) What good does it do even if the U.S. takes a radical approach to [supposed] global warming if no other nations contribute? It's called "Global Warming" for a reason!

2) Again, the preference is given to plants and animals while our nation could care less about human dignity and the unborn.

(Updated) Free Speech. It Comes At A Cost

I was shocked to read this morning that one of the Miss America pageant contestants was asked a politically charged question during the pageant. The normally politics-free pageant was asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger:

Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answered:

Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.

I am going to be curious to see how this plays out. Many think her answer may have cost her the crown, as she was awarded first runner up. My initial research shows that she was the only one asked that question.

Personally I think her answer is reasonable. I am not going to call her a hate monger or publish her address on a web site so that those who might disagree with her will terrorize her. But let's wait and see what the gay and lesbian activists do.

After Prop 8 passed in California, the gay lesbian activists did just what I mentioned. Using access to public records they obtained a list of people who donated money to pre-prop 8 causes. They then created a web site that showed a google map with the addresses overlaid onto the map. This way the so-called "people of tolerance" could (and have) terrorize those that supported prop 8. Hypocrites!

We are free to say what we want, but it always comes at a cost when hypocrites are involved.

Read the entire article and you'll also be able to see some of the reaction from those in attendance and a reply by the pageant's director. It's chock full of secular relativism (aka comedy gold).

Update: Perez Hilton, the judge that asked the question went on his video blog this morning. First, watch the actual event from last night and pay attention to the crowds response:





***Content Warning****

Here is the judges response on his video blog. Real classy. This is what I am talking about. The left's idea of free speach, "Believe what I believe otherwise SHUT UP".

Side Note: Did you hear the contestant get boo'd? I heard much more applause than I did a booing. Selective hearing.

Science Is The Answer To Our Prayers

I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that Nancy Pelosi will stay the course in regards to supporting and funding embryonic stem cell research.

In the article she states that how under the Bush administration it was either faith or science:

We've had a situation where it's faith or science - take your pick. We're saying science is an answer to our prayers. We are going forth with science ... and we will defend that investment. We need science, science, science, science, science.

In some situations science IS the answer to our prayers; no argument there. I firmly believe that all Truth meets at the top, meaning if the science is True and Good, then it is from God. But, God never sanctions any science that goes against His will. There are many things I do not know about God, but I am 100% sure God hates sin and He hates abortion and the killing of His greatest gift; Life.

iPS Cells - Oops - Killing Embryos Not Really Needed

I just came across an article that talks about iPS, or Induced Pluripotent Stem cells. How I have never heard of this before escapes me. Not only is it promising, but I am going to be interested in seeing how the Democrats will allow this to shape their thinking. I contend that the very liberal Democrat party of the 21st century is hell bent on promoting a culture of death rather than life, so let's see how this plays out.

First a quick definition courtesy of Wikipedia:

Induced pluripotent stem cells, commonly abbreviated as iPS cells or iPSCs, are a type of pluripotent stem cell artificially derived from a non-pluripotent cell, typically an adult somatic cell, by inducing a "forced" expression of certain genes. iPS cells are believed to be identical to natural pluripotent stem cells, such as embryonic stem cells.

Translation:

1. iPS cells are identical to stem cells derived from embryos.
2. Pluripotent means the cell has the capability of becoming any number of tissue types.
3. iPS cells have been created from non-pluripotent cells, most successfully from adult skin cells.

This is very good news. I was surprised to learn that this technology was successfully accomplished using mice skin cells in 2006 and on human skin cells in 2007.

Why then all the debate on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? As I've written about in the past, I personally am against killing an embryo on moral grounds, so naturally I am also against using federal tax dollars to fund this research. However, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. No matter what you think of the morality of embryonic stem cell research, the entire national debate has been over federal funding, not the morality.

I'll be interested to see exactly where this ends up. Will the liberal, secular congress begin to move towards funding iPS cell research over embryonic stem cell research?

Living Dinosaur?

I came across this article and found it very interesting. The article tells of the discovery of a Wollemi tree in 1994 near Sydney Australia, which was previously believed to have been extinct since the "time of the dinosaurs". Speaking of the person that discovered the tree, a hiker named David Nobles:

He discovered a small grove of bizarre looking trees. Their leaves were shaped like a stegosaur’s tail and the bark looked like it was covered with bubbling chocolate. His discovery caused quite a stir when he brought it to the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. Professor Carrick Chambers declared “This is the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur alive on Earth.” This conifer was thought to be extinct for millions of years. How did it survive the climate changes that have occurred through history? How did this small grove of conifers survive the bush fires?

Those are all good questions. Remember; the botanist said that this was thought to have been extinct for millions of years because, although it's not mentioned in the article, this tree had been previously identified through fossils. Science determines the age of fossils by a process of measuring where they are found within rock layers. These layer are thought to have been laid down over very long periods of time. The further down in the rock layer, the older it is. Thus, based on the fossils of this tree previously found in rock layers it was believed to have been millions of years old and extinct.

How could this living "fossil" be explained? The only way it becomes a mystery is when you apply preconceived ideas to the problem. What preconceived ideas? One is the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life spontaneously self generated 3.5 billion years ago. If you assume that to be true then how this tree survived that long is hard to explain and quite remarkable. Another issue is the assumption of evolution. IF you assume that evolution is true and this species of tree reproduced and was alive over millions of years, why didn't it change? All very challenging to answer IF the preconceived ideas of very old earth and evolution are true.

What if the earth isn't millions of years old, rather only several thousand years old? Isn't it more feasible that a tree species, although rare, could survive over that periods of time? I say yes. But what about the fossils of this very same species of tree in rock layers dated to millions of years old? Could it be that the science is wrong? Yes they could be wrong. It's not a mystery if those layers are not millions of years old, but rather only thousands of years old and in fact fossilization doesn't take as long as main stream science says. I am just asking which is more logical? Which solves the problem with less effort?

If you dig your heels in and say whatever the evidence is, my answer has to support my preconceived truth about an earth that is billions of years old and evolution, then that is how you work yourself into a corner. Most scientists that do this then have to fall back on the old soft pillow of science to explain the data; chance. It occurred by chance.

That is poor science!

One last thing to think about. Do you know that scientists have discovered Tyrannosaurus fossils with soft tissue still in place. I just gave you a link to one of many articles you can find on this discovery. How could soft tissue survive 70 million of years? Scientists agree that if an animal dies, soft tissue is either eaten by scavengers or rots away rather quickly. Unless the body is covered by sediment quickly so to avoid the previous two situations from happening. But if covered by succeeding layers of sediment over 70 million years that is more than enough time for all soft tissue to be fossilized. Fossilization is the process of replacing organic material with mineral substances in the remains of an organism. Scientists all agree that they are stymied by this discovery. Of course they are! Because they are trying to force the data to fit their preconceived truths about the age of the earth, life and the dating techniques.

Again, which is more logical? I say a young earth, fossilization that occurs faster than scientists say, rock layers laid down quickly rather than millions and billions of years.

Repeat After Me: Abortion Is An Honorable and Loving Choice

I've written quite a few articles arguing against the sin of abortion. I've also stated my disgust at how abortion "rights" are celebrated in the U.S. I read this article titled We Already Have An Abortion Pride Movement, which puts the pro-abortion mind set on full display.

Just a few quotes from the article:

The importance of abortion as a human right integral to women's dignity, the destigmatization and normalization of the experience as common for women.

Yes, normalization of this horrible practise is what they need. It's like anything else; the more people I convince to agree with me and my values, the less wrong it becomes until everyone changes their definition of right and wrong on this issue. That's the world view of the relativist.

one in three U.S. women will have an abortion by the age of 45 - and ending the silence and shame that women may still feel cannot be underestimated in the global struggle for reproductive justice and gender equality.

HUH!? Reproductive justice!? Hey you fetus. I didn't really plan on having you and this whole idea of bringing you into the world is bad timing so I am charging you with the crime of disrupting my plans. I sentence you to death. And what is the gender equality part all about?

I want you to see the ideology of a secular relativist being presented here. It's very important you see this. From the last quote, let's break down each part:

"one in three U.S. women will have an abortion by the age of 45" - Secular meaning: Since the abortion rate is currently at 33.3% of the population and rising, we now consider this normal behavior and therefore not wrong.

"and ending the silence and shame that woman may still feel" - Secular meaning: since were telling you that abortion is normal and not wrong, we're here to help you get over those misguided feelings of shame.

(Note: Why did they have feelings of shame in the first place? Because deep down they know it's really wrong!)

"cannot be underestimated in the global struggle for reproductive justice and gender equality" - Secular meaning: Don't feel ashamed, abortion is a right and you are part of a struggle for reproductive justice and gender equality. Aren't those worthy causes?

We continue.....

When we normalize abortion as a fact of women's lives, and discuss abortion as an honorable and loving choice that helps women to become better mothers in the future, we are showing respect, understanding, and support for the complexity of women's choices.

Double HUH!?Having an abortion will make you a better mother? And Oh, OK; it's a fact that women will get abortions so lets just normalize it and discuss it as an honorable and loving choice..blah blah blah blah. And all this needs to be honored because, hey, women are faced with complex choices.

The article is chock full of this language and ends with a proclamation of abortion pride. I pity this person. God forbid she should die and come before the all consuming fire with this on her head.

It's so sad. In the time it took you to read this post (not even the link to the actual article) 6 abortions were performed in the U.S.

Follow Up: Public Education = Humanist Indoctrination

I wrote my last post at 10:00am this morning. It is now 9:45pm and came across this article which reports exactly what I am talking about. While my focus is on the humanist world view and the article I linked to is about leftist ideology; they are pretty much one in the same.

The point being that these so-called "free thinking progressives" are some of the most closed minded people ever. Just recently the Texas Board of Education made a decision requiring examination of "all sides of scientific evidence" in new science standards, but rejected language requiring teachers to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. The science in question was evolution. WHAT!? Teaching that there are weaknesses in the theory of evolution!? Pro-evolutionists wouldn't hear of it. Why? On the surface it's because they reject any notion that they might be wrong. Deep down it's because they are insecure, academic snobs. They refuse to recognize anything or anybody who tries to present alternative theories.

Public Education = Humanist Indoctrination

Here is another unconstitutional and illegal attempt by a college to try and punish students for free exercises of religion; in this case praying for a sick teacher.

As the article points out, it's one thing for an institution to make decisions based on ignorance of the law, but why do they have to dig their heels in once they learn what the law really allows? I'll admit that most school administrators have been scared into a state of ignorance by what they see the UCLU doing. But once law suits are brought against them and they are advised of what the law is, why do they fail to reverse course?

My theory: Because the public education system; that's K right on up to the college and universities, is under control of humanists. Teachers, professors and administrators alike have aligned their thinking and have set the doctrine of humanism to be the new "truth". Humanists don't care what the constitution says or what is actually legal. To them if it goes against the humanist world view, then they don't recognize it as being authoritative.

Parents be aware that when you send you kids to public school they will be indoctrinated with the humanist world view. If you are a humanist, then you should be happy. However, for you parents that teach values at home different than what humanism ascribes to and chose to include Christian values in that teaching, the school will be setting them on a course opposite of yours.

Why I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus

As a Christian I see no good reason to reverse my assessment of the general reliability of the Gospel's when it comes to the narratives regarding supernatural events. And this applies also to their Resurrection accounts. If someone is going to deny the reliability of these accounts, then the burden of proof is on him to say why. But this, I think, is very difficult to do. So for you out there who say, "Well your the one who believes in this resurrection, what's your proof it DID happen?" I say hold on to your hat!

The evidence for the histerocity of the Resurrection is, in my estimation, stronger than any other event in Jesus' life - and stronger than the evidence for the histerocity of many other historical events we take for granted.

Here are 8 reasons why I believe the Resurrection did occur:

1. The Resurrection event is testified to by five independent sources. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul who also refer to numerous other sources as well, such as Peter and James (in 1 Cor. 15). This plurality of sources greatly enhances the credibility of each. One might hold that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark here as they did in some of their other material. But what's interesting is that their individual narratives of the resurrection completely differ from Mark and from each other. In fact, each of the testimonies has more unique material than it has material in common with each other. This creates a problem with harmonizing the accounts. But that problem is nothing compared to the problem of explaining how each independently testifies to the Resurrection in the first place - if, in fact, the Resurrection never occurred.

2. The location of Jesus' tomb was well known by all, so if Jesus had not risen from the dead, if His body were yet in the tomb, this could have been easily checked out. Both Jesus' followers (who would suffer persecution for their faith) and the opponents of Jesus (who would want to falsify the Christian claim) would have a motive for checking this out. But, all agreed, the tomb WAS empty. How is this agreement explained?

3. Related to #2, no one disputes the Christian church began in Jerusalem just a few weeks after Jesus' crucifixtion. It exploded in growth. And the content of the message that caused this explosion was that Jesus was the Messiah, the Lord of all, as was evidenced by His miracles and resurrection from the dead (see Acts 2:16ff). They do not present to their audience some unknown figure in the distant past. They are talking about their audiences contemporaries! How is this growth to be explained?

4. There is no way of accounting for the transformation of the disciples except on the basis of the Resurrection, the very basis themselves give. If you compare the disciples before the death of Jesus with the disciples after the Resurrection appearances, you will see a world of difference. One day they are fearful and hiding; the next day they are facing hostile audiences preaching (what else?) the Resurrection!

5. The Resurrection narratives lack the characteristics common to late legendary narratives, and embody many of the characteristics common to early eyewitness-based reports. There is, for example, much detail, much of it being irrelevant to the story line. To give one illustration, Mark mentions the name of a well known member of the Sanhedrin (a Jewish councilman) who donated a tomb for Jesus - Joseph of Arimathea. Now if one is going to fabricate an account, one doesn't create this sort of detail. One certainly doesn't drop names of such prominent people, people who can easily be cross examined.

There is also a great deal of counter-productive material. Legends lack this. The role of women in the story, for example, could, in the first century context, do nothing but damage the testimony of the authors. Women were, as I said in first century context, regarded as being incurable liars. Why would the authors add the testimony of women if it could only hurt them unless they were just giving a truthful account of the events?

6. The conversion of Paul is unexplainable except on the basis he himself gives. He confronted the risen Lord (see Acts 9 and 1 Cor. 15). Here was a man who was at the onset dead set against Christianity, even overseeing the stoning of one of its preachers, and then in one moment he's converted. Similarly James, the brother of Jesus, was also a nonbeliever in Jesus until the Lord appeared to him (1 Cor. 5:7). What explains this conversion if not the actual resurrection.

7. Paul gives us an early list of the resurrection appearances. It's found in 1 Corinthians 15, written 15-20 years after the resurrection. he is attempting to convince some Corinthians the the Resurrection of Jesus did in fact occur, and to do this he lists Christ's appearance to the apostles, and to James, and "to more than 500 at the same time, most of whom are still living" (1Cor. 15:6). The thrust of noting the large number of living people who saw Christ resurrected is to say "if you don't believe me, the evidence is still around. Go and ask those who saw it." By the standards of any law court, this must be taken as strong evidence.

8. Finally, there is no motive for the disciples to fabricate this story. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Nor is there anything to lead us to believe that they were disposed to fabricate such a story, or had the sort of characters which would be capable of such an incredible fabrication. Nor is there anything to suggest that they could have successfully pulled such an incredible fabrication off, even if they had wanted to.

In short, the denial of the Resurrection has nothing to recommend itself as a historical hypothesis, while the admittance of the Resurrection has everything to recommend itself as a historical hypothesis.

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.