Archive for the ‘science’ Category

Evolution Vs. The 10 Commandments: And The Winner Is…?

May 22, 2014

One of the things that makes living a moral life – keeping the 10 commandments – discouraging and disheartening these days is the fact that people all around us are NOT keeping them.  If you’ve been around kids you know how kids invariably look at other kids as the measure of what should and shouldn’t be okay.  When exasperated children say, “But all the other kids are doing it!” parents offer the knee-jerk response: “If all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?”  And that’s a valid point, of course.  But your kid isn’t asking to jump off a cliff; he’s asking to stay out late or he’s asking to go to a concert or something else that he simply doesn’t view as tantamount to leaping off a cliff to his certain death.  What that child sees is a fun thing that the other kids are doing that he can’t do, and as a child who has himself been confronted with “the cliff” question, I can tell you that it might end the argument but it hardly ends a kid’s angst.

It would be a very different world if someone received heavenly electroshocks from God every single time they violated the 10 commandments.  But that isn’t the way it happens.  David and later Jeremiah famously asked the question we’ve all likely asked at one time or another: “Why do the wicked prosper?”

It’s not merely that so many people break God’s laws all around us and seem to get away with it and even seem to get rewarded for it that creates discouragement, however.  It’s also that there is an entire worldview that explains this apparent state in terms of a presentation that God’s laws aren’t really even “laws” at all but merely intolerant edicts written by intolerant, superstitious and frankly bigoted human beings who invented God as a means to control and dominate people.  Sometimes it very much seems like the whole world system has been designed to confuse and discourage God’s people into wondering why we bother to follow God’s commands.  In place of God today we are instead being offered a Darwinian system of evolution that is being held up as “science” and therefore beyond question.

We’ve all heard about the Ten Commandments in the Bible.  And it occurred to me that it would be interesting to explore them from the viewpoint of Darwinian evolution – consistently applied – and see how the results strike your moral intuitions.  I submit to you that sometimes the best way to finally put your trust on God’s system is to consider the results of man’s systems and see their end.  That’s ultimately how David began to receive his answer to his question of why the wicked prosper: in verse 17 of Psalm 73 David said, “then I understood their final destiny.”  We need to be able to do that with Darwinism.

When Jesus Christ and His Word are your source for ideas, you simply do not need to be afraid of the competition.  The best antidote to all the lies that surround us is the truth.  And so I would like to take some time to survey the truth: the truth about science and where it came from; the truth about some very interesting issues in which science is surprisingly ignorant; the truth about a giant flaw in Darwin’s presentation; and finally an examination of what Darwinian “ethics” would look like to show you its end.  And what I want you to see is that God’s law makes absolute sense in light of its vicious Darwinian competition.

So I begin with the origin of science: how did we get science?  Should we view it as incompatible with Christianity?  Well, it turns out that we got science from Christianity.  Here’s an interesting fact I link to in my notes: The scientific method itself and the founder of virtually every single branch of modern science was discovered by a publicly confessed Christian.  Dr. Rodney Stark, a sociologist, “researched the leading scientists from 1543 [– the beginning of the scientific revolution –] to 1680 and found that of the top 52 scientists, one was a skeptic, one was a pantheist and 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as devout because of their zeal.”  We find that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the worldview foundations necessary and essential for the birth of science: The earth was not the illusion of Eastern religion and philosophy, but a physical, tangible place. And the material world was not the corrupt and lower realm of Greek religion and philosophy, but God created it and called it “good.” And God endowed the capstone of His creation, man – as the bearer of His divine image – with the reason, the curiosity, and the desire to know the truth. And God – who designed an orderly and law-abiding universe and earth for man – made man the caretaker of His creation. And thus the great astronomer Johannes Kepler described his project as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”  And that is frankly why 106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions.  My point is this: is Christianity at war with the essence of science?  NO!  Atheism is at war with the essence of science.  It is simply a demonstrable lie that legitimate science is at odds with Christianity; and this lie should not trouble you no matter how often you hear the lie or who repeats it.

There’s another myth that I would like to briefly examine; and that is the myth of science as some monolithic field that has answered all of the profoundly important questions.  That is how it is frequently presented in the media; but when you listen to scientists themselves you get a very different story.  I’ve recently began watching a Science Channel program called “Through the Wormhole.”  And I’ve been shocked at just how little science genuinely knows when the scientists and not the news media discuss science.

For example, take black holes:  We find that “black holes are places where the accepted laws of physics break down.”  Dr. Gabor Kunstatter of the University of Winnipeg physics department, defines black holes as a “a tiny region of space where the known laws of physics break down.”  It turns out that every system of physics known to man – Newtonian, Einsteinian, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory – all are falsified inside black holes.  And by the way, this is kind of a big deal because there are something like 100 million black holes in our galaxy.  It’s simply not true to claim that science accounts for all reality.  It simply doesn’t.

Here’s another one that surprised me.  If you try to reconcile Einstein’s relativity with Quantum Mechanics, a strange thing happens: you’re left with an equation that has no ‘t’ variable for time.  Time gets cancelled out of any equation that tries to harmonize these two widely held theories.  Since this runs counter to observable reality, most scientists rightly believe that quantum physics and relatively theory “don’t play well together.”  In fact, they invalidate one another.  It is rather astonishing that modern physics can’t account for something as basic to human existence as time.  But some physicists are so determined to believe their theories that they literally argue that if their equations says time doesn’t exist, then time doesn’t exist.  I laughed as a Rutgers University philosopher of physics named Tim Madulin explained that these guys are spending way too much time with numbers and not enough time with reality.  But that’s what is going on far too often in what is passing for “science” today – especially evolutionary science.

How about this one: 95% of the universe that physicists depend on for their theories is MISSING.  “An enormous chunk of the Universe seems to be invisible. We can’t see it, hear it, or detect it in any way… To crack the cosmic code that underlies our Universe, we have to understand energy in all its forms. But what if almost 95% of the Universe is made of a form of energy we can’t see and don’t understand?”  The 95% of the universe that they can’t detect in any way is there because it HAS to be there for their theories to hold up.

Here’s another one  – and it’s actually quite a doozy: the Big Bang.  99.9% of working scientists in relevant fields of astronomy accept the Big Bang.  But taking what had to happen into account, what is the likelihood of a life-supporting universe coming into existence by chance?  Think about it: there’s nothing, there’s nothing, there’s nothing.  And then POOF! There’s everything.  Just what are the odds of something like that just happening by chance?  According to the great mathematician Roger Penrose, who calculated the odds of what had to happen for the Big Bang, the odds against such an occurrence happening by chance were on the order of 10^10^123 to 1.  How big of a number against the Big Bang happening by chance is that?  I’ll let well-known theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton – who is an atheist, by the way – tell you. From “Through the Wormhole”: “The seed of this idea was planted many years ago when she realized she had a problem with the Universe – a pretty big problem. According to her calculations, the Universe should not exist. “The chances to start the Universe with the high-energy Big Bang are one in 10 with another 10 zeros behind it and another 123 zeros behind it. So, pretty much, zero.”  As a result of these odds, Mersini-Houghton wrote a paper proposing what she acknowledged to be a “highly speculative” theory denying Big Bang cosmology which might provide the materialists with a way to rescue their atheistic belief system.

The big problem with the Big Bang is that the Big Bang requires a Big Banger.  All matter, all energy, all space and all time came into existence.  You need somebody to make that “POOF” happen – someone who Himself is not limited by matter, energy, space or time.  Only the Bible identifies Him:  “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  We need that Guy.  We need God.

The strongest argument against “science” disproving the existence of God is SCIENCE.

Let me leave you with one last example right out of the Bible: Jeremiah 33:22 records a statement by God that the stars in the sky are “countless.”  That may not sound like that big of a deal, but consider: In 128BC Hipparchus claimed to have counted the stars, with their number being 1,026.  That number stood as the official count of the stars of the sky for seventeen hundred years until 1600AD, when Kepler counted the stars and concluded that Hipparchus had double-counted some: and the updated number was 1,005 stars.  Was God wrong?  Well, with the aid of the Hubble telescope scientists now estimate that there are 70 sextillion – that’s a number followed by 21 zeroes – stars in over 1 billion galaxies.  And that number actually exceeds the number of grains of sand on all the seashores on earth, to complete the proof of Jeremiah 33.

We don’t have to be afraid to debate the truth.  We don’t have to be afraid of the facts.  We don’t have to play games with the numbers and the evidence in order to support our faith.  THAT’S WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO DO.  Another way to put it is this: don’t let science or anything else tell you how to read your Bible.  Because you are a LOT more warranted to let your Bible tell you how to read everything else.

So with that as a primer, let’s begin to contemplate Charles Darwin and his Darwinian evolution. There is one primary reason that Darwinism is accepted as a “valid scientific theory” and “Creationism” or even “Intelligent Design” is not so accepted: and that is that we’re told that Darwinism passes the bar of being “testable” or “falsifiable” but theories that depend on God in any way are NOT so testable or falsifiable.  We’re told that we can’t put a Creator God under a microscope and observe Him creating.  But let me show you how utterly fallacious that standard is by showing you Darwin’s “test” for his theory: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Well, Darwin himself said the eye as a refutation of his theory gave him cold fits.  He wrote in a letter: “I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable.  The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”  A couple of things leap out of that: the first thing is that Darwin is clearly not an objective scientist who is willing to go wherever the evidence leads; he is passionately determined to get God out of the picture.  It makes him literally “cold” and “sick” to see any evidence of a Designer, doesn’t it?  With that said, let’s talk about Darwin’s own dilemma with the eye.  The thing about an eye is that it doesn’t work unless all the components are properly in place.  It’s not like you can grow an eyeball but not have any optical nerves and still see a little bit.  You’ve either got the whole eye or you’ve got squat.  I read Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker during a period when I was genuinely doubting whether God really existed or not.  And when I saw his account of how the eye developed a little tiny bit at a time, it was a laugher for me, even being the skeptic that I was.  On his account, the first eye began to form from a photoreceptor cell on a depression in some early creature’s body – as though we all need to go home and check our belly buttons every day lest an eye is starting to grow out of it.  And as Dawkins presented this bizarre story of how the eye formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications,” his story just got worse and worse.  It amounted to a fairy-tale for atheists.  It had to happen this way to keep God out of the picture, so that’s clearly how it happened no matter how implausible or even ridiculous it sounds.

And it actually gets WORSE for Darwinists, because we now know that the cell is filled with incredible tiny machines that all have to be present in a cell in order for that cell to work.  And scientists point out that it would take a good 50 times even the 4.6 billion of years earth has supposedly existed for random chance to manufacture just one useful protein for even the simplest bacteria cell.  That’s not amoeba to man; “numerous, successive, slight modifications” can’t even get Darwinism to a bacteria cell!  We now know a lot more about what the Bible describes: that we are truly “fearfully and wonderfully made” just as Psalm 139:14

But there is actually an even more glaring problem with Darwin’s “falsifiability” than most Christian thinkers have attacked.  Let’s look at the Darwin’s falsifiability standard again: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”  That is a nearly impossible standard to defeat: we have to prove something is absolutely impossible.  But let me try doing the same thing with my Creationist theory so you can see the bait-and-switch that’s going on here: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have possibly been formed by God, my Creation theory would absolutely break down.”  My point is that Creationism and Intelligent Design have been ruled out without any consideration by the modern scientific establishment because they are “not falsifiable” when the Darwinism that they want to embrace is actually no more falsifiable than our Creation theories are.  The only difference is that when atheists tell their stories about how time and chance and random mutation managed to pull off one impossible miracle after another, OUR STORIES MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE!  You need to understand that there is a true spirit of delusion and hypocrisy at work in our world.

So science itself originated out of Christian thought on fundamentally Christian precepts of intelligence and design and the science that arose out of and because of Christianity clearly isn’t incompatible with Christianity; so science really truly doesn’t know that much about the ultimate nature of the universe and what it DOES know confirms rather than contradicts that our universe and life itself was the product of supernatural Intelligent Design; and so Darwinism amounts to an atheist polemic that has support merely because it illegitimately rules out its rivals on utterly fraudulent grounds.  Are you with me so far?

With all of that as our backdrop, let us now ponder the implications of Darwinian morality.  As a young man with a mangled faith, wondering if God truly existed and cared about how I lived, I realized something: if evolution is true and there is no God, then there is no such thing as human morality, either.  And I literally not only could but frankly ought to have been utterly amoral if that was the case.  As soon as that thought occurred to me, however, it frightened me far more than it reassured me.  Because I had not been raised to be amoral.  Everything I had been taught in my entire life up to that point had directed me to believing in right and wrong.  And it was a dark thought indeed that there was no God and morality flowed from Darwinism.  Because Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works.  Assume that’s true for a moment.  And then look at the world around you.  Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism.  What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way.  If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinists want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”  Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism.  When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other.  But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism.  If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism.  And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian.  Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is profoundly Darwinian.  Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Becauserape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

I like to watch nature programs on TV, although it is often hard – because the stories end so bleakly.  In one episode, I watched a dominant female baboon whose had baby died because she couldn’t produce milk snatch the baby of a healthy mother.  And of course that baby died because the dominant baboon female couldn’t produce any milk but wouldn’t return it to its mother.  In another program, I watched a lion cub get trampled by buffalo when the herd suddenly changed direction; its pelvis was crushed and it was dragging itself around by its front lets with its hind legs useless.  What happened?  Was there a lion welfare program?  No.  The mother and its siblings and the pride abandoned it after a few days, and it surely died horribly.  Because in nature the weak, the sick and the injured are a liability and even a threat to the rest of society and they should die so the strong can live.  That’s the way the world often is in the aftermath of the Fall.

Have you ever wondered why God allows animal suffering like that?  Let me offer an answer: because God wants us to look at the animals and see that He created us different.  We are NOT animals; we are made in the image of a rational, moral God.  And we should not live or think like beings lacking the Imago Dei.

Now, in the time that I have left, let me finally get to the essence of the 10 Commandments.  God told Israel in Exodus 20:2, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery .“  Allow me to restate that in a slightly different way: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you OUT” of that animal state of bondage.  You will NOT live like animals in some Darwinian state; instead you will live like My people whom I created and whom I love and hold to a higher standard than any beast of the field.

Why is it that the first five commandments focus on man’s relationship to God?  Today, our government schools are trying to abandon the commandments focusing on God but somehow keep the ethics of the last five.  A US District Court Judge actually tried to cut the Ten Commandments down to six.  One pastor recently preached on that and said, “The educators are attempting to enact the ethics of the second half of the Ten Commandments which have to do with not lying, stealing, etc. without taking heed to the first half!  They are trying to teach young men and women how to love their neighbor without first training them to love God!  All such attempts will fall short, because unless you first love God, and have God living in you, it is not possible to live out his character, which is what loving your neighbor is all about.”

In light of what you have just heard on Darwinism, let me sing the same song again: because we are NOT to live like animals; we are NOT to live like a bunch of creatures who invent our own meanings and values for ourselves; instead we ARE to live in the light of our relationship to our Creator from which our love for our neighbor flows.  We are to live up to the image of God in us as humans.  And frankly if we truly love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength, and if we truly have the love of God in Christ in our hearts, we cannot help but love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  It flows out of us like water flows out of a spring.

There’s a powerful reason for this: it derives from the fact that community is central to the heart of the Trinity.  There’s a theological term in Greek called “Perichoresis.”  It means, “to dance around.” The divine dance within the Trinity.  It derives from passages such as John 14:10, in which Jesus asked, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?”  The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.  The Father loves the Son and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit cooperate together to bring joy to the Father.  You have every element within the Trinity that you need to have complete community.  God did not have to invent community the way man invented the wheel; community was central to the heart of God.

You can’t give what you don’t have.  If God were strictly one in the most rigorous sense, as Allah is in Islam, where would we get true, genuine community?  When God created man in His own image, according to Genesis 1:27, how was it that Adam and Eve were relational and communal beings unless community were an essential part of the essence of the God who had created them?  When you love your neighbor as you love yourself, as taught in both the Ten Commandments and by Jesus, what else are you doing but modeling the love that was essential to the “divine dance” of the Godhead before the Creation of the world?

You don’t get that from Darwinism.  In fact, you don’t get anything good from Darwinism at all.

In allowing the demonic doctrine of Darwinism, God allowed a very stark contrast between His way and the way of fallen man.  Joshua told the Israelites in Joshua 24:15, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.”  And like the Israelites of old, we too have a choice to make.  The resurrected Jesus tells the Laodiceans in Rev 3:15-16, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!  So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”  We need to stop living with one foot in the “survival of the fittest” world of Darwin and the other foot in the “love your neighbor as yourself” world of Jesus and truly choose this day whom we will serve.  There is a gigantic gulf between the “vicious animal” world of Darwinism and the “image of God” world of Christianity.  There are two natures – the selfish animal nature of Darwinism and the selfless divine nature of God – that are profoundly and fundamentally opposed to one another.  And they are at war within you.

The Ten Commandments as Jesus taught were not given to the descendants of animals, as Darwinism teaches; they were given to the children of God who love Him and want His love to flow through them to others.

Let’s pray that we may be radical followers of the Ten Commandments as they were taught in both the Old and New Testaments.  It’s evolution vs. the Ten Commandments; it’s Darwin vs. Jesus.  Who will be the true winner in your life?

Secular Humanism The Source Behind Education’s Ills Across The Board As We Decline In Knowledge, In Tolerance And In Morality

May 19, 2014

Secular humanism – in religious terms you can label it “atheism” and in political terms you can label it “progressive liberalism” – is a shell game that tries to hide the existence of the human soul.

The soul is there, of course.  It simply HAS to be there for humans to be in any meaningful way categorically different than the beasts, or for human justice to be anything other than a morbid joke as “beasts” judge one another for acting like beasts.  But the project of secular humanism is to only allow as much “soul” as is absolutely necessary to allow society to function while at the same time denying it’s reality lest the people reject the atheism and the progressive liberalism that are based on the denial of the soul.

The problem is that the soul is NOT a degreed property.  “Size” and “weight” are a degreed properties; a thing can have more of it or less of it and still be the thing itself.  But in this case the soul must be the kind of thing (a substance) that HAS properties rather than a property that has degrees.  We therefore either have souls – in which case the secular humanists are entirely wrong about the nature of humanity, the nature of religion, the nature of morality, the nature of science and the very  nature of the universe – or we do NOT have souls and therefore we do NOT have “free will” in which case human society, human justice and basically everything worthwhile about “humanity” is an entirely manufactured lie.

Look, I am either a soul – created in the image of God – that has a body, or else I am nothing more than a body – and frankly a meat puppet – which was the result of random DNA conditioned by my environment.  It’s one or the other; there is no middle ground.  Free will becomes a logical as well as biological impossibility for the latter view – which is why secular humanist scientists and philosophers are increasingly rejecting the very possibility of free will.

The problem is that if you were to actually assume the latter was actually true, then how could you hold anybody responsible for anything?  It’s really a frightening thought.  After all, if I commit a brutal murder, but there really is no “me” inside of me to truly hold accountable, but rather I was conditioned by genes I didn’t choose and an environment I didn’t choose, why should I be held accountable?  How is this not like holding a child responsible for what his parents did?  But of course, on this view, you can’t hold the parents responsible any more than the child, because they suffer the same complete lack of moral free will that their child does.  And the final result of this view is that we should no more hold a human being – who is NOTHING but an evolved monkey, after all – any more morally responsible for his or her “crimes” than we would hold a tiger responsible for killing a goat.   Because in both cases, you merely do what you “evolved” to do.

Therefore, the people who claim the latter (no God, ergo sum no imago dei ergo sum no free will) is reality have to pretend for the most part that it is most definitely NOT reality in order to have any kind of functioning human society.  What they have done is determined that humans are in fact “animals” (or beasts); and that, more specifically, we are “herd animals.”  Mind you, we are also clearly – judging by human experience – “predator animals” who prey on herd animals.  And so the secular humanists have construed for themselves a “foundation for their description of reality” in which they have appointed themselves the outside role of “the bureaucrats” and “the professors” and “the journalists” (etc.) who shape and control the behavior of the herd and attempt to keep the herd animals relatively safe from the predator animals.

And of course liberalism only becomes consistent in their anthropology when they refuse to execute murderers (after all, THAT would be holding someone accountable for their moral crimes when that man is merely a beast who merely did what his brain had evolved to do); so we house them, keep them locked up in cages.  Just like animals.  Because they ARE animals and nothing more than animals conditioned by DNA plus environment.  Just like YOU’RE nothing more than a mindless animal purely conditioned by DNA plus environment.

I suggest that the increasing breakdown of society under the control of secular humanism is itself a refutation of their system.  We are skyrocketing out of control as a species because when you treat men like beasts, like beasts men shall increasingly become.  As the Bible puts it, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).  But we can offer a great deal more of an analysis than merely pointing out that “by their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).

One of the things you need to realize is the bait and switch you have received regarding science and the nature of science.  You have been fed a pile of lies in the form of a narrative that science is incompatible with religion and that “science” produces open-mindedness and tolerance for new ideas whereas “religion” produces close-mindedness and hostility to new ideas.  But that is simply a lie: as a matter of factual history, “science” is uniquely a product of Judeo-Christianity.  It arose ONLY in Christendom as the result of belief in a Personal, Transcendent Creator God rather than anywhere else on earth.  Belief in God was a necessary condition for the rise of science as not only the discoverer of the scientific method itself (Francis Bacon) but the discoverer of every single branch of science was a publicly confessing Christian who “sought appreciate the beauty of God’s handiwork” and who “wanted to think God’s thoughts after Him.”

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide.  Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.

To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire.  And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again.  And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.

God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man.  And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity.  That is the basis for science.

Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.

What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud.  It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.

But imagine – for the sake of argument – what would have happened had I done such a thing with the work of Albert Einstein.  Imagine I had enough of a vocabulary to pass myself off as a great scientific mind.  What would have happened to science as a result of my limiting it?

And that is what’s essentially being described in the R. Scott Smith article below.  Education – the teaching of science and of how to do science, for example – would suffer more and more as fools who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) hijacked the agenda.

I would like to begin this discussion with an article on the logically-entailed implications of Darwinism in crucial human pursuits by beginning with an article detailing the ramifications of Darwinism on education:

Winter 2014
Does Darwinian Evolution Actually Undermine Education?
By R. Scott Smith

Low standard test scores, serious budget crunches and more — our public schools face daunting challenges. But perhaps they face a deeper issue, one not being mentioned in recent public discussions: What if they aren’t really teaching our youth knowledge?

Today’s education is based upon the assumption that science gives us knowledge. But other disciplines give us (at best) “inferior knowledge,” or just preferences and opinions.

And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.

If that seems overstated, notice what Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher of neuroscience at Tufts University, says. He admits that according to naturalistic evolution, the dominant scientific theory, brains and physical patterns of physical forces exist. Physical stuff (matter) is real, but things like mental states aren’t.

Yet when we do science, pay our taxes or watch a football game, it seems we really think, have beliefs and experience things. So, how can that be?

According to Dennett, all that’s going on is the interpretation of the behavior of “intentional systems,” like sophisticated chess-playing computers and people. While observing them, we try to interpret and predict their behavior. For instance, we might interpret a computer’s move in a game as “intending” to checkmate its opponent, whereas the human player “thinks” or “believes” she can escape by making a certain move. We just interpret their behaviors by how we conceive of (or talk about) their behaviors as mental states — but that’s all there’s to it. There are no real beliefs, thoughts or observations.

However, suppose a person comes here from a fourth-world country. She’ll need to get a concept of what a traffic light is and that she can cross the street on a green light, not red. To learn that, she’ll need experiences and thoughts of what these things are, and then form a concept of when it’s safe to cross a street.

So, for Darwinian evolution and naturalism, there’s a crucial problem here: How could anyone make observations and form concepts and interpretations? To do these seems to require we use the very mental things we’re told don’t exist.

Yet without real observations, we don’t seem able to do any scientific experiments. Without concepts, thoughts and beliefs, how could we even form, test and accept scientific theories?

Worse, how could we have knowledge if there aren’t real beliefs we can accept as true? We also need adequate evidence for our beliefs to count as knowledge. But with Darwinian, naturalistic science, evidence from experience seems impossible.

Now, maybe Michael Tye (a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin) could reply that we do have mental states, yet these really are just something physical, like brain states, being conceived of as being mental. But, that won’t work — to even have concepts, we need real mental states to work with.

So, it seems the assumption upon which our education system is founded — that Darwinian evolutionary, naturalistic science uniquely gives us knowledge of the facts — cannot be true. And, Darwinian evolution also is mistaken, for on it we couldn’t know anything. Yet we do know many things — for instance, that we’re alive.

Therefore, real, immaterial mental states must exist. While this essay doesn’t prove it, it suggests something very important — supernaturalism isn’t far-fetched after all. Indeed, we can infer even more. If we can have real immaterial thoughts, experiences, beliefs and more, then it seems that there must be something immaterial that is real which can have and use them. That suggests that we have minds, even souls, that are real and non-physical. So, how then do we best explain their existence? Surely not from Darwinian evolution. Instead, it seems that this short study highly suggests that God exists and has made us in a way that we can have knowledge. I am reminded of what Solomon said: “To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord” (Prov. 1:7, GNT).

Thus, fixing our education system seems to involve, in part, a  repudiation of naturalism and Darwinian, naturalistic science. For on it, we lose all knowledge whatsoever. But since we do know many things, that fact strongly suggests that God exists.


R. Scott Smith (M.A. ’95) is an associate professor of ethics and Christian apologetics in Biola’s master’s program in Christian
apologetics. He holds a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics from the University of Southern California.

Science isn’t “discovering” very much.  We put a man on the moon in the 1960s and we literally aren’t capable of repeating that feat today.  The first computer was invented by a Christian, of course.  We keep making them smaller and faster, but we haven’t had any major leaps for decades.  We’ve been following Moore’s Law rather than any “scientific advance.”  We’ve been very successful at “technology,” and at reducing the size of previously designed devices or at creatively marketing/engineering a device based on the success of a previous device.  But contrary to your secular humanist, we’re not making giant leaps and bounds on the frontiers of science.

And that is most definitely true of education – and especially education in America relative to other nations as we plunge ever more deeply into the philosophy of secular humanism that had NOTHING to do with the origin of science or the origin of ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL THING.

I look at education and I see what many parents as well as many educators see: kids that are getting dumber and dumber.

And you have to ask yourself, why is that, given that we’re spending more per pupil than ever???  Why do we keep falling behind?  And why do Christian schools run circles around the government (secular humanist education center) schools???  Because it is simply a FACT that they do:

If you want a flourishing education system – you know, the kind of system that put a man on the moon – you need to demand a return to a religion-friendly education system rather than the one that has replaced the system that made America great.

It is a fact of history that American public education began as a RELIGIOUS ENDEAVOROf the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  As a native Californian, I also marveled to learn that Christianity and churches EXCLUSIVELY bore the burden of education for basically the first hundred years of westward expansion.

I’ve written about what happened as government invited itself in to take over education:

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” [...]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us [note: I write about three strikes in the article].  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Today we have an “education system” ladened with secular humanist theories which don’t teach children because as secular humanists they have understanding of “humanity” or the little souls whom they seek more to indoctrinate than to educate.

Johnny can’t read, at least he can’t read very well.  But that’s okay; he doesn’t need to be able to read very well in order to serve the future State or the crony capitalist corporations in the progressive liberals’ fascist system in order to be a good drone worker bee.  When your child is toiling away at his or her menial job, feel good in the knowledge that your child will do so believing that being a good citizen and taking your place as one of myriad cogs in the machine will keep him or her moving mindlessly forward.

In a way, I’ve already also described the rabid intolerance that is the quintessence of secular humanism in describing above the purging of conservatives by liberals.  But believe me, there is way, way more than that.

One of the frightening things about the Holocaust was that only one who closely followed the theories presented in the German universities could see it coming.  But those who DID follow what was being taught in the elite German universities could see it coming very clearly.  Many of those who did follow what was being taught were terrified and tried to warn the free nations about what was happening.  But of course nobody listened.  And so it all played out exactly as the most strident voices warned it would play out unless something was done.  That “play” was World War II and the death camps that accompanied it.

The lesson of history is that ideas have consequences.  And terrible ideas have terrible consequences, indeed.

So with that introduction, allow me to replay a recent article written by a student of one of the most – if not THE most – prestigious of universities in America reflecting a new rabid intolerance of free speech in academia:

 In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue. [...]

It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.

Basically, she says that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Here as in so many other ways, secular humanist “liberalism” is Nazism.  Period.

I want you to consider the bastion of bias and intolerance that academia has truly become:

AN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

We are now seeing a massive effort on the part of students who have been brain-washed by the above secular humanist dictatorship of academia in which they simply refuse to tolerate or even listen to any ideas that disagree with their dogma.

Students are now shouting down anyone with whom they disagree.  It doesn’t matter how many other students want to hear a speaker: secular humanist liberal students and faculty are fascists who impose their will and dictate their agenda on others (even when they are in the very tiny minority):  And so:

At least three prominent leaders — former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau — cancelled their commencement speeches this spring after a typhoon of campus activism.

Consider what happened this week with Birgeneau, who had been scheduled to speak at Haverford College, a close-knit liberal arts school just outside Philadelphia.

By some measures, Birgeneau is the perfect person to give a graduation speech: Successful, civic-minded and notable, not least for guiding Berkeley as it became the first American public university to offer comprehensive financial aid to students in the country illegally. But Birgeneau was actually far from ideal, some Haverford students and faculty decided.

Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 — or else they would protest his graduation speech.

In response, Birgeneau decided not to attend the graduation. His cancellation, the most recent of the three, is raising concerns in some quarters that campus leftist groups are putting so much emphasis on social justice issues that they’re squashing the spirit of open debate. [...]

But some observers say the recent campus blow back belongs in its own category, which political writer Michelle Goldberg, in a column for The Nation, called “left-wing anti-liberalism” – the idea that some speech and some people are so politically disagreeable that their views don’t need to be heard.

Lukianoff, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pointed to a 2013 dust-up at Brown University in which former New York police head Ray Kelly’s speech to students had to be canceled after he was shouted down and unable to speak.

Kelly has long been despised by the left for his defense of stop-and-frisk policies and how the NYPD cracked down on Occupy Wall Street protesters. His embarrassment at Brown became a YouTube moment that other officials would likely hope to avoid. [....]

For centuries, universities – which again were started by Christians out of the monasticism movement (as in America, where 106 of the first 108 universities in America including ALL the Ivy League schools were began by Christians; and of the first 126 colleges, 123 were Christian) have celebrated their institutions as bastions of free expression and the interchange of ideas.  That is a lie today.  You don’t GET to learn “ideas” any more; you get to learn THE idea of secular humanist liberalism and nothing else.  Because whether you are a student or a professor or an administrator, these secular humanist liberals will come after you if you commit the sin of heresy in their rabid eyes.

Therefore, what has happened in the colleges and universities is analogous to a wayward girl who began to date a monster and ultimately helped murder her own parents in the night.  That’s what secular humanism did in purging the universities and colleges from the Christian tradition that gave BIRTH to those universities and colleges.

I compare what I’m seeing today to the French Revolution.  It, like what we’re seeing today, was the result of secular humanism.  And like what we’re seeing today, the French Revolution quickly degenerated from a bunch of hoity-toity pronouncements to hell on earth as the French Revolution rapidly degenerated into the Reign of Terror.

It is an easy thing to prove that rabid intolerance is a defining feature of the (secular humanist “liberal”) left today.  We are seeing the left declare open war on free speech and on the exercise of First Amendment rights as this nation has never seen before.  Executives are being forced out of companies they helped found because they had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights as AmericansJournalists are getting purged for daring to speak the truth.   And just consider the vicious, rabid leftist Occupy Movement compared to the conservative Tea Party that was so demonized by the leftist press:

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Consider The Fundamental Incoherence And Hypocrisy Of The Left And The Occupy Movement

Occupy Wall Street Movement Ranks Have Criminals, Rioters, Rapists, Terrorists And Now Murderers

There have been 7,765 documented arrests of leftist Occupy Movement fascists.  Versus ZERO for the Tea Party.

Occupy – as a symbol and a symptom of the left – believed it had the right to “occupy” private property, to destroy property, to destroy jobs, to pretty much take over.  And in the case of UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, we discover that it is a sin punishable by the maximum penalty to apply law and order to the left.  Better to just let them occupy and riot and vandalize, I suppose.

Liberalism is fascist intolerance when “liberalism” has been hijacked by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  Liberals are simply pathologically intolerant people across the board as expressed in pretty much any way you can measure it.

I come at last to sexual assaults.  They’ve either absolutely skyrocketed in Obama’s military and in liberalism’s universities or Obama has – incredibly cynically – manufactured a political crisis to demagogue.  Let’s just assume the data we have is correct and Obama ISN’T an incredibly evil man and go with it.  Sexual assaults have skyrocketed on his watch during his administration.

Secular humanists have no answer for why this would be.  After all, they’ve been talking about it and requiring more enforcement – including universities which clearly aren’t able to deal with the crisis – and punishing it more than ever.  So why is it growing out of control on a liberal president’s watch?

The answer is easy.  On my Judeo-Christian view, rape is wrong, wrong, WRONG.  Because contrary to secular humanism, we’re NOT just DNA-plus-environment-plus nothing meat puppets; we are human beings created by God in His image.  And to sexually assault another human being is to ignore, degrade and pervert the image of God in another soul.

On a secular humanist, not so much.

Oh, your liberal feminist asserts it’s wrong.  But when you stop and consider the tenets of Darwinian evolution, on what grounds do they assert such a thing?

Evolutionists have long talked about rape in terms of advancing evolution.  We’re equipped for fleeing, fighting and fornicating, we’re told.  There’s such a thing as a “rape gene,” we’re told.  And since Darwinism is all about “survival of the fittest,” and since the fittest survive precisely by passing on their DNA, well, rape is merely one of many possible pathways for an organism to strive to be the fittest in Darwinan terms.  And of course the animal world abounds with examples in which humans would call it “rape” but animals would call it “reproducing.”

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because as evolutionists explain:

“rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”

Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape isn’t wrong because secular humanists say it is.  That’s not a good enough reason.  Certainly not for the increasing numbers of humans committing sexual assaults it isn’t, anyway.

Why is rape wrong?  Frankly, in our new system of “morality,” rape is wrong because Obama says it is wrong.  That’s certainly the “logic” Obama used to first say that homosexual marriage was wrong when it was politically convenient to do so and that it somehow became right when it was politically convenient for him to say it was right.  I mean, literally, gay marriage was wrong until Obama said it was right.  And now it’s right.  But anyone who thinks that this is the way morality works is quite literally morally insane.

And so we have insane sexual assault statistics to go with it.

If secular humanist liberalism is in any way, shape or form true, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE TOLERANT.  In fact, we ought to be as vicious, as ruthless, as determined to win in our struggle for ideology – which of course is merely the result of how our brains happened to be randomly wired versus having any “truth” to them if secular humanism is true – as is necessary to prevail.

If secular humanist liberalism is true, then the struggle for “ideas” today is no different between rival packs of baboons fighting over the same turf.

And the reason the beast is coming is because God foreknew 2,000 years ago and beyond that in the last days, the most vicious pack of baboons (the secular humanist liberals) would prevail in a world in which rational argument and debate had been expunged by “liberalism.”

 

Climate Change, AKA Chicken Little Psychosis Syndrome

May 16, 2014

I read the Los Angeles Times this morning.  It’s an ugly, nasty habit that I usually do wearing only underwear while sipping on hot, black water that is supposed to pass for coffee.  When I go out to pick up the paper on the driveway (I’m usually wearing a robe for that trick), I always wish I were rich enough to be able to afford an actual NEWSPAPER like the Wall Street Journal.

Because advertisers clearly think the LA Times is an ugly, nasty habit, too.

I take my shower after reading the Times.  Otherwise, I’d have to take another one after throwing the bird-cage-liner down in disgust.

Anyway, with that undoubtedly unwanted description of my morning habits aside, what I found this morning was in many ways par for the course, but I thought I’d share it with you anyway.

We all have our newspaper peccadillos.  I remember my dad always reading the sports page first and my mom always reading the comics first.  I always read the op-ed section first, my theory apparently being to start the day annoyed and then just keep adding caffeine to it.  So I come across the usual “climate change” garbage from the unhinged left.

The content of the leftwing op-eds really isn’t that important, but I found the online versions just to show you what I saw.  The first was titled (in the print version of the LA Times) “Stanford’s Choice.”  The author of the piece doesn’t think energy or anything produced by energy is quite expensive enough, and demands a carbon tax.  You know, help the planet, screw the human race.  The second one (titled, “Storm clouds over climate policy” began thus:

Miami will likely be underwater before the Senate can muster enough votes to meaningfully confront climate change. And probably Tampa and Charleston, too—two other cities that last week’s National Climate Assessment placed at maximum risk from rising sea levels.

Even as studies proliferate on the dangers of a changing climate, the issue’s underlying politics virtually ensure that Congress will remain paralyzed over it indefinitely. That means the U.S. response for the foreseeable future is likely to come through executive-branch actions, such as the regulations on carbon emissions from power plants that the Environmental Protection Agency is due to propose next month. And that means climate change will likely spike as a point of conflict in the 2016 presidential race.

Well, I could either have given up and gone back to bed to hide from all the moral idiots or I could face the day.  So, bravely – and with another hit of caffeine – I turned the paper over in disgust to the front page news section.  And the most interesting story was about ancient skeletal human remains found some 12,000 years ago in an underwater cave.  So I read it.  And I’ll reproduce it for you here and stop at the point that put all of the above into the “idiot” context that the two above articles deserve:

DNA from skull links Ice Age girl to Native Americans alive today
By Monte Morin
May 15, 2014

The divers called her Naia, for “water nymph,” because they discovered her teenage remains in a dark, underwater cave in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula.

She had been hidden there for more than 12,000 years — along with the bones of dozens of extinct Ice Age beasts — and divers quickly spotted her skull as they swept the chamber with flashlights.

“It was a small cranium laying upside-down with a perfect set of teeth and dark eye sockets looking back at us,” recalled diver Alberto Nava of Bay Area Underwater Explorers, a nonprofit conservation organization based in Berkeley.

On Thursday, researchers published a formal analysis of Naia’s skeletal remains in the journal Science, calling it the oldest, most complete specimen ever discovered in the Americas.

The study authors say the buck-toothed 15- or 16-year-old girl did not resemble today’s Native Americans — her cheeks were narrow and her forehead very high — but that her mitochondrial DNA reveals she is related to 11% of living American Indians, and links them genetically to a population of early humans who inhabited a land now submerged beneath the Bering Sea.

The researchers say the girl was probably very slight and stood just 4 feet, 10 inches tall. Her eyes were wide-set and low, and her nose was broad.

Carbon-dating of her teeth and isotope data from crystals that formed on her bones helped study authors determine that the girl lived 12,000 to 13,000 years ago in what would have been a very parched environment. They believe she was probably searching for water when she entered a dark, underground cave and then plummeted 100 feet into the massive chamber now called Hoyo Negro, or black hole.

Unable to escape — her hip bone shattered from the fall — she died amid a menagerie of similarly doomed megafauna, including saber-toothed cats, elephant-like gomphotheres and giant sloths. As the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, sea levels rose and slowly filled the chamber with water, sealing it off from humanity.

Or at least it did until 2007, when scuba divers first explored the natural ossuary and discovered “a time capsule” of Central American life at the end of the Ice Age, according to study leader James Chatters, a paleoarchaeologist at Applied Paleoscience, a private research company in Bothell, Wash.

Well, allow me to wrap this package up in a nice little bow for you.

Miami will likely be underwater before the Senate can muster enough votes to meaningfully confront climate change…” the snotty leftwing turd begins his piece.

You know what, idiot?  IT PROBABLY WILL BE UNDERWATER.

Because that’s kind of what happens over time, isn’t it?  And anybody who has any connection whatsoever to something called “reality” understands that.

To put it in biblical terms, “There’s nothing new under the sun.” — Ecclesiastes 1:9

Including “global warming,” “climate change,” ice ages and melting glaciers.  This old earth has had them all before and it’s had them all keep happen in cycles that keep repeating over and over and over again.

The only thing that IS apparently new is a particularly loathsome species of whackjob liberal who runs around like Chicken Little screaming about the falling sky because they are totally ignorant about the fact that the damn sky falls every single night.  The only thing that IS new is complete jackass idiots who in the name of global warming “science” pronounce “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

But children DO know what snow is.  The problem is that global warming morons don’t know what truth is.  They don’t know what reality is.  And therefore they don’t know what facts are.

When I first heard the phrase, “global warming,” I had no ideological axe to grind.  I was (and remain) an evangelical Christian who believes the Bible and therefore believes biblical prophecy.  And of course there is all kinds of stuff about crazy weather in the last days.  I was QUITE ready to accept the hypothesis that the climate was changing.

Do you want to know what tipped me off that these leftists had their skulls filled with cockroach poop?  When I subsequently heard about the 1995 Kyoto Protocol on global warming.  The thing that they did – which STILL proves the whole issue is either a giant load of crap or is being treated LIKE a giant load of crap by those pushing its agenda – was say a) global warming gasses present a clear and present danger to human existence and b) we’ll allow China, Russia, India and all the third world nations to keep spewing the pollution that is murdering the planet and only annihilate all the western free market-based economies instead.

This was NEVER about “science.”  This is and always has been about politics and the socialist redistribution of wealth in the name of “science.”

A short article by Patrick Bedard exposes the fraud that is “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever the hell these propagandists will call it next after their current lies are exposed:

An Inconvenient Truth: SOS from Al Gore
September 2006
BY PATRICK BEDARD

He’s baack! Just when you thought the scolding was over and it was safe to pull your ear plugs out, Al Gore has a brand-new harangue going.

Actually, it’s the same old doomsday prediction he’s been peddling since he was a senator bucking to be President back in the ’90s, only this time it’s packaged as a 94-minute film. An Inconvenient Truth previewed at the Sundance Film Festival last January. “This is activist cinema at its very best,” said the official festival guide.

You can guess what activated him; his long-playing paranoia about global warming. He and the mainstream media say it’s a done deal. We’re toast.

“Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” blared the cover of Time in April. “Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace. Here’s how it affects you, your kids, and their kids as well.”

This is, by the way, the same Time that was telling us as late as 1983 to be worried, very worried, that temperatures were descending into another era of “glaciation.”

Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.

This feverish sort of should-and-shouldn’t evangelism plays particularly well these days among those who are looking for something to believe that carries no obligation to sit in a church pew. Nature has left us no scripture, so Gore can preach it as he feels it. Faith, brother. Don’t even pretend to understand. Anyway, humans, except for the rare enlightened ones like Al Gore, are alien trespassers in nature.

Let’s not dispute the earth’s temperature. It’s warmer than it used to be. As an Iowa farm boy, I learned about the soil we tilled. Most of Iowa is flat, graded smooth by glaciers. The rocks we plowed up in the fields, or plowed around if they were big, were rounded in shape. The glacier tumbled them as it scraped along, and it ground their corners off.

The North American ice sheets reached their largest expanse about 18,000 years ago and then began to recede. Within 5000 years they had pulled back considerably but still reached south as far as central Ohio. After another thousand years, however, the U.S. was largely ice-free.

Needless to say, there have been no glaciers reported in Iowa as long as anyone can remember. It’s warmer now. And if it would just warm up a bit more, fewer Iowans would need to trot off to Florida, Texas, and Arizona during deepest winter.

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.

The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.

Do you understand the bait and switch?  “Global warming” – redubbed “climate change” as too many lies were discovered to call it “global warming” any longer – was always and remains always about POLITICS rather than “science.”

CO2 is responsible for less than 0.1 percent of our “global warming” gasses.  That is simply a fact of science.  Moreover, CO2 is a gas that is actually fundamentally necessary for the existence of life.  It is NOT a pollutant; LIBERALISM is a pollutant.

I read a book titled, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years that just blew the “anthropocentric global warming” garbage right out of the water.  Every single measurement science has taken, ice core samples, sea core samples, sediment samples, tree ring samples, fossil records, pollen records, records of human descriptions of climate throughout history, you name it, has over and over and over again conclusively documented that there is a recurring PATTERN of climate change.  In fact legitimate science has discovered that there have been 600 natural 1,500 year climate cycles over the past 1 million years.  What we’re seeing now is absolutely NOTHING new; in fact the warming period that the Roman Empire flourished under was warmer than our temperatures now.  Without there being so much as a single SUV to blame it on.  I wrote an article titled, “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming” to summarize what I learned.

I always bring this up – you know, “facts,” to people who believe in human-caused global warming.  I point out the “600 natural, 1,500 year climate cycles over the past million years” thing.  I bring up the fact that if humans are the cause of global warming/climate change on earth they must also be the cause of the same thing happening in the other planets of our solar system.  I point out that Michael Mann’s famous – I submit INFAMOUS – “hockey stick graph” that was frankly proven to be a fraud years ago nevertheless had temperatures skyrocketing into the future.  Whereas in actuality we have had ZERO global warming for the last sixteen freaking years.  I’ve seen and documented many outright frauds committed in the name of “science.”  What does it take for even our biggest idiots to realize these people are just WRONG???  And they invariably just look at me with these empty, vacuous eyes that other than size are identical with COW eyes.  I am looking through a set of glazed lenses directly into a brain with a completely synapse-free environment.

The human beings who believe they can stop climate change with the power of human government are morally, spiritually and intellectually the equivalents of the fools who built the Tower of Babel to get to where God was.  It is a stupid, futile endeavor that will fail to the extent that the people pushing it even have any intention whatsoever to actually DO anything about it versus just seize trillions of dollars – $76 trillion, to be specific – so that they can “reward their friends and punish their enemies” via a massive totalitarian government takeover of everyone and everything that interferes with their socialist (i.e., crony capitalist fascist) agenda.

If you believe that the United Nations with $76 trillion of Other People’s Money will stop global warming, you are an idiot.  And if you have seventeen freaking PhDs and you think the United Nations with $76 trillion of Other People’s Money will stop global warming you are an even BIGGER idiot – because at some damn point in your educational process you should have actually learned something and finally figured something out and finally learned how to get a damned clue.

It’s biblical, again: “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” — 2 Timothy 3:7

What we are seeing from the ideological left – and that very much includes the entire movement behind “climate change” – is a rabid, fascist intolerance that has come to be the ESSENCE of the left and everything the left touches.  You talk about “journalism” (see more here) which today is another word for “propaganda” thanks to the left; you talk about unhinged, doctrinaire bias and intellectual discrimination in our universities (see more here) where you find a level of ideological “purity” that is “statistically impossible” apart from rabid purges of any pro-conservative thought whatsoever.

And so:

SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

For the official damn record, THAT is what happened to “climate change scientists.”

And so let’s consider the “science” of “climate change” and the “scientists” who have fabricated the “consensus” that we keep hearing about:

A climate change researcher has claimed that scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after his paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was rejected because it was seen as “less than helpful.”

Professor Lennart Bengtsson says recent McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate sceptic think-tank.

The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publicatoin in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work.

“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,” he told the Times.

Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.”

The unnamed scientist, who was asked to peer review Professor Bengtsson’s paper, said in his comments: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics side.”

The paper, co-authored with four other scientists, challenged the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but was rejected by Environmental Research Letters published by the Institute of Physics, one of the most highly regarded journals in the area.

Professor Bengtsson said he accepted emissions would increase the global temperature but questioned the rate at which this would take place and suggested more work needed to be done to determine this.

However he said it was unacceptable that a paper was rejected on the basis it might advance the argument of climate sceptics, as he suggested scientists were losing their impartial role.

He added: “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views.”

We are routinely finding that climatologists who are in ANY way, shape or form skeptical of the garbage that is the global warming alarmist industry are intimidated, threatened, purged and at LEAST find themselves marginalized and excluded from funding.

I am beyond SICK of rabid fascists imposing themselves on every sphere across the board, be it “science,” “morality,” “religion,” you name it – these people have perverted it and distorted it and have created a system that rewards themselves and their allies while punishing everyone who won’t knuckle under to them.

This climate change is a pile of crap driven by biased ideologues who are FAR more “politician” or “bureaucrat” than they have EVER been “scientists.”

I’ll close with this point about how truly morally idiotic progressive liberalism has become as epitomized in Nancy Pelosi’s shrill rant, “I’m trying to save the planet!  I’m trying to save the planet!”

By their own count (as opposed to young earth Creationism’s most radical interpretation based on Usher’s Chronology) Earth is over 4.5 BILLION years old.  Anyone who isn’t a complete fool knows that planet Earth has been around a very long time and will continue to be around for a very long time.  But liberals, being irrational, believe they need to save it.  And because of that liberals, being truly demonically evil, also believe that in order to “save the planet” humans need to be treated like a cancer and exterminated:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

Of course, for liberals, “saving the planet” is always done at the expense of OTHER people.  So they demand the right to spend Other People’s Money and they demand the right to exterminate Other People.

Liberals have murdered fifty-five million babies.  And like the Islamic fascists talking about the Jews murdered in the Holocaust, if you bring up the 55 million they’ve murdered in their abortion mills they say, “Not enough!”

Let me say it again: Earth has been around for over 4.5 billion years and it will be around for a long time to come.  And you are a true idiot indeed if you believe somebody’s SUV is going to kill the Earth.

Real scientists – rather than the pseudo-scientist whores who have prostituted themselves for their pimp Sugar Daddy “Climate Change” – have documented that we’ve had over 600 climate change cycles over the past one million years.  And since a billion is a thousand million, and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, by that count we’ve had 2,700,000 cycles of climate change.

But Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every liberal are vowing that we’re not going to have 2,700,001 cycles on their watch.  Not even if they have to spend $76 trillion of Other People’s Money to do it.

I suppose they have a slightly better chance of succeeding at stopping climate change than they would have of stopping the sun from going down at night.  But not by much.

Earth doesn’t need “saving.”

Do you know what DOES need saving?  The republic.

Unlike planet Earth, which has been around for a very long time and won’t be going away anytime soon, nations and even civilizations have come and gone with dismaying frequency.

Ours is in jeopardy.

The United States of America is the oldest nation on earth, in terms of the antiquity of its Constitution which birthed it.  Many nations came before America; many nations have risen and collapsed since our republic was formed.

As we speak, liberals are murdering America with crushing debt that we cannot possibly repay and which will ultimately cause our certain collapse.

In 2012 – thanks almost ENTIRELY to liberals and their morally insane fascist policies – the U.S. fiscal gap (our assets minus our unfunded liabilities) was $222 TRILLION according to the Congressional Budget Office.

That gap is growing by a rapidly accelerating pace as the cumulative weight of our interest on our debt piles higher and higher.  In 2012, it grew by $11 trillion.  It will continue to grow by a more and more insane figure every single year until America implodes.  So we’re probably close to a true “national debt” of nearing $250 trillion today.

Currently, we’re able to get away with this madness because as a result of American dominance in the aftermath of World War II the United States is the world’s “reserve currency,” with most commodities being bought and sold entirely in U.S. dollars.  That will end soon; it simply has to.  And America will financially collapse overnight in a manner that will make the Great Depression seem like a sunny day on a lovely beach.

What needs “saving”?

Liberals aren’t “saving the planet.”  They are destroying America.  And their destruction will bear terrible, lethal fruit very soon.

 

‘Brain Dead’ Woman Wakes Up As Her Organs Are About To Be Harvested (100s of Millions of Babies Know Exactly How THAT Feels)

July 9, 2013

This was a rather interesting development in “the assured results of medical science”:

‘Dead’ woman wakes up as her organs are about to be harvested
Woman had been pronounced dead by medical staff and parents had agreed to donate her organs
Heather Saul   Tuesday 09 July 2013

A ‘dead’ woman awoke on an operating table in America just as her organs were about to be harvested for donation.

Colleen Burns had been pronounced clinically dead by medical staff following an overdose of Xanax and Benadryl, The Post Standard newspaper reported, and after arriving at the St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Centre in Syracuse was declared a victim of “cardiac death”. Doctors had notified her family and they agreed to switch off her life support machine and donate her organs.

The 41-year-old had in-fact slipped into a deep coma as a result of her drug overdose and her condition had been mis-diagnosed as irreversible brain damage.

When Ms Burns was wheeled into surgery where her organs would be removed for transplants, her eyes opened in response to the bright lights in the operating theatre, causing doctors to immediately call off the procedure. The mother-of-three was discharged from hospital two weeks later.

According to Ms Burns mother Lucille Kuss, not only were medical staff at the hospital unaware that she was alive and demonstrating signs of brain activity, but doctors never explained exactly what had lead them to incorrectly believe her daughter had died. “They were just kind of shocked themselves,” she said. “It came as a surprise to them as well.”

The family did not sue and the hospital was charged just $6,000 by the State Department in September 2012. They were also ordered to hire a consulting neurologist to teach staff how to accurately diagnose brain death, as a nurse had performed a reflex test on her feet before the procedure by scraping a finger across the bottom of her foot. The toes allegedly curled downwards.

According to the paper, Dr Charles Wetli, a New Jersey based forensic pathologist said that Ms Burns reactions should have immediately suggested that she was alive and responsive.  “Dead people don’t curl their toes”, he said. “And they don’t fight against the respirator and want to breathe on their own.”

The case was only investigated by the state in March 2010 when the newspaper requested information under the Freedom of Information Act. A review by the Health Department found that key tests had not been performed to scan for brain activity or assess if her condition was improving.

In a report produced by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, it said: “Intensive objective peer review and root cause analysis of the case was not done by the hospital’s quality assurance program until prompted by the Department of Health.”

The investigation did find, however that St. Joseph’s had acceptable organ procurement policies and procedures.

Kerri Howell, spokeswoman for the hospital, told the newspaper: “St. Joseph’s goal is to provide the highest quality of care to every patient, every time.

”These policies were followed in this case, which was complicated in terms of care and diagnosis.

“We’ve learned from this experience and have modified our policies to include the type of unusual circumstance presented in this case.”

16 months after being wrongly pronounced dead, her daughter committed suicide.

“She was so depressed that it really didn’t make any difference to her,” her mother told the Post Standrad.

Let me be crystal clear: any argument that went, “fetuses don’t have brain waves, so ergo sum they are not living human beings” were just entirely refuted.

For one thing, human beings are NOT our brains.  We are, rather, the kind of creatures that HAVE brains.  We were created in the image of God.  God is a Soul, not a giant Brain.  Whether or not we have “brain waves” is utterly immaterial to our humanity and our dignity and our incommensurable worth.  And on the medical front, in support of this fact, we have had patients who literally had an entire half of their brains removed.  Do you know what happened?  First allow me to tell you what did NOT happen: what did NOT happen was that a patient who had had the “emotional” part of her brain removed did not suddenly become a Vulcan of pure reason.  Rather, what happened is that the half of her brain that remained compensated for the half that had just been removed, such that she was able to be completely normal.  I can literally cite dozens of cases just like this.  Just a few:

http://www.themedguru.com/articles/girl_with_half_brain_removed_returns_home_another_medical_victory-8617385.html

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/Frisco-Girl-Has-Brain-Tumor-Removed-Through-Nose-144467265.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MKNsI5CWoU

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=178637

Furthermore, the idea that “medical science” should get to decide who has a brain or a brain wave pattern and therefore who gets to live and who gets to die has now been proven to be absurd – and the only people who think that ought to be assumed to have no functioning brain waves and get THEIR organs harvested while they sit there staring at you.

Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961.  Just maybe not in America.  If his mother had had an abortion anytime prior to that date, Barack Obama would have been killed.  To try to argue that, no, a “potential” Barack Obama would have been killed is simply idiotic.  The ACTUAL Barack Obama would have been killed.  And if you doubt this, please produce just ONE “Barack Obama” who is out there floating around right now in some woman’s tummy bearing the exact DNA match of “Barack Obama.”  In all of the entirely of human history – and this according to the most assured medical science we’ve got – there has only been ONE “Barack Obama” with “Barack Obama’s DNA” in all of human history and the entire history of planet earth.  Abortion would have killed Barack Obama, just as it in fact HAS murdered hundreds of millions of innocent human beings.  Such that, yes, if you tell me that abortion only results in the death of a “potential” human being, I would be completely correct to assume – you know, by your own damn standards – that you clearly don’t have any functioning brain waves and to harvest your organs while you stand there idiotically staring at me.

It is a fact as amazing as it is tragic that the “Democrat” Party went from justifying slavery with the argument that it was up to the individual slaveholder whether or not he or she chose to have slaves to their modern argument that it was up to the mother whether or not she wanted to have her baby.  The implicit assumption in both cases was/is that the black person or the baby is not a legitimate human being and therefore ought not possess any rights of his or her own.  And thus did Democrats go from evil to evil, using the same identical argument to justify the two most wicked things ever allowed in America.

The Nazis loved abortion, just as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, identified with the Nazis just out of her racism.  The Nazis and everyone just like them love to be able to arbitrarily define whatever group of people they want are “not human” and therefore worthy of death.

Case closed.

How Secular Humanists And Progressive Liberals Have Always Exempted Themselves From The Darwinian Evolution They Inflict On Everybody Else

January 21, 2013

I was watching a Military History program called “No Surrender: German and Japanese Kamikazes” about the birth of the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2 yesterday.

If you have knowledge of the dilemma of the German generals – with a fanatic Führer screaming orders and a fanatic youth who would have lined the generals up and shot them for treason or cowardice if they’d failed to continue to wage the war – you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the exact same dilemma slapped the Japanese admirals in the face.  We find that neither top military leadership could stop the war or even de-escalate the atrocities.

First let’s talk briefly about Nazi Germany.  Germany was the official seat of the Protestant Revolution with Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg.  But well before the end of the 19th century, Germany had strayed far from God, indeed.  It had in fact become the most atheistic nation in all of Europe and in all of Christendom and in all of Western Civilization.

The perversion and degradation of German culture began in the minds of the German intellectuals.  Even in the very last days of Nazi Germany, with thousands of bombers devastating helpless German cities every single day, Germany led the world in science and philosophy.  What we found – or at least what we should have found – is that science and academia and vicious, murderous barbarism could easily come together to the worst horror imaginable.  We also should have found that ideas have consequences.

It turns out that Japanese admirals were in a very similar bind coming from the young Japanese officers to the German generals.  When the admirals first watched the first kamikaze pilots ignore their orders and fly their planes into American navy ships, they were utterly horrified.  Imperial Japan was not a nation in which the old ordered the young to their deaths from behind the safety of the front lines; it was a war in which a fanatic youth with the best modern Darwinian education in the nation breathed in the toxic ideas they had been fed throughout their entire lives and took those ideas to their natural conclusion.

It was the young pilots who had been the best students in science and technology who alone had the sheer fanaticism to transform themselves into human bombs.  Darwinism didn’t stop them from barbarism; it informed their barbarism and made them barbarous.  More than 4,000 of the most “scientific” and technically literate minds in Japan died committing suicide in order to try to kill their enemies.  These young fanatic officers ignored their older superiors and forced the admiralty to embrace total war to the death.

Because ideas have consequences.  And these young minds that had been so thoroughly poisoned by evolution and Darwinism rose up and lived out the implications of what they had been indoctrinated in.

Let’s put it this way, if you’re a secular humanist or a Darwinist, please explain to me how Darwinism does not entail Social Darwinism.  I mean, if Darwinian evolution is in fact true, if there is no God, no heaven or hell, no judgment, if we are random byproducts of a purposeless, meaningless, valueless universe that will ultimate swallow us up again the same random way it spat us out, then just why should we love and sacrifice for one another when it is far easier and far more profitable to crush and kill them instead?  All Social Darwinism really is is consistently living out the consequences of scientific Darwinism.  There is no Creator to whom we will be held to account on Judgment Day; there is no Imago Dei; we are nothing more than animals; and the animal world is a world in which the strong dominate and the weak die out.

Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works.  Assume that’s true for a moment.  And then look at the world around you.  Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism.  What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way.  If the law of the bloody claw is not entailed evolution, just how is it not entailed? How does the 4 billion year history of earth as envisioned by Darwinians not demonstrate that might makes right and it is far better to kill your enemy than it is to turn the other cheek to it? If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinians want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”  Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism.  When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other.  But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism.  If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism.  And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian.  Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is profoundly Darwinian.  Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Becauserape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

As was once stated in Time Australia Magazine:

Japan, war, and evolution
Source: TIME Australia, August 14, 1995 (p. 83). First published in CREATION Magazine Volume 18 number 2. Pages 7 to 9. December 1995 – February 1996.

This century has seen countless millions killed –more than in all known wars of human history put together – in the name of ideologies that owe their inspiration and justification directly to evolution.

The Nazis used this ‘science falsely so-called’ to justify treating other races as sub-human. Engaging in war, even genocide, could hardly be wrong, so they thought, since it made their version of the ‘fittest’ more likely to survive.

Communism’s dialectic materialism required belief in evolution for intellectual respectability. Stalin’s butchery is directly linked to his renunciation of God (and thus all notions of sin and judgment) after reading Darwin’s book. Mao Zedong, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, listed Darwin and Huxley as his two favourite authors.

Few have realized, however, the degree to which Japanese thinking leading up to and during World War II was also heavily influenced by Darwin.

Japanese thought blended the theistic with the evolutionary. They were a chosen people because the Emperor was a descendant of the sun goddess; they were a master race because they were more highly evolved. Japanese biologists ‘produced studies decrying the apish physical features of other races (hairiness, long arms) and noting the highly evolved characteristics of the Japanese’ (which included milder body odour).

The horrors of Changi, the Burma railroad, and the various death marches of World War II showed a people renowned for cultural gentility treating their wartime captives as totally subhuman. Once you have made any group of people less than human in your thinking, backed up by the authority of ‘science’, it becomes a powerful justification for plain old sin.

If instead of Darwinism, the scientific world had been disseminating the truth that we are all closely related, being the descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah, what a difference we could have seen in the history of the last hundred years!

So yeah, evolution and Darwinism.  And Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. Like peas in a pod.

I would submit that it’s not merely that through Adam and Eve “we are all closely related,” but that we have a Creator to whom we are accountable for how we treat one another that ultimately matters.  Because if someone is about to rob and murder you, do you really think they would stop if you just told them that we all randomly mutated from some common ape ancestor?

I saw something in the Los Angeles Times editorials.  Jon Wiener wrote on January 18:

Your editorial calling on Egyptian President Mohamaed Morsi to apologize for describing Zionists as ‘descendents of apes and pigs’ is only half right.  We are all descendents of apes, more or less.

Morsi is congratulated for embracing the theory of evolution at a time when so many of our own Christian leaders reject it.  No apology is necessary there. It’s the pigs that are the problem.

The following day, in the paper’s “Mailbag” section, writers explained away the insulting comparison to the pigs, too.  No harm calling Jews descendents of apes and pigs, no foul.

Here’s the thing: Wiener and those who piled on after him completely missed the point of Morsi’s claim and proceeded to make the same error themselves.  Morsi was most decidedly NOT saying that Arabs are likewise the descendents of apes and pigs; he was clearly saying that Jews ARE such descendents but that he and those who think like him are not.  And Jon Wiener, good liberal secular humanist that he is, likewise thinks that while all human beings are the random by-products of the union of mindless and soulless apes, he and his fellow liberal secular humanists are not.

It’s the same mistake, of course, that the Nazis and the Japanese committed: they believed in Darwinism for everybody else, but somehow exempted themselves from the animal state that they so so clearly in their millions of victims.

Gleason Archer exposed the moral and logical idiocy of secular humanism with the following:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

You see, these communists, these fascists, these secular humanists, these progressive liberals, they claim that we’re all just meat puppet herd animals.  But somehow they exempt themselves and believe that they – who are just as much mindless random-chance by-products of evolution as everyone around them, can and somehow should still make all of the decisions for the rest of us.

I just wish that the evolutionists and Darwinians who argue that we are the random-chance product of mindless apes would confine their hateful ideology to themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.  But they actually do far worse; they make it ALL about the rest of us and leave themselves out of it.  That way we have the master race bureaucrats to make all our rules for us.

The doctrine of evolution intrinsically dehumanizes.  There is no God who lovingly created man in His own image, there is no God-given moral nature.  There is no meaning, no purpose and no value.  There is only nature and bloody violence and then more and more and more violence.  And ultimately there is only extinction in the cold depths of space as the mindless process that randomly spawned human beings just as mindlessly swallows it all back up again.

It’s interesting that in Revelation 15, when angels preach to the human race during the Tribulation, they say, “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water” (Rev 15:7).  Just as World War Two was the product of mindless evolutionary dogma, so also will Armageddon be the result of the same dogma.

And that’s why the beast is coming.

Scientifically Proven FACT: Republicans Ruled Earth For 39,000 Consecutive Years (Arctic Ocean From 50,000-11,000 Years Ago Was Warmer Than Now)

September 1, 2012

It’s amazing what science is proving these days.

Evil Republicans ruled the earth for thousands upon thousands of years in antiquity, perpetuating their vile global warming to a helpless planet earth.

Either that, or global warming is believed by the world’s most pathetically stupid people:

New paper finds deep Arctic Ocean from 50,000 to 11,000 years ago was 1–2°C warmer than modern temperatures
Posted on August 29, 2012by Anthony Watts

Reposted from the Hockey Schtick

A new paper published in Nature Geoscience finds “From about 50,000 to 11,000 years ago, the central Arctic Basin from 1,000 to 2,500 meters deep was … 1–2°C warmer than modern Arctic Intermediate Water.” This finding is particularly surprising because it occurred during the last major ice age.

 
Horizontal axis is thousands of years ago with modern temperatures at the left and 50,000 years ago at the right. Temperature proxy of the Intermediate Water Layer of the Arctic Ocean is shown in top graph with degrees C anomaly noted at the upper right vertical axis. Note this graph is on an inverse scale with warmer temps at the bottom and colder temps at the top.

Here’s the paper:

Deep Arctic Ocean warming during the last glacial cycle

T. M. Cronin, G. S. Dwyer, J. Farmer, H. A. Bauch, R. F.
Spielhagen, M. Jakobsson, J. Nilsson, W. M. Briggs Jr &
A. Stepanova

Nature Geoscience (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1557

Abstract:
In the Arctic Ocean, the cold and relatively fresh water
beneath the sea ice is separated from the underlying warmer
and saltier Atlantic Layer by a halocline. Ongoing sea ice
loss and warming in the Arctic Ocean have
demonstrated the instability of the halocline, with
implications for further sea ice loss. The stability of the
halocline through past climate variations is unclear.
Here we estimate intermediate water temperatures over the
past 50,000 years from the Mg/Ca and Sr/Ca values of
ostracods from 31 Arctic sediment cores. From about 50 to
11 [thousand years] ago, the central Arctic Basin from
1,000 to 2,500m was occupied by a water mass we call
Glacial Arctic Intermediate Water. This water mass was
1–2°C warmer than modern Arctic Intermediate Water,
with temperatures peaking during or just before millennial-scale Heinrich cold
events and the Younger Dryas cold interval. We use
numerical modelling to show that the intermediate depth
warming could result from the expected decrease in the flux
of fresh water to the Arctic Ocean during glacial conditions,
which would cause the halocline to deepen and push the
warm Atlantic Layer into intermediate depths. Although not
modelled, the reduced formation of cold, deep waters due to
the exposure of the Arctic continental shelf could also
contribute to the intermediate depth warming.

On the other hand, given the abject failure of Barack Obama and given the Democrat Party’s pathetic inability to so much as even come up with a damn BUDGET for over three years, another 39,000 consecutive years of Republican rule is a fitting proposition.

I’m fine with ruling the world for 39,000 years, but unfortunately, I think it’s that other thing about liberals just being that damn stupid that they’ll believe whatever their hand puppet masters tell them to believe.

Why I’m Offended Over NASA’s Mars Rover Mission

August 7, 2012

I might be wrong, but I’ve read several stories about the Mars Rover mission now – and every single one of them only provides ONE reason for why NASA launched this $2.5 billion mission: to search for proof of evolution in the form of proof of panspermia.

Panspermia is the view that life was – as religious people have told them for thousands of years – far too complex to have originated on earth.  So since we know that there could not possibly have been an Intelligent Creator God, the only remaining possibility is that life evolved somewhere else and then came here.

Panspermia has largely been the most radical religious faith commitment of atheistic scientism: because you’ve merely punted the origin of life to a place where we can’t possibly find how it “evolved.”

Directed panspermia is an attempt to evade some of the difficulties associated with the concept of abiogenesis. Panspermia theories argue that life began elsewhere in the universe and was subsequently seeded on earth. Some proponents of panspermia hold that life rode on meteorites travelling through space which eventually landed on earth and allowed the Darwinian mechanism to take over. A major problem with this suggestion is the sheer improbability that any life form could survive the radiation and extreme temperatures found in space.

Other proponents of panspermia, such as the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, Francis Crick, suggest that intelligent aliens visited earth and seeded it with the first life form. The willingness of many scientists to resort to the hypothesis of aliens does not say much for their prospects of finding a feasible naturalistic model for the origin of life. The main problem with panspermia theories is that they only explain how life initially got to earth — they say nothing about the actual origin of life. All such theories merely attempt to shift the problem of the emergence of life to another location.

But here we are, spending $2.5 billion to see if life originated on Mars.

In a way, it’s almost reassuring: the very craziest theory of evolution is now essentially the most mainstream of all the craziest possibilities.

What’s the purpose of the Mars Rover mission?  It is this:

to find whether Mars has the crucial ingredients that could once have supported life.

Well, here’s the thing: what happens if the Mars Rover finds no life on Mars?  What if they don’t find evidence that Mars supported life?  Was the mission a failure?  Was the money wasted?  How could it NOT be given the purpose of the mission???

NASA needs to either find something they can call “evidence” that Mars could have once supported life or they need to explain why they pissed away $2.5 billion in a day when America is going broke.

I’m just telling you right now that they’re going to conjure up the former so they won’t have to do the latter.  I read articles whose headlines screech that some incredible new find has “proven” evolution.  Invariably I end up reading some incredibly minor and trivial thing that amounts to “Mt. Molehill.”  If you read enough of these, you will begin to conclude that the more meaningless a “discovery” is, the louder they are in hyping it.

And just to continue: if they can’t find life on Mars and aren’t able to fabricate some “evidence” that they did, would they finally acknowledge that boy were we ever wrong in our idiotic Darwinism and let’s all join hands and worship our Lord God Almighty?  NO!  Theirs is a radical religious faith commitment that literally everything came from nothing.  They believe that life came from lifelessness.  They believe that intelligence is the result of mindlessness.  They believe that all the purpose and meaning and value came from purposeless, meaningless, valueless nothingness.

When the purpose of a $2.5 billion mission is to find evidence of life, there is a lot of pressure to FIND “evidence” of life.  But let’s say they don’t “find” it.  Is that it?  Do they acknowledge, well, shoot, I guess we were wrong”?  Hardly.  They’ll say, well, there were a lot of other sites we could have landed on.  We’ll need to come back to a different site next time.  Or to a different planet (Uranus sounds good).  Or to one of an infinite number of planets.  Believing that life is “out there” means never having to admit you were wrong.

With the help of Ann Coulter, I’ve described this impossibility of ever refuting an atheist to the satisfaction of the atheist before:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

And I then stated:

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

The reason “scientists” tell us that we can’t drag our religion into science is because you can’t disprove that God didn’t create.  That might be true; but you can’t disprove evolution any more than you can disprove God.  Because both evolution and Creation are equally religious views.

Then there’s NASA.  How much should we trust an agency that literally got started by Nazi rocket scientists?

NASA is the home of James Hansen – a man who literally screeched that the world was going to freeze in an ice age before changing his tune to say it was going to melt due to global warming before changing his tune to say that it wasn’t so much “global warming” as “climate change” to changing his tune to say that no it’s going to melt again.  They tell us that “snowfalls are going to be a thing of the past” in the summer and then tell us – and I’m not making this up – that it’s so damn cold only because it’s really so damn hot in the winter.

You can understand the mindset: when you’ve got the coldest winter since 1886, blame it on global warming and then make sure you quit calling it “global warming” and start calling it “climate change.”  When you call it “climate change” you don’t even NEED a damn theory any more; all you’ve got to do is demagogue every hot day or every cold day or every tornado or every hurricane or every whatever.

Being completely wrong is a way of life for these fools.

“Science” says that global warming skepticism equals RACISM.

Problems with this ice age no we meant global warming no we meant climate change no we were right when we said global warming (at least until winter comes again) theory abound:

I’ve written numerous articles on the legitimate issues casting doubt on global warming. Consider facts such as: 1) the history of planet earth is a history of climate change and huge swings in climate; 2) we have seen even larger episodes of “global warming” on the planets in our solar system – none of which have SUVs driving around on them – than we see on our own planet earth; 3) the “science” of global warming has been warped with mindboggling acts of fraud and shocking manipulation of data; 4) not only is there no “consensus” about “global warming” but in fact increasing numbers of scientists are outright hostile about “‘decarbonizing’ the world’s economy”; and 5) in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the United Nations is demanding $76 TRILLION in what amounts to pure socialist redistributionism to “save the planet” from “climate change.”

I just learned that the Old Kingdom of Egypt began as a result of an enormous climate shift in which Northern Africa went from a verdant and fertile land to a desert while the Nile began to bloom (4000 BC) and collapsed as a result of massive climate change in which the Nile transformed from lush farmland into dust. And nobody was driving SUVs, were they??? Just as nobody is driving SUVs on Mars.

The fact of the matter is that it was never anything more than a completely artificial and arbitrary decision to blame manmade CO2 – which constitutes such a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the actual global warming gasses it is unreal – for all of our current climate change. When manmade CO2 very obviously never had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with all the myriad episodes of climate change that have characterized the history of planet earth from time immemorial ever before.

But liberals swear up and down that we must spend at least $76 trillion to fight the manmade CO2 bogeyman regardless.

Oops.  Did I say the left wanted $76 trillion?  That was yesterday.  They actually need $145 trillion.  They need to travel to their conferences so they can learn to be better hysterical alarmist in style, you see.  When said global warming conferences aren’t postponed or canceled due to snow.

And the people who are so damned occupied with finding life somewhere else have documented an appalling hostility to human life on our very own planet:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

So pardon me if I’m not impressed with the “James Hansen Agency” or its “missions.”

And pardon me for looking at what “scientists” and even NASA “scientists” have done with global warming and understand why I’m more than a tad skeptical about this “mission” that really already seems to have a predetermined “discovery.”

It is hard for me to believe that our most brilliant of brains over at NASA couldn’t have figured out a way to come up with a purpose for sending that rover to Mars that didn’t involve “proving” that there is no God and I’m just the result of a race that began as a protein that evolved into a microbe that evolved into a fish that evolved into a lizard that evolved into a monkey that evolved into a man.  And I’m saying if that was their only reason for their $2.5 billion mission, I wish they’d saved the money.

I remember when the first Soviet astronaut went into space: he declared “I don’t see any God up here.”

It’s truly sad that even as NASA has outsourced its space program to the Russians at the cost of $63 million per seat in the age of Obama, we are at the very same time embracing the “mission” of the Soviet space program to prove there isn’t a God out in space.

But that is where we seem to be.

If you’re going to have a mission to explore space and increase the knowledge of science, I’m all for it.  If you’re going to have a mission to prove atheistic panspermia, then leave me out of it.  And leave my tax dollars out of it.  If you think I’m wrong for having that attitude, then I hope you’ll be demanding that NASA’s next mission goes to Mars to “search for the crucial ingredients to support young earth creationism.”

Panic Over Greenland Ice Melt Like The Whackjob Leftist Media Wants You To? Not If You Know The Truth

July 25, 2012

Liberal screed: “The sky is falling!  The SKY is falling!”

Satellites see Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Melt
July 24, 2012

PASADENA, Calif. – For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its 2-mile-thick (3.2-kilometer) center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet, and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise.

“The Greenland ice sheet is a vast area with a varied history of change. This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story,” said Tom Wagner, NASA’s cryosphere program manager in Washington. “Satellite observations are helping us understand how events like these may relate to one another as well as to the broader climate system.”

Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. was analyzing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12. Nghiem said, “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?”

Nghiem consulted with Dorothy Hall at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Hall studies the surface temperature of Greenland using the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. She confirmed that MODIS showed unusually high temperatures and that melt was extensive over the ice sheet surface.

Thomas Mote, a climatologist at the University of Georgia, Athens; and Marco Tedesco of City University of New York also confirmed the melt seen by Oceansat-2 and MODIS with passive-microwave satellite data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder on a U.S. Air Force meteorological satellite.

The melting spread quickly. Melt maps derived from the three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet’s surface had melted. By July 12, 97 percent had melted.

This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland’s weather since the end of May. “Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,” said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.

Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11 to 12.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

Nghiem’s finding while analyzing Oceansat-2 data was the kind of benefit that NASA and ISRO had hoped to stimulate when they signed an agreement in March 2012 to cooperate on Oceansat-2 by sharing data.

Wow, that’s really scary.  Maybe I should become like Al Gore and buy a giant, carbon spewing jet plane for myself and live in mansions that use eighty times as much energy as my tea party neighbors’ homes.

At least they slipped that part about the ice melting just like this every 150 years in at the bottom where most people aren’t even still reading anymore.

Or maybe I should try thinking for myself and dig a tiny bit deeper than the fascist redistributionists climate change alarmists wants me to see:

Greenland Ice Melt every 150 years is ‘right on time’
Posted on July 24, 2012by Anthony Watts

UPDATE: see this new article on the issue,

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

Extent of surface melt over Greenland’s ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right). Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12. In the image, the areas classified as “probable melt” (light pink) correspond to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The areas classified as “melt” (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three satellites detected surface melting. The satellites are measuring different physical properties at different scales and are passing over Greenland at different times. As a whole, they provide a picture of an extreme melt event about which scientists are very confident. Credit: Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory
› Hi-res of left image
› Hi-res of right image

I covered this over the weekend when Bill McKibben started wailing about the albedo going off the charts. I thought it might be soot related. The PR below and quote above is from NASA Goddard. I had to laugh at the title of their press release, where they cite “Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt”, then contradict themselves when the main researcher goes on to say “melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889“. Do these guys even read their own press releases? Climatologist Pat Michaels concurs saying: “Apparently NASA should start distributing dictionaries to the authors of its press releases.”

I’ve sent off a note to the NASA writer, seen here. Maybe she’ll get the headline fixed.

That, and they seem surprised that the Greenland ice sheet would suddenly start melting in summer. Though, not every part of the ice sheet is melting right now, so perhaps their calibrations might be a bit off:

There may have been a brief few days of melt, but it appears to be over:

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise.

“The Greenland ice sheet is a vast area with a varied history of change. This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story,” said Tom Wagner, NASA’s cryosphere program manager in Washington. “Satellite observations are helping us understand how events like these may relate to one another as well as to the broader climate system.”

Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., was analyzing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12. Nghiem said, “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?”

Nghiem consulted with Dorothy Hall at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Hall studies the surface temperature of Greenland using the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. She confirmed that MODIS showed unusually high temperatures and that melt was extensive over the ice sheet surface.

Thomas Mote, a climatologist at the University of Georgia, Athens, Ga; and Marco Tedesco of City University of New York also confirmed the melt seen by Oceansat-2 and MODIS with passive-microwave satellite data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder on a U.S. Air Force meteorological satellite.

The melting spread quickly. Melt maps derived from the three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet’s surface had melted. By July 12, 97 percent had melted.

This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland’s weather since the end of May. “Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,” said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.

Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

Nghiem’s finding while analyzing Oceansat-2 data was the kind of benefit that NASA and ISRO had hoped to stimulate when they signed an agreement in March 2012 to cooperate on Oceansat-2 by sharing data.

Ah, darn.  That’s too bad.  And I’d gone down to the San Fran Nan Lib store and bought myself a nice tinfoil hat and everything.

NASA should have fired global warming alarmist pseudo-scientist frauds like James Hanson forty years ago.  That was when James Hanson first came out as a fraud alarmist with his hysteria about an ice age (global cooling).  Then he flipped on a dime – because that’s what science is, isn’t it? – and became one of the leaders of the “global WARMING” movement.  But that turned out to be a clearly bogus claim as we kept racking up some of the coldest winters in modern history.  The problem was that global temperatures kept PLUNGING when they had predicted they would be RISING.  So they changed “global warming” to “climate change” because “global warming” had become such an obvious fraud.  And now they’re saying it’s so damn cold because it’s so damn hot in the winter and then saying “Aha!  LOOK at the global warming!” every summer.

Why Liberals Are America’s Nazis: A Look At The Milgram Experiment, Fanatic Religious Faith In Global Warming And Worship Of Big Government Authority

June 4, 2012

Ever hear about the Milgram Experiment?  It was a rather famous – or  infamous – 1962 experiment that measured the willingness of ordinary Americans to brutalize or even torture another human being under the auspices of a white-coated authority.  Milgram found that 62 percent of Americans would pull a switch that delivered what they believed was progressively high doses of electricity that ultimately reached what would have been a fatal dose of 450 volts.

Milgram said by way of conclusion to what he had learned through his experiment that, “If a system of death camps were set up in the United States of the sort we had seen in Nazi Germany, one would be able to find sufficient personnel for those camps in any medium-sized American town.”  [But allow me to point out at the very outset that Milgram's initial experiment actually measured garden variety Connecticut liberals and the subsequent verifications of his experiment mainly measured liberals located in liberal university towns].

That thought frankly ought to scare the crap out of you as you survey your neighbors and your friends and consider what kind of hell they would willingly support in the event of a political change.  You ought to realize you could very quickly end up being the next “Jew” in the next Nazi Germany.  And if you claim that the fundamental decency of the American people would preclude that from happening, the title of “fool” belongs to you.

I was watching a program about a repeat of that experiment that ended up showing that ordinary Americans are as willing to follow a white-coated authority figure’s instructions to brutalize as they EVER were.  You can skim through this to familiarize yourself with the experiment and the findings:

Would You Have Been A Nazi?
A new test of Milgram’s obedience experiment asks if it can still happen here.
Ronald Bailey | January 6, 2009

Don’t answer too hastily, but have you ever wondered what you would have done if you grew up in Nazi Germany? Of course, we all hope that we would have had the moral strength to stand against that monstrous regime, but can we be so sure? After all, times were tough and both important politicians and leading intellectuals supported Nazi theories and policies. And then there were the ordinary Germans, friendly neighbors like Karl and Lötte down the street. They had joined the Party and were sending little Wolfgang and Gretchen to healthful Party-sponsored summer camps. Being a Nazi was normal for many Germans. Would things have been any different for you or me if we had been unfortunate enough to grow up at that time and in that place?

The most horrific feature of Nazi and Communist regimes, of course, was their industrial-scale savagery. The Nazis managed to murder six million Jews and 22 millionother Europeans. The Soviet Communists exterminated 62 millionand the Chinese Communists killed 35 million. While these murders were ordered by vicious dictators, they were actually carried out by ordinary people like Karl and Lötte. Which brings us to the famous obedience studies conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram.

In 1961, Milgram did research involving ordinary residents of New Haven, Connecticut, who participated in an experiment that ostensibly aimed at determining the effect of punishment on learning. Along with the experimenter, the situation involved two subjects, one a “teacher” and the other a “learner.” The learner was a confederate of the experimenters, so the teacher was the only actual participant. In the experiment, the learner was supposed to memorize a list of word associations. The learner was strapped down to a chair with an electrode attached to his wrist. To encourage learning, the teacher was to pull switches that would supposedly increase electric shocks from 15-volts up to 450-volts in 15 volt increments. Before the experiment began, both the teacher and the learner were given 45-volt shocks. In addition, the switchers were labeled with warnings such as Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, and so forth, all the way up to Danger: Severe Shock. The final two switches were marked XXX.

As the experiment proceeded, the learner (experimental confederate) would keep making wrong answers. The teacher (experimental subject) would then be instructed by the expermenter to progressively pull the switch for ever higher levels of shock. The learner would begin to make noises expressing pain at 75-volts increasing in loudness until 150-volts, at which point he would urgently demand to be released, complaining of heart palpitations. His complaints would grow louder until 300-volts were reached. At 330-volts the learner fell silent. If the teacher showed signs of wanting to discontinue, the experimenter offered a series of prompts:

  • “Please continue”
  • “The experiment requires that you continue”
  • “It is absoulutely essential that you continue”
  • “You have no other choice, youmust go on”

The appalling results of these obedience experiments was that 65 percent of participants eventually pulled all of the switches, ultimately reaching the 450-volt level. But perhaps modern Americans would be less susceptible to the demands of authority. After all, the intervening years have seen the rise of the civil rights, peace, and gay rights movements, right? Not necessarily. Last month, Santa Clara University psychologist Jerry Burger reported the results of replicating Milgram’s experiment. He excluded people who had heard of the original experiments and found that the average rate of obedience remained the same at around 65 percent. In addition, there was no difference between men and women.

In 1965, Milgram wrote, “With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter’s definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts.” In 1979, Milgram’s judgement was more severe: “If a system of death camps were set up in the United States of the sort we had seen in Nazi Germany, one would be able to find sufficient personnel for those camps in any medium-sized American town.”

But can it really happen here? It’s a giant step from a Yale psychology lab to Auschwitz and the Gulag. What Milgram showed was that ordinary people are deferential to authority figures in laboratory settings. The exact nature of the authority wielded by experimenters is controversial, but it seems based on both perceived legitimacy and expertise. It doesn’t take too much imagination to think that even more people would have gone all the way to 450-volts if the experimenter had the power to punish disobedience. Leaders of governments, militaries, religions, corporations, universities, and gangs all arguably exercise these types of authority. Hierarchy is a universal feature of human societies.

As obedience experiments show, Americans are not really any better at resisting the claims of authority than other people, yet there was no Gulag and no Auschwitz here. True, there was the immense moral evil of slavery, the destruction of Native Americans,Woodrow Wilson’s imprisonment of thousands of dissidents, Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans, and more recently, the Abu Ghraib cruelties. Leaders at all levels can persuade some Americans to participate in immoral activities. However, the arc of American history has been toward correcting old evils and the commissioning of fewer atrocities over time. Why? Because our institutions of freedom have maintained and expanded the norms that limit the powers wielded by authorities.

For example, a free press is able to criticize practices like slavery and racial discrimination and help establish new norms. If Bill and Joanne down the street send their kids Joe and Kathy to an ethnically mixed school, in other words, it must be OK. In addition, American governmental powers are fragmented and in competition with one another. As another Milgram experiment showed, if two experimenters disagreed about continuing the experiment, the majority of participants sided with the one who argued for stopping it. In other words, when people could refer to an authority figure who agreed with their moral views, they were much more likely to act on them. Similarly, dividing up governmental power increases the chances that some authorities will act ethically and thus inspire people to act on the dictates of their consciences.

Milgram didn’t really explore why it was that Germans created death camps while Americans did not. The answer is liberty. In 1974, Milgram more generously noted, “It is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.” Americans have not escaped the natural human tendency to defer to authority. Instead, we have had the good fortune to find ourselves in the situation where our social institutions have traditionally limited what authorities can get away with. The institutions of liberty are what enable people to act on what Lincoln called, “the better angels of our nature.”

Ronald Bailey is reason‘s science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Well, this is what occurred to me as I watched the program: this shocking experiment could easily be rephrased as a measurement of one’s commitment to liberalism.

Why would I say that?

Which political ideology WANTS a state possessing limitless power (see here and here for examples)?  Which ideology is only too über-willing to commit itself to every new pseudo-scientific trend that appears under the sun?  Which ideology is constantly trying to expand the role and power of government to have the ability to shape and control peoples’ lives?  Which ideology has the frightening tendency to worship its leaders in what I argue is a shockingly similar to the adoration that the German people accorded to their Führer?

Let me begin with my last question first: let’s consider the Obama worship that I argue conservatives would NEVER have applied to George W. Bush.

If you’re a liberal and you want to deny or rebut my premise, YOU SHOW ME REPUBLICANS DOING CRAP LIKE THIS FOR THEIR MESSIAH PRESIDENT GEORGE DUBYA BUSH (see also here):

That ought to terrify the hell out of you almost as much as the Milgram experiment.

You show me garbage like this:

You show me this:

You show me government school teachers indoctrinating precious American schoolchildren (including REPUBLICAN PARENTS’ children) like this:

And of course this liberal propaganda-in-public-school crap goes on ALL the time, as government and union teachers exploit their positions as opportunities to try to indoctrinate, as we again recently saw.  Leftwing political meddling in the guise of “education” goes on all the time because the essence of the left is fascist propaganda.

You show me a famous conservative celebrity saying stuff like this about George Dubya:

Spike Lee: “It means that this is a whole new world. I think…I’ve been saying this before. You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”

Barack Obama – a future president of the United States of America – not only attended but actually helped ORGANIZE the Louis Farrakhan-organized Million Man March.  I’d say that combined with the fact that liberals themselves claim that a million men attended that march is more than enough to acclaim Farrakhan as a major liberal religious figure.  So you show me an equally powerful CONSERVATIVE religious figure saying similar stuff about George Dubya Bush that Farrakhan said about Obama:

You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”  

I’d like to see rightwing conservative media figures appearing on rightwing news sources such as Fox News or the Wall Street Journal the way Newsweek editor Evan Thomas appeared on MSNBC to say something like this about George Dubya Bush:

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

Obama himself is allowed to blatantly swim in this Obama worship:

You show me the mainstream media smiling happily while George Bush claimed, “There are no red states or blue states, just BUSH states.”  You show me that.

There is a worship of Barack Obama from the left – even after the years of abject failure – that we never saw coming from the right for George W. Bush.  Not only would the mainstream media – which is overwhelmingly dominated by liberalism which dives into ideological propaganda – never allow this, but conservatives themselves are simply not the kind of people who would so blatantly succumb to messiah-worship from its political leaders no matter how much we might respect a Ronald Reagan or a Margaret Thatcher.  It’s just not in our DNA.

It sure is in the DNA of the left.

I also asked, “Which ideology is only too über-willing to commit itself to every new pseudo-scientific trend that appears under the sun?”  I think of global warming that got morphed into the even more nebulous category of “climate change” and the answer is again blatantly obvious: it is the essence of the left to take the marching orders coming from the white coats while we conservatives are shaking our heads in skepticism and dismay at all the liberal “sheeple.”

I’ve written numerous articles on the legitimate issues casting doubt on global warming.  Consider facts such as: 1) the history of planet earth is a history of climate change and huge swings in climate; 2) we have seen even larger episodes of “global warming” on the planets in our solar system – none of which have SUVs driving around on them – than we see on our own planet earth; 3) the “science” of global warming has been warped with mindbogling acts of fraud and shocking manipulation of data; 4) not only is there no “consensus” about “global warming” but in fact increasing numbers of scientists are outright hostile about “‘decarbonizing’ the world’s economy”; and 5) in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the United Nations is demanding $76 TRILLION in what amounts to pure socialist redistributionism to “save the planet” from “climate change.”

I just learned that the Old Kingdom of Egypt began as a result of an enormous climate shift in which Northern Africa went from a verdant and fertile land to a desert while the Nile began to bloom (4000 BC) and collapsed as a result of massive climate change in which the Nile transformed from lush farmland into dust.  And nobody was driving SUVs, were they???  Just as nobody is driving SUVs on Mars.

The fact of the matter is that it was never anything more than a completely artificial and arbitrary decision to blame manmade CO2 – which constitutes such a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the actual global warming gasses it is unreal – for all of our current climate change.  When manmade CO2 very obviously never had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with all the myriad episodes of climate change that have characterized the history of planet earth from time immemorial ever before.

But liberals swear up and down that we must spend at least $76 trillion to fight the manmade CO2 bogeyman regardless.

And the conclusions of the left as to what we need to do to billions of human beings to deal with this bogeyman are themselves so shocking they made the brutal results of the  Milgram Experiment look like the warm fuzzies:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews and other “racial inferiors.”  But for the liberals in global warming establishment of today, NEARLY THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE IS THE NEW “JEW” TO BE VIEWED AS A DANGER TO BE EXTERMINATED.

Please don’t think for a nanosecond that these people wouldn’t gladly up your voltage when they electroshock you to death.  AND THEY ARE LIBERALS, LIBERALS, LIBERALS!!!

You can look at my articles and see the mindset of the left: how DARE you be against global warming!  The guys in the white coats tell me to believe it and if they tell me to turn that knob and deliver a fatal dose of electricity then the only reasonable thing to do is turn that damn knob and push that damn button!!!

Just a few days ago we larned that the arctic sea ice is the thickest it has been in more than a decade:

Heavy ice could delay start of Shell Alaska’s Arctic drilling
May 28, 2012
The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of August, a delay of up to two weeks, Shell Alaska officials said.

Unveiling a newly refurbished ice-class rig that is poised to begin drilling two exploratory wells this summer in the , Shell executives said Friday that the unusually robust sea ice would further narrow what already is a tight window for operations. The company’s $4-billion program is designed to measure the extent of what could be the United States’ most important new inventory of oil and gas. [...]

“We’re seeing multiyear ice that they’ve not seen in such large quantities in over a decade, and it could impact our ability to start the well,” Slaiby said. Of particular concern, he said, is the region of the Chukchi Sea around the company’s Berger Prospect – potentially the crown jewel of the company’s offshore oil inventory – which in normal years would be accessible by mid-July. This year, it may be unreachable until late July or early August. [...]

Compare that to the dire warnings just five years ago from the left that there would be NO arctic ice by now:

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
Seth Borenstein in Washington
Associated Press
December 12, 2007

An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.
 
One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years. [...]

“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.  [...]

That’s an Associated Press screech that was re-screeched by National Geographic.

On the one hand you have actual facts and reality and legitimate science and on the other hand you have the Associated Press, National Geographic and “senior government scientists” PUTTING THEIR EARS TO THE ICE AND CLAIMING TO HEAR IT SCREAMING.

I frankly don’t give a damn how many diplomas are on these fools’ walls.  They have abandoned “science” in favor of a fanatic religious committment.  And they will use the raw, naked power of government force and – if they get their way – exterminate human beings by the BILLIONS to force the world to bow down before their global warming gods.

Global warming has been utterly refuted and the motives and methods of its white-coated priests have been discredited time and time again.  But these people – liberals – cannot even theoretically ever possibly be proven wrong to their satisfaction.  And that is only because they have a worldview that is totally divorced from reality.

Liberals are now beginning to admit that the ethanol that they imposed on America wasn’t such a good idea, after all.  Even Al Gore said he was wrong about that little doozy.  Who would have guessed that burning food for fuel might possibly contribute to hunger?  But that doesn’t matter, so never mind; they’ve moved on to DIFFERENT energy boondoggles to demagogue and are screeching even more loudly about them than they screeched while imposing ethanol.

And this love of death and complete fanatic insanity that today’s liberalism has embraced isn’t new.  We can go back to Darwinism and eugenics – and the Holocaust was nothing more than applied Darwinism – and see a history of liberalism, liberalism, liberalism.

Margaret Sanger – Hillary Clinton’s personal hero – was all about killing as many black babies as she could.

Given that Hillary Clinton is one of the über heroine’s of the mainstream left, let’s consider what Hillary Clinton’s own heroine said in her own words:

On large families:
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” (Women and the New Race, Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

Margaret Sanger had other things to say, too.  About the birth control that the left wants (Sanger said it would lead to a “cleaner race”); about sterilization (“to prevent multiplication of this bad stock”); about hell on earth which she demonically believed was a Utopia.

I don’t believe I have to say a further word about how genuinely EVIL this hero of liberalism, who was not only a Nazi sympathizer but whose work was cited as justification for the Nazis’ own extermination program, truly was.  Her own volume of words and her entire life’s work betray her.

The Planned Parenthood that Margaret Sanger founded continues to be THE darling of liberalism.  This organization of pure hate continues to “exterminate” black babies and locates 80% of its clinics to ensure that black women continue to self-eradicate two out of three of their black babies.  And we just learned that Planned Parenthood is perfectly willing to wipe out another “inferior” – women.

A.C.O.R.N., yet another liberal darling, was revealed to be all-too willing to accept donations specifically earmarked for the purpose of specifically killing black babies.

As I previously stated above, liberals are absolutely immunized from accepting reality.  Liberals are morally insane, regardless of their color, gender or professed creed.  That is why black liberals continue to support the ideology that is wiping out blacks in a genocide that surpasses the Holocaust and female liberals and female liberals continue to rabidly support a party that will not condemn killing female babies as women pursue their “right” to sex-selective as well as race-selective abortions.

Barack Obama, himself the object of fanatic liberal worship, may best exemplify my point: this man who once demonized George Bush as a warmonger while repeatedly embracing a fantastically unrealistic view toward terrorism (not “terrorism” but “man-caused disasters; not the war on terror but the “overseas contingency operation”) while idiotically vowing to close Gitmo within a year of his assuming the presidency (see also here), this man whose foreign policy was frankly best captured by terms such as “unicorns” and “fairy dust,” is now personally pouring over “baseball card”-style “kill lists” to lift his thumb up or down like an emperor deciding who should live and who should die.  Were it George Bush doing this, the left would have screamed that this was CLEARLY the act of a fascist Nazi stormtrooper monster.  But it’s Obama lifting his thumb up or down like some deranged Roman emperor deciding who lives and who dies with his political advisor sitting in the room, so it’s A-okay.

For the record, Barack Obama just failed his very own Milgram experiment by the very standard that he himself assumed the presidency espousing.

U.S. Now Has Highest Corporate Tax Rate IN THE WORLD (But Emperor Obama Says Business Must Render More Unto Him Instead Of Creating Jobs)

April 2, 2012

America is NUMBER ONE!!!  But unfortunately, we’re just number one in anti-competitive taxes, pseudo-scientific obstructionism and costly regulations that all guarantee we’ll never be number one in much else ever again.

Let me take those in order:

No Fooling: U.S. Now Has Highest Corporate Tax Rate in the World
Curtis Dubay
March 30, 2012 at 3:46 pm

This April Fool’s Day, the joke is on all of us. That’s because as of April 1, the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.

Our high corporate tax rate has long made the U.S. an uncompetitive place for new investment. This has driven new jobs to other, more competitive nations and meant fewer jobs and lower wages for all Americans.

Other developed nations have been cutting their rates for over 20 years. The U.S. did nothing.

The U.S. was at least able to stay out of the top spot until now, because Japan had also failed to get its corporate tax rate in line with other more competitive nations. But Japan has finally seen the light and reduced its rate as of April 1.

Japan’s rate was 39.5 percent. That was just barely ahead of the U.S. rate of 39.2 percent (this includes the 35 percent federal rate plus the average rate the states add on). Japan’s rate now stands at 36.8 percent after its recent cut.

The U.S. rate is well above the 25 percent average of other developed nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In fact, the U.S. rate is almost 15 percentage points higher than the OECD average.

This gaping disparity means every other country that we compete with for new investment is better situated to land that new investment and the jobs that come with it, because the after-tax return from that investment promises to be higher in those lower-taxed nations.

Our high rate also makes our businesses prime targets for takeovers by businesses headquartered in foreign countries, because their worldwide profits are no longer subject to the highest-in-the-world U.S. corporate tax rate. Until Congress cuts the rate, more and more iconic U.S. businesses such as Anheuser-Busch (which was bought by its Belgian competitor InBev in 2008) will be bought by their foreign competitors.

To get back in line with international norms, Congress needs to reduce the rate so the combined federal and state rate matches or falls below the OECD average. Some will contend that with deficits north of $1 trillion annually, we simply can’t afford such a large rate reduction. But the actions of the nations we compete with for new investment show that these nations understand that lowering the corporate tax rate is necessary because of the boost to economic growth it provides.

The United Kingdom, for instance, is in as perilous fiscal situation as the U.S. However, the U.K. reduced its rate in 2011 from 28 percent to 26 percent. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne recently announced that the U.K. would further cut its rate to 22 percent by 2014 to increase competitiveness.

Congress needs to cut the corporate tax rate to make the U.S. a more hospitable place for investment. The time for excuses is over. Until it does, every day will be a cruel joke.

An interesting exchange between ABC News anchor Charles Gibson and Barack Obama during a debate shows us where Obama is:

You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”
 
It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
 
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
 
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

You can reward wise practices or you can punish them.  You can reward individual initiative or you can punish it.  Obama is the latter even though the former is far and away the best for society.

Consider the words of Mark Levin as he shreds Obama’s “fairness” meme:

Utopianism also finds a receptive audience among the society’s disenchanted, disaffected, dissatisfied, and maladjusted who are unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for their own real or perceived conditions but instead blame their surroundings, “the system,” and others.  They are lured by the false hope and promises of utopian transformation and the criticisms of the existing society, to which their connection is tentative or nonexistent.  Improving the malcontent’s lot becomes linked to the utopian cause.  Moreover, disparaging and diminishing the successful and accomplished becomes an essential tactic.  No one should be better than anyone else, regardless of the merits or value of his contributions.  By exploiting human frailties, frustrations, jealousies, and inequities, a sense of meaning and self-worth is created in the malcontent’s otherwise unhappy and directionless life.  Simply put, equality in misery – that is, equality of result or conformity – is advanced as a just, fair and virtuous undertaking.  Liberty, therefore, is inherently immoral, expect where it avails equality.

Equality, in this sense, is a form of radical egalitarianism that has long been the subject of grave concern by advocates of liberty.  Tocqueville pointed out that in democracies, the dangers of misapplied equality are not perceived until it is too late.  “The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”  Among the leading classical liberal philosophers and free-market economists, Friedrich Hayek wrote, “Equality of the general rules of law and conduct … is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty.  Not only has liberty nothing to do with any sort of equality, but it is even bound to produce inequality in many respects.  This is the necessary result and part of the justification of individual liberty: if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish.”  Thus, while radical egalitarianism encompasses economic equality, it more broadly involves prostrating the individual.

Equality, as understood by the American Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law.  Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect.  Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics.  Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty (Mark Levin, Ameritopia, pp. 7-9).

Levin proceeds in the following paragraphs to demonstrate why “equality” is inherently easier to demagogue than “liberty.”  He then points out – in words that obviously could be applied to ObamaCare:

Utopianism’s authority also knows no definable limits.  How could it?  If they exist, what are they?  Radical egalitarianism or the perfectibility of mankind is an ongoing process of individual and societal transformation that must cast off the limits of history, tradition, and experience for that which is said to be necessary, novel, progressive, and inevitable.  Ironically, inconvenient facts and evidence must be rejected or manipulated, as must the very nature of man, for utopianism is a fantasy that evolves into a dogmatic cause, which in turn manifests a holy truth for a false religion.  There is little or not tolerance for the individual’s deviation from orthodoxy lest it threaten the survival of the enterprise (Ibid., p. 10).

Obama isn’t just pushing for more and more taxes to punish more and more job creators to guarantee that there will be fewer and fewer jobs; he’s also targeting the oil that lubricates the entire American economy and way of life:

Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years:

The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.

Obama has a documented history of performing endless “studies” and then perverting those studies in profoundly unscientific ways:

Academics, environmentalists and federal investigators have accused the administration since the April spill of downplaying scientific findings, misrepresenting data and most recently misconstruing the opinions of experts it solicited.

[...]

The latest complaint from scientists comes in a report by the Interior Department’s inspector general, which concluded that the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the administration’s six-month ban on new deep-water drilling. The AP obtained the report early Wednesday.

And Obama has used frankly Stalinist tactics to then pressure the experts to fabricate their numbers in his political favor:

The Obama administration pressured analysts to change an environmental review to reflect fewer job losses from a proposed regulation, the contractors who worked on the review testified Friday.

The dispute revolves around proposed changes to a rule regulating coal mining near streams and other waterways. The experts contracted to analyze the impact of the rule initially found that it would cost 7,000 coal jobs.

But the contractors claim they were subsequently pressured to not only keep the findings under wraps but “revisit” the study in order to show less of an impact on jobs.

Steve Gardner, president of Kentucky consulting firm ECSI, claimed that after the project team refused to “soften” the numbers, the firms working on the study were told the contract would not be renewed. ECSI was a subcontractor on the project.

The government “‘suggested’ that the … members revisit the production impacts and associated job loss numbers, with different assumptions that obviously would then lead to a lesser impact,” Gardner testified before a House Natural Resources subcommittee. “The … team unanimously refused to use a ‘fabricated’ baseline scenario to soften the production loss numbers.”

So when Obama says he’s going to do a study, what he means is that he’s going to delay and stall and finally use manipulation and pressure-tactics and deception to fabricate a bogus “legitimacy” for his ideology and his cronyism.

To add to the injury Obama is doing to the economy there is the “hidden tax” of regulation:

A new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) titled “Ten Thousand Commandments” reveals the vast amount of private-sector capital drowned in the sea of government regulations.

The report’s conclusion is mind-boggling.  The cost of complying with federal regulations has hit the $1.7 trillion dollar mark.

That’s trillion, with a T.

To put that number in perspective, it’s larger than the President’s own anticipated 2011 budget deficit of $1.6 trillion.  In fact, the current regulatory burden imposed on businesses across America now amounts to 50% of total government spending in one year alone.

That’s nuts!

But guess what?  We can top it.

As the CEI report underscores, the compliance cost of regulation is larger than all corporate pretax profits in 2008 and dwarfs the estimated 2010 individual income tax receipts by nearly 50%.

That last point is worth repeating:  The cost of abiding by all the government regulations tallies up to $1.7 trillion, which towers over the revenue brought in by all income taxes, in every bracket.

Putting it all together puts America out of business.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers