This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.

129 Responses to “About”

  1. Michael Eden Says:

    This blog isn’t about me; it’s about ideas, their validity, and their consequences. I prefer clarity to agreement, and discussion to silence. I’m doing my best to influence “the world” on that basis.

    My educational background consists of a Bachelor’s degree with a double major in Marketing and Advertising Management from Portland State University, and Master’s degrees in Divinity and in Philosophical Theology from Talbot Theological Seminary.

    Polls have shown that the more committed one is to (any) religious belief, the more conservative one tends to be politically. One’s views toward religion profoundly affect one’s commitment to political, social, and moral issues. On this blog, I seek to argue toward a religion-friendly view of culture, morality, and politics.

  2. omegetymon Says:

    Michael , belief is not a quantum of man, it’s the filling from the ONE who takes
    CARE of where you live. Morals are not handed to the masses via committee
    nor by force. It IS done by example. The MANY peoples who’ve lived a gentle
    and rewarding life for CENTURIES do not NEED to told how the “MAKER” wants
    them to behave it IS a part of EVERY ATOM that is their makeup.PLEASE REMEMBER THESE POINTS; every angel in hell still longs for the good even though they were convinced otherwise.

  3. Kathryn Says:

    Michael, I wonder if you might consider looking at this Reagan Conservative petition I recently started which reprimands liberal Republican politicians (RINOs) and demands a return to Reagan Conservatism.

    If you agree with it, I’d love it if you signed it and passed it on. Here’s the link:


    Kathryn Tyler

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    I took a look at the petition, Kathryn. I’ll have to think about signing it, although I’m happy to “pass it on” to others.

    I myself am most definitely a Reagan Republican (to the extent I ever call myself a Republican, as I view myself as a conservative who VOTES Republican). But there are states and districts within states that would never elect a conservative. Should we just right off those states and regions for the sake of party purity? Maybe. But I’m not sure yet.

    The thing that galls me is how few Republicans there are who truly stand up for conservative principles. We’re just not seeing much from Republicans. That is an argument in favor of purifying ourselves to return to our roots.

    Interestingly, the term “neo-con” is often applied by liberals to describe people like me. Being ignorant, they view it as a pejorative for “arch-conservative.” I wish these people read; it is actually a term to describe liberals who embrace at least token fiscal conservatism.

    Thanks for the link.

  5. Kathryn Says:

    Thank you, Michael for checking out the petition. My motivation behind the petition is knowing that there policies that help and policies that hurt. Republican politicians have far too often compromised policies that work in favor of destructive liberals policies. We may even take a step forward, but the wrong compromises have taken us two steps back at the same time.

    Certainly, there is need for compromise in Washington. But Republicans, having strayed from Reagan Conservatism, have lost their ability to judge wise compromise and destructive compromise.

    Thank, again! Kathryn

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    You truly raise a good point. Compromise is good when it is grounded in a foundation of principle; what we are seeing in politics today is the abandonment of principle altogether in favor of establishment politics.

    My fear is that the only thing that will stop this trend is a complete economic collapse. My other fear is that the mainstream media – which has become a propaganda machine right out of the Soviet TASS – will pervert the “story” of that collapse to increase that liberal stranglehold.

    We are becoming a bad people; and bad people make bad choices. The worse we get, the worse will be the choices we make.

    I sure wish Ronnie was here today to help guide us out of the morass we’re in. But I wonder if even Reagan could save us from ourselves now.

  7. Jason Says:

    (sorry, can’t find an email for you). Great site. I wanted to link to your article on AP’s unnatural love for “The One,” but didn’t want to do it without asking first. Email me back if it’s ok.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Jason, my goal is to get the word out, which is probably the same as yours. Please feel free to link to anything I’ve written.

  9. Paul Gable Says:

    You’ll find a kindred spirit at http://www.brushfires-of-freedom.com. Politics, religion, conservatism, American patriotism. We’re winning; just takes patience and persistence.

    Try this essay, written before the November election:

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    I DID try it, Paul, and me likey.

    You hit a lot of nails on the head. The one that is most threatening to the US was “modern liberalism,” namely your point:
    Whittaker Chambers, a man who understood communism’s oppression of freedom and its effect on the human spirit, zeroed in on what corrupted the idea of liberalism: the mistake of believing the definition and promotion of political and economic freedom is the province of man to the exclusion of God.

    And that’s exactly where we have come: government as God, big government as our savior. And Barack Obama as messiah.

    What people don’t understand is that conservatives are (and Republicans OUGHT to be) “classical liberals,” emphasizing limited government and personal liberty under the Judeo-Christian worldview tradition. Whereas liberals are socialist, and derive their tradition from early 20th century Progressivism, which itself influenced and was influenced by the socialist ideologies of communism and fascism. And we are diving right back in.

    The term “totalitarianism” was coined by Mussolini (a fascist) to describe a government and society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside; where truly no child was left behind. The history of totalitarianism is the history of the quest to transcend the human condition and create a society where our deepest meaning and destiny are realized simply by virtue of the fact that we live in it. It cannot be done, and even if, as often in the case of liberal fascism, the effort is very careful to be humane and decent, it will still result in the kind of benign tyranny where some people get to impose their ideas of goodness and happiness on those who may not share them.

    Of course, the firing squads came later.

    And we’re diving right back into that cesspool.

    But I can’t share your confidence that “we’re winning,” at least not without this caveat: we know that GOD and His believers win in the end (I cheated and read the last page of the Book of Revelation); but that does not in any way mean that the USA wins. I’m afraid America is going to lose, and be part of the world under antichrist that opposes God – and that we are now well on the way to that demonic end.

    But very good work, Paul. I appreciate you as a kindred spirit, indeed. And am glad that men like you (and women too, I know), are working as salt and light.

  11. Dhiresh Bhatt Says:

    Michael, you are a true genius! I recently read your blog from a link one a site I can’t remember but you speak the truth! I’m from England, but am studying American politics in my course at the moment, which makes me take a huge interest in your blog, especially that I’m also right wing and through you and the news I’m now seeing what Obama’s REALLY doing, mostly showing he’s all style and no substance.

    Thank you Michael for doing this blog and showing not just me but many other people the “light”.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, bless you over in England, Dhiresh. England is the greatest light in Europe, and we need conservatives there. Given the near total blockade of anything but leftist thought in the mainline media on England, I’m glad you’re able to get online and at least have a chance to hear the truth.

    In order to get the best education, you need to read more than your courses require (I know; it’s a LOT!). You need to see what is being presented by your teachers/professors, and then ask, “Is there another perspective? And what is the arguments for that perspective?” Dhiresh, what is vital is that you don’t allow anyone to brainwash you in your studies by presenting conservative straw men and distorting the picture to make it conform to a worldview.

    There are two things which should unite England and America: 1) the commitment to fight global terrorism and global tyranny; and 2) the commitment to stand up for free market principles which alone can make both countries economically stronger and better for their citizens.

    We want people to be able to support themselves and earn their own bread and keep their own wealth. We don’t want massive government spending and support structures that create one moral hazard rewarding negative behavior. The American Constitution was the result of a worldview that believed in individualism, personal liberty, and individual moral responsibility for one’s own actions/decisions.

  13. Brett Tatman Says:

    Hi Michael,

    Would you mind adding my site to your blogroll? I’ve added you to my conservative links.




  14. Michael Eden Says:

    Done. I didn’t have time to read your articles, but I did look over your titles to see what you were writing about. Also noticed you’ve got a REAL nice layout.

  15. exemployee Says:

    You have a refreshing new “voice” to conservatism. I, like you, am a “conservative” and vote Republican. I have added your link to my site. Let’s get the word out there.

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    As a conservative, I have often been disappointed with the Republican Party, but realize that the solution is for conservatives to make the Republican Party better and more accountable to its platform. The notion that we can abandon the GOP and try to create some “third party” is frankly asinine. Aside from the fact that it would take years – and perhaps decades – to turn such a party into a viable entity, why would anyone believe that such a party would then not become as corrupt as the one it was intended to replace?

    We fight for conservative principles, not for a party. I know that YOU know that, Exemployee, but speak to any who might think that we’re merely “Republican hacks.”

    The word we need to get out is that conservative works. We stand for the essential dignity of human beings (i.e. we are pro-life and anti-euthanasia); for individual liberty and freedom in opposition to “one nation under government”; for the Constitution as our founding fathers understood the Constitution to mean; and for the Judeo-Christian-inspired moral values that made the “one nation under God” described by Lincoln.

    And I will proudly take my stand with any man or woman who wants to fight for that vision of America.

  17. student Says:

    I am a student studying The Munich Treaty and whether Chamberlains policy of appeasement was a realistic one. You have said that “seeking to avoid war at any cost, he guaranteed the worst war in human history”, In order to complete my essay I needed to research peoples opinions and came across yours. I was just wondering if you would take the time to tell me your full opinion and why you’ve come to this decision?
    Many Thanks.

  18. Michael Eden Says:

    I’d be happy to, although I am afraid I won’t be able to refer to history sources to bolster my argument (which I would do if time permitted, and which I very much encourage you to do).

    Let me begin by providing another source that has the same basic message:

    As we see Chamberlain trying desperately to stay out of war we also see a man compromising values because of fear. The styles of Chamberlain as compared to Hitler is that of a weak child facing a bully. Hitler refused to back down while Chamberlain took giant steps backward giving Hitler more time. Chamberlain’s appeasement and procrastination allowed Hitler the badly needed time to better prepare himself for war. In a sense Chamberlain prolonged the war and allowed greater destruction that may have been avoided. The weight of destruction of Europe must weigh heavily on the conscience of the members of the British government because they know they may have been able to prevent some of the destruction and desolation caused by the war.

    My thesis would be similar to T. Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick.” Being prepared against attack, and appearing strong and ready to defend oneself, are the best defenses against BEING attacked. I would argue that this is true whether you are a child on the schoolyard surrounded by bullying, or a nation surrounded by enemies. If you appear weak and unprepared to defend yourself, someone is going to take advantage of you.

    As a Christian, I would also cite Luke 14:31-32. Be strong and prepared, and your enemies will think twice before attacking you.

    When you look at the period between the signing of the Versailles treaty in 1919 following WWI and the beginning of WWII hostilities in 1939, you see what happened: Germany was required by its surrender to permanently demilitarize itself. But that’s not what happened, is it? Rather, what happened is that Germany under Hitler (in 1933) began to radically militarize, while the Allied powers essentially did virtually nothing to prepare for war.

    In this sense, Chamberlain certainly wasn’t alone in being to blame (his predecessor Stanley Baldwin had also failed, as had FDR in the U.S.). The Allied powers as a whole were so horrified by the prospect of another world war that they basically buried their heads in the sand rather than deal with a clearly manifesting reality. But Neville Chamberlain’s ultimate conduct epitomized everything that was weak about Allied foreign policy regarding genuinely evil threats against them. He becomes the poster boy for a policy that encouraged Hitler to keep pushing the world into war.

    Even as Hitler was invading Poland, he sent a message to the Allies offering peace, and flew into a rage when the Allies rejected it. Why? Because he truly thought they wouldn’t have the courage to fight him even after all his bullying and provocations. What would have happened had Hitler believed the Allies WOULD go to war with him were he to attack Poland? Would he STILL have attacked? I would argue he would not have – particularly if the Allies had prepared themselves to fight him.

    It is here that I should say that both Chamberlain and FDR were progressive liberals. Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism demonstrates that American progressivism was itself fascistic, but that fascism itself takes on different faces in different cultures. In Britain and America, it turned inward into a militaristic determination to advance sweeping domestic social policies. Look up the notion of “The Moral Equivalent of War” (Jimmy Carter was still invoking the progressive concept in the 1970s) and you will begin to understand how leaders like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and certainly Neville Chamberlain tried to literally use the military model as the template to their economic and social agenda. It was the idea of militarizing society, not for war, but to mobilize and organize society in order to achieve conformity and unity of purpose. Ordinary rules of behavior could be mothballed, and leaders could use their powers to “get things done.”

    And that last paragraph comes to a point in this sentence: Neville Chamberlain was utterly ruthless in attaining his domestic agenda, but he simply did not want to deal with external threats that could delay or ruin that agenda. He was willing to compromise and appease in order to forestall the war he didn’t want to “mess with.” And in this regard, Chamberlain unfortunately has become a moral exemplar for modern American liberalism.

    We can bolster our case by seeing how the great Winston Churchill regarded Chamberlain following Chamberlain’s now infamous words:

    ‘My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.’

    Winston Churchill, who would ultimately lead the free world to finally defeat Hitler, utterly denounced this agreement in the house of Commons. He had continually argued over the previous decade that the free world should have stood firm against Hitler while he was still weak. And after the Munich agreement, Churchill correctly predicted that Chamberlain’s appeasement of a ruthless despot would have terrible consequences:

    ‘We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat … you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude … we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road … we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting”. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.’

    As Churchill realized, this appeasement merely emboldened Hitler, who now thought of Chamberlain as a weak old man and had nothing but utter contempt for him. Also, the agreement gave Hitler the massive Škoda Works that strengthened him immensely, and made him even harder to stop—opponents would now face waves of Czech-made tanks. And as we now know, it wasn’t too long before Hitler engulfed the rest of Czechoslovakia.

    And you see a lot of the same things with Japan and the United States under FDR. Japan correctly realized that the United States was woefully unprepared for a war – and they also took that unpreparedness as a sign of weakness which led to their decision to attack us at Pearl Harbor.

    Robert Heinlein put it this way:

    “Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and — thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

    This is not to say that we should be a hostile and warlike people constantly attacking and eliminating nations. It is merely to say that we should recognize – after the demonstration of thousands of years of human nature – basic reality. If you don’t understand that violence has been the ultimate means of settling disputes between nations, and if you don’t understand that being strong, prepared, and ready to forcefully take on any act of aggression, then you are ultimately going to become a victim of your own folly.

    As for the current times, look here for my reasoning why we would have been far better off with John McCain – who stood up and demanded the surge in Iraq when it was unpopular – than with a weak Barack Obama regarding Iran and other countries.

    The last paragraph of the global intelligence resource STRATFOR has this to say about our enemies’ perception of Obama:

    For their part, the Russians are hoping the Americans panic over Iran. The fact is that while Russia is a great regional power, it is not that great, and its region is not that critical. The Russians may be betting that Obama will fold. They made the same bet on John F. Kennedy. Obama reads the same reports that we do about how the Russians believe him to be weak and indecisive. And that is a formula for decisive — if imprudent — action.

    I guess you have to ultimately decide for yourself whether being regarded as weak and indecisive increases or decreases the likelihood of a provocation or attack by enemies.

  19. fourpointzero Says:

    I simply idolized your blog! I love your post on different issues. This would be very helpful in promoting thinking to humankind. Keep up the good work! More power to you.

  20. Michael Eden Says:

    Really appreciate the inspiring words, fourpointzero.

  21. Kathleen Says:

    Many thanks to Ann Coulter for linking to one of your articles. This is an excellent site that I immediately bookmarked and plan to read regularly, as well as share with others on both sides of the aisle. Thanks, Michael, for the great effort!

  22. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you, Kathleen.

    I write because I think that I have an obligation to do whatever I can to stand up for truth and for the Judeo-Christian conservative moral values that made this country great.

    So even if I don’t have readers, I’ll still write “like a voice crying out in the wilderness.”

    But it sure is nice to hear from people like you that there’s someone hearing the message!!!

  23. ReadersHeaven Says:

    Hi, nice to meet you !

  24. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichealE: Here is a WW2 story you might like. It was on the History Channel series called “Dogfights”. Here is an episode about a Navy aviator, Capt Stanley “Swede” Vejtasa, USN Ret. that flew a SBD Dauntless and was jumped by 3 Japanese Zeros and knocked them all out. One the most skillful aviators I have ever heard about. Absolutely and amazing story and Capt Vejtasa was interviewed. I have the 2 season DVD set. It is a 2 part video on youtube here:

  25. Michael Eden Says:

    We watch the same stuff. I LOVE the Military History Channel, and have it on often. If my memory serves, I say a program that recorded Stanley Vejtasa shooting down SEVEN Japanese planes in one single mission. And he described the day in the program.

    Incredible men who did incredible things during an incredible time that called for incredible courage in order to save the world from incredible evil.

  26. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Yes, Capt. Vejtasa did shoot down 7 Zeroes later on when they sent him to a fighter squadron. Absolutely an amazing aviator…a dauntless Naval aviator at that! Go Navy! Here is my favorite wallpaper you might like: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of all who threaten it” It is a high resolution photo, print it on photo paper, hang it at your desk and watch the liberals scream!


  27. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m actually an Army guy. But I root “Go Navy!” too.

    Any liberal who would disrespect the American military is well advised to stay out of my path.

  28. Phil B Says:

    Last year, you wrote some very interesting pieces about the Chrysler automobile situation and its dealership closures. Typical of main street media, the controversial issues of bipartisan political agendas in the closures were quickly looked over and laid to rest. Still?????

    I understand litigation does not begin and end overnight. Would you please give me some information on what has happened over this issue, and/or where can I find updated news on the topic. My thanks. Phil B.

  29. Michael Eden Says:

    Found a couple of quick links just by googling “Chrysler” and “dealers” and “lawsuit”.






    You get the sense that there isn’t a “nationwide class action lawsuit” going on, but rather dozens and dozens of individual actions by relatively small numbers of dealers in each suit.

    Some have already won cases, many cases are still going through the system.

  30. Phil B. Says:


    Several times now I’ve heard of the possibility of extending the retirement age in the future. I am puzzled over this. Already we have an unemployment problem and are there really positions available for senior citizens? Please send me, if you can, any articles related to this subject. My thanks….Phil B.

  31. Michael Eden Says:


    I apologize for not being able to take the time to find articles, but I’ll give you my take on it.

    Our problem isn’t that we have too many people competing for jobs; our problem is we have a political and economic system that are discouraging the creation of more jobs.

    We need a tax system that is more equitable for job creators, a system which ENCOURAGES risk and rewards it with actually allowing people who take risks to keep their profits. And we need more intelligent regulations. In particular, we need to give business owners, CEOs, etc. to have a longer-term understanding of the cost, tax, regulatory structure so they can make better-informed decisions. Otherwise they’re going to remain on the sidelines and not create jobs.

    As a society, we simply cannot continue to pay out the current Social Security and Medicare systems. Something will have to be done. That’s just a fact. Gradually extending the age of eligibility is the best way to go. People are living longer and longer; and the system has done nothing to take that actuarial fact into account.

    One thing I would like to see would be a “partial” benefit payout, whereby senior citizens can take SOME of their benefits, keep working (full-time, part-time, or what-have-you), and delay receiving full benefits. And then – as an incentive – they could increase their monthly payments if they work for an extra year, two years, etc.

    Another thing is “age discrimination.” It is easier to can a senior citizen and hire a younger worker who has more recent skills (versus paying a higher salary and then having to provide additional training a younger worker likely already has). This is the “new” discrimination; the “race” and “gender” discrimination is for the most part long gone. This is probably the most difficult issue to solve (the fly in my ointment, as it were).

    Which is why I think we need more flexibility in the SSI/Medicare systems (as I describe above).

    All that said, a lot of businesses are realizing that older workers are generally more reliable and better workers than their younger counterparts.

  32. Robbie Says:


    michael what do you make of this individual?

  33. Michael Eden Says:

    I didn’t get a chance to read the entire article (we’re gearing up to go out), but “social justice” is merely another way to say “liberation theology” – i.e. the candy coating of Christianity wrapped over the hard kernel of Marxism.

    It’s FINE to talk about how much more a society can do to help the poor. But advocates of “justice” don’t want more help for the poor; they want a government bureaucracy to grow up that is devoted to redistributing wealth and resources.

    I tried to describe this theology in my article here. And that AINT Christianity.

    The first description of big government in the Bible is found in the Book of 1 Samuel:

    But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles. — 1 Samuel 8:19-20

    Who are we really rejecting? God said to Samuel:
    “…it is not you they have rejected, Samuel, but they have rejected me as their king.” — 1 Samuel 8:7

    Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” — 1 Samuel 8:10-18

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t exactly sound flattering.

    Liberals can screech all they want, but they seek in vain for a single passage that calls for a big government solution (especially given their “separation of church and state” hostility to God and to Christianity. I mean, please don’t kick God out of government, and then say that the giant government structure you create is “biblical.”

    They also seek in vain for a progressive income tax, or of a government-imposed redistribution of wealth in which hard-working rich people should have their assets seized to give to lazy welfare-receiving sluggards.

  34. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Hi MichaelE: I came across this and you might like it:

    85-year-old U.S. Army sniper veteran proves he hasn’t lost his skills as he picks off a target at 1,000 yards. He was a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge:

  35. Michael Eden Says:


    That is just too cool.

    Battle of the Bulge veterans still have a can o’ whoopass in their pockets, it appears.

  36. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Re: too cool.
    Yes it was Michael. The Army taught him well. I used to compete much the same in my Navy days. I spent a week in tryouts for the Navy Marksmanship team.When the scores were tallyed, I came real close to making the team..http://www.usnst.org/

    I guess you heard the last know WW I veteran passed away recently? Frank Buckles was 110. http://www.legion.org/frankbuckles

    My paternal grandfather was in WW I too. He was in the Battle of Meuse-Argonne in 1918. I suffered mustard gas inhalation, but he made it home ok and went back to his farming. It burned his lungs to the point he had to sleep with the bedroom windows open every night, even in the winter. Same when he drove his car.

  37. Michael Eden Says:

    Yes, I heard about that. A sad day for history.

    Of course, Buckles was a young kid who lied about his age, and he never actually saw any combat. So in a way, the last real veterans who truly experienced the war – like your grandfather – have already passed on.

    I’m not sure about my father’s side, to be honest. On my mom’s side, my grandfather served in the Army during the WWI era, but did not go to Europe or see action.

    Your own marksmanship is impressive.

    I myself qualified expert, but not my first try (sharpshooter in basic, and frankly I only made that by a couple points). I became a very good shot, but hardly on the level that the snipers developed.

    But I was able to consistently shoot in the upper 230s once I got the hang of it.

    Move your selector switch from safe to semi and watch your lane!

  38. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Re: watch your lane;
    Yes I do! I go here when I get find time:

    I’m trying to get my son into competitive shooting…kinda of expensive sport, though.

    On the west coast, the Santa Margarita Gun Club is a co-sponsor the the CMP West Coast Games.


  39. Michael Eden Says:


    I haven’t really gone shooting for several years, even though open county land (where shooting is not banned) is literally a walk away.

    And it’s not even the cost, for the most part: I’ve got a Browning High Power that is quite reasonable to shoot – especially since I reload, and have over a thousand rounds in a cloth bag.

    I’ve got a 10/22 Ruger that is, of course, as inexpensive to shoot as it is fun.

    And then there’s the two that are DEFINITELY expensive: the expensive 30/30 Winchester (and darn that lever-action is fun) and the much more expensive Browing BAR.

    For the recrod, the BAR is a semi-automatic hunting rifle with a four-round capacity. Mine is .300 Winchester Magnum (I had thought about getting the .308 version but really liked the power and ballistics of the .300 Win).

    I bought it when I lived in Oregon after getting out of the Army. Went elk hunting once and deer hunting twice with that rifle – and would you believe I actually bagged one elk and two deer?

    I once looked into it: even to RELOAD that rifle was laughably expensive.

    I would sell that rifle, but A) I love it, and B) it’s my “society collapses and if you don’t have a long-range hunting rifle you don’t eat” gun. So it’s oiled and cased, and I’ve got about a 180 round stash for it.

    I’ve also got a 12 gauge pumper with a pistol grip and a [legally] short barrel.

    I keep the pistol in my bathroom. I figure the phone always rings when I’m on the toilet, so home invasion robbers would probably smash in when I’m on the toilet, too.

  40. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    re: dittos on the BAR, reloading. Wow, we go from missile defense for protection from homosexuals, now you are packing heat in your bathroom!!! roflmao!!! Maybe you should have called your blog “Madman_Mike_is_ThinkingRight”!! Only MichaelE, only MichaelE…roflmao. The Army taught you well.

  41. Michael Eden Says:


    I was cited once by the Daily Beast with the introduction, “Take one particularly unhinged culture warrior, Michael Eden.” I thought, you know, I kind of like the sound of that.

    Mind you, I didn’t bother to put a dang PHONE in my bathroom (even though I’ve actually got a phone jack in there), just the Browning.

  42. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    re: Daily Beast..just another bunch of left goonies. Try this: go here


    and click on bottom right hand or look for “Shut up and dance” Hilarious!!!

    If you can’t get a kitchen pass from the mrs., try this online demo:


  43. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ll have to price them. Haven’t bought any 300 Win for awhile, and don’t need to buy 9mm, but I can compare them to WalMart’s 30/30 price.

  44. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    re: price them? Huh????? Where is your bifocals? Go back to the CCI link,
    look for a funny looking groundhog toward the bottom right and click on “Shut up and dance”. Hilarious. The “Shooter Ready” link is an online target demo.

  45. Michael Eden Says:

    Obviously, in order to price 30/30 ammo, I have to go into the site (for some reason, that particular price doesn’t show up immediately on the link you gave). And usually on such sites, it’s a matter of different prices for different brands, different bullet grain weights, etc.

    And right now I’m fighting a battle of wits with Uncle Sam. For some reason I still don’t understand, he wants me to pay him money around this time every year.

  46. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Michael: Huh? I know CCI is ammunition manufacturer and I am talking about a funny game they have here on their sight, not buying ammo.
    Try this: http://www.cci-ammunition.com/game/default.htm

  47. Michael Eden Says:


    I thought we were talking about the cost of ammo, and hence your link.

    I’m sorry about my misunderstanding.

    I’ll intentionally have to hold off on that playing that game, Dauntless.

    Until I get mean old Uncle Barry off my back for the stash of cash I owe him, my computer time is rather limited.

    I have to have everything ready for the CPA. And the meeting is coming quick!

    But believe me, when I’m done with taxes, I will definitely feel like shooting something.

  48. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Your taxes must had your distracted. lol! Btw, do you have private message feature on you blog?

  49. Michael Eden Says:

    You know what? I don’t know. I’ll have to look.

  50. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Mad_Man_Mike :) If you wish, send me a private message. There is a place on my blog where you can send it or comment on a post. I’d like to ask you a question off the blog.

  51. Michael Eden Says:


    I took a quick peek, but didn’t see your link for private messaging.

    I’d be happy to talk to you “off camera.”

    I believe I’ve got your email, so I’ll just send you an email. Look for “me” in the subject line.

  52. Robbie Says:

    michael – dick durbin recently appeared on il news saying oil companies have been making too much profit and the $4b in oil subsidies should end.

    i have two problems with this oil companies make 5-6 cents profit per gallon the feds take 50+ cents a gallon in taxes – also i am pretty sure the $4b in oil govt subsidies are directed at small oil businesses and big oil is not elgible – since 1970s. meaning end subsidies – there will likley be less exploration less small oil bus lookin for oil = higher gas prices which is what the democrats “necessarily” want.

    hey dems why not end ethanol subsidies? you know to lower food prices and not use several gallons of gas to make one gallon of ethanol!!!!!!!

  53. Michael Eden Says:

    Durbin and the demagogic Democrats are saying that oil companies should have their tax subsidies – subsidies that are available to EVERY SINGLE U.S. CORPORATION – taken from them.

    I’d be fine with that, if it weren’t for the fact that U.S. corporations pay the highest corporate tax rate on the planet, bar none.

    Oil companies spend billions and billions of dollars on increasingly risky propositions for find new sources of oil. And they are doing this against Democrats like Durbin and Obama who are doing everything possible to undermine that search and make it more risky and less profitable. Meanwhile, the government bureaucrats that seize ten times as much “profit” as the oil companies demonize the oil companies that get 1/10th the profit that the government seizes. It is insane, and only a fool believes it. That said, there are many, many fools.

    To continue, Democrats like Durbin and Obama want to take away tax breaks. What will that do? Do you really think that oil companies will just suck that up, or do you think that they will pass those taxes on to their customers? Customers ALWAYS end up paying corporate taxes in the form of higher prices. So what that really means is that Durbin and Obama want the American people to pay even HIGHER gas prices. And the main intent in doing that is to force the people to give up driving their private cars and start using public transportation.

    This wasn’t Durbi, but Dingell, but they’re the same demonic bureaucrat:

    “The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

    That’s all that Democrats have ever wanted to do. Control the people. Because at their cores they are totalitarians. And controlling the people and being able to decide who wins and who loses is all they have ever wanted. They hate the fact that some people are smarter, or more creative, or work harder than others. THEY want to get to decide. THEY want to force people to do things THEIR way; THEY want to dictate.

    Here’s one problem: Oil companies are multinationals. They don’t need to do business in America. And they WON’T do business here if Democrats make it unprofitable for them to do so. And Americans can see how well they manage without the oil that Democrats have demonized the last thirty years.

    If Democrats force oil companies out of the U.S., we will learn that at their core, they are totalitarian fascistic Marxists. They will try to do what Maxine Waters once said: “socialize them.”

  54. Robbie Says:

    right – i just remember obama saying he “wouldnt mind $5-6 gallon gas – he didnt want it to happen immediately” well we are at $4.5gal and no effort whatsoever (expanding drilling – liquifying coal to gas etc) is being made.

  55. Michael Eden Says:


    The biggest problem is that Barack Obama is a thoroughly documented liar without shame.

    For instance, he just got through saying that we produce more oil today than ever before in history. But that is a blatant lie. In 2011 we produce 5.5 million barrels a day. Contrast that to 1970 when we produced 9.6 million barrels a day. And Obama’s stupid and immoral energy policies will make even THAT diminished number go down in future years.

    You can’t have an honest debate with a liar.

  56. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: Have a peaceful Memorial Day.

  57. Michael Eden Says:


    I did. Wish I could wish you one as well. But now I’d have to build a time machine to do it, and I left my “Time Machine Building For Dummies” book at the office.

    Hope you had a great day.

  58. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    I tried to email you too. Anyway, I came across this and..wow…I like both Levin and Krauthammer, but Levin lowers the boom on Krauthammer…you will like this…


  59. Michael Eden Says:


    There aren’t very many people I like all the time. Sarah Palin is one of the few I HAVE liked all the time. Krauthammer is brilliant, etc. But he is an establishment conservative, and there are issues where I strongly disagree with him.

    That said, Sarah Palin’s issue will largely be what conservatives think OTHER voters will do. I like her a great deal, but I don’t think enough OTHER people do. So I may not support her in the primary, believing that she has been so demonized she can’t win.

    I think that’s a valid concern.

    That said, I was just saying to somebody yesterday, “I hope this time we have a candidate for president whom I can actually GET BEHIND, rather than holding my nose the way I basically did with McCain. That means a true conservative.

    I also hope that we get a candidate who will fight to the death to win, whereas McCain took legitimate and powerful issue after issue off the table.

    Sarah Palin would be an “amen” to both.

    I therefore have mixed feelings about Sarah Palin being the candidate. But if she’s the nominee, you betcha I’ll be putting everything I can behind her!

  60. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE; I like Palin too and I agree with Levin she is a solid candidate on the issues and stands for what is right, and she will have my vote if she’s on the Republican ticket be it President or VP. I also like Herman Cain and M. Bachmann, who is a tax attorney. Cain is gaining groud..not sure about Bachmann. Anyway, to me those 3 are the most solid conservatives we have that think could be elected. Krauthammer is snooty to call her “unschooled”. Yes, Krauthammer disappoints me at times. This was the background for Levin’s commentary:



    Gonna hit the range tomorrow with that teenage son of mine. He was begging earlier to go.

  61. Michael Eden Says:

    Hope you and your son have fun on the range and kill many targets.

    It’s always nice that a teenage son wants to do ANYTHING with his old man.

    I have found in Sarah Palin 1) a woman who can get at the heart of an issue with just a few words (e.g., “death panels”) and 2) a woman who takes on the status quo fearlessly.

    As we speak, the elite media is going after Palin for her off-the-cuff remarks on Paul Revere (NBC – which didn’t think Weiner’s disgrace was worthy of coverage, made Palin’s Revere remark top notch on their flagship news program).

  62. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    We did. When you have teenage JROTC “Rambo” in the house, that is the way goes it sometimes, but, he loves it. He is clueless, though, to the cost of the sport/ammo/equipment etc., so that is why I do what do; teach him safety, responsibility and courtesies in the field and range. The shooting/hunting sports are becoming very expensive to pursue.

    Anyway, Palin does get to the heart of the issue and taking on the status quo. A blogger explains the Paul Revere remark quite well.


  63. scatback Says:

    The best thing about if Cain got the nomination is that we could shove it back in liberals’ faces and ask, “NOW, do you think we’re racist?”

    Of course, those same accusations are coming from a group of people largely anti-Christian, anti-wealthy, and, most dangerous of all, anti-military.

  64. Michael Eden Says:


    Liberals will NEVER stop accusing us of racism. And that is because they are racists, and one of the unfortunate components of racists is that they are fixated upon race and view everything through racism.

    Democrats were THE party of slavery. The Republican Party arose primarily as an ABOLITIONIST party. The Republican North fought the Democrat South to free the slaves from the Democrats.

    Move on 60 more years to 1924. The Democrat Party was so dominated by racism that the 1924 National Democratic Convention was called “Klanbake.” Why? Because it was so heavily dominated by the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan, by the way, was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. When they first rode, they had TWO targets: blacks and Republicans.

    And of course the last man who actually had a high level position with the Ku Klux Klan was a DEMOCRAT.

    But at some point Democrats realized there was another way to own black people. If you buy them as slaves, buy them with political patronage.

    So nothing has changed except for the tactics by which Democrats own black people.

    The Democrat Party can do one thing and only one thing well: it can demonize. That is their sole talent. And the Democrat Party will continue to demonize until the day it finally burns in hell with the devil and everything else that is wicked.

  65. Melanie Irizarry Says:

    hey, just wanted to chime in and say hi. I stumbled across this site by accident today but I’m truly excited to read more. It’s not too often you find a “well written page on politics and religion from conservative standpoint. You have been bookmarked :) might even pass it forward if I still feel the same after a bit more reading, lol. Anyways, God bless.

  66. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for the comment and for any forwarding, Melanie.

    God bless back at ya!

  67. Matthew Gerlach Says:

    Are you on Facebook at all? I would like to share this page and the best way to keep it in the list is a Like on a facebook page

  68. Anonymous Says:

    What do you think of this article?


  69. Moderate Conservative Says:

    Michael, I don’t think every single Democrat tries to demonize the world, and I don’t really think that every Democrat is an evil sinner. Do you really think that we can achieve compromise with both ends of the political spectrum if BOTH sides, Republicans and Democrats demonize each other?

    Reagan and Lincoln never tried to demonize the other side, and they both turned out great.

    By the way, what do you mean by the Bible quote on the top of your website?

  70. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, first of all a notification of conflict: I was once attacked by The Daily Beast (although I have to admit I actually kind of liked the label they tried to stick me with).

    I saw a couple of things.

    First of all I saw a profoundly biased presentation of OWS. Are they REALLY the 99 percent? Seriously? 99 percent of Americans are communists and Nazis? And everyone who isn’t for this OWS fascism is a “one percenter”? If you don’t like the Occupy movement you’re in the top one percent of all wage earners???

    Apparently so, judging by your article.

    Then there’s another quote I found interesting from the article:

    “Adjusted for inflation, the income of the average American male has essentially flatlined since the 1970s, according to figures from the Census Bureau. The income of the bottom quarter of U.S. families has actually fallen. It’s been a different story for the rich


    Given that Democrats had Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama, it would seem to me that by this article Democrats are EVERY BIT as responsible for this “inequality” as Republicans have been.

    Mind you, we’re usually told that the streets were paved with gold when Clinton was president, so I guess I find this admission refreshing in its own way.

    As to the whole point, I think the author is also wrong. The Republicans ARE talking about the issue of income inequality; they’re doing so by pointing out that Democrat Party policies have helped to CREATE it (as the author’s own words document above).

    I think Republicans can and should do a much better job tying Obama to policies that simply continue to make the rich richer.

    Take Solyndra, where more than a half billion dollars was pissed away on a boondobble that favored a couple of big time Obama donors. You don’t think that crony capitalism increases income inequality?

    Take, for that matter, Democrat income tax policies which likewise actually create MORE income inequality. And then consider that tax cuts have actually ALWAYS resulted in an INCREASE of revenues while Democrat tax hikes have always had the opposite effect.

    But I would certainly agree that the Republicans need to do a better job presenting the facts than they have so far done.

  71. Michael Eden Says:

    I would ask YOU a question: why did you go from calling yourself “Moderate Liberal” to now calling yourself “Moderate Conservative”? How is that not dishonest?

    I would ask a follow-up question: why do you, as a Democrat – and you have argued Democrat positions in every single one of the 20+ comments you have written to me in the last couple of days so please don’t argue with that label – not confront your OWN side?

    Let’s say a German general had “confronted” Patton and told him he needed to tone down his attacks. What do you think Patton would have said?

    I pointed out in the article you commented on as “Moderate Liberal” that YOUR side is responsible for the lion’s share of this war because you elected the most rabidly partisan president in history and conservatives aren’t going to lay down their arms until this demagogue who constantly demonizes us from the Oval Office is OUT of office.

    My quote of the Bible at the top of my site is primarily tongue in cheek, but there is a serious/factual side to it as well that relates to your first paragraph.

    EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT is responsible for the 54 million human beings who have been murdered by abortion since Roe v. Wade was shoved down our throats. The Republican Party is pro-life in its platform; the Democrat Party is pro-abortion in its platform; and Barack Obama had the highest pro-abortion rating of ANY president ever to assume the presidency.

    That issue alone justifies my view that the Democrat Party is the party of genuine moral evil in America today. And every single Democrat who votes Democrat will one day stand accountable before a just and holy and outraged God who will demand to know why you murdered so many million of His babies.

    Lastly, if I were a politician, I would make compromises because that is part of the nature of politics. But I’m NOT a politician for that very reason. The only time Republicans should make compromises is when they have a position of strength and when they get a good share of what they want. That hasn’t happened in the era of Obama, who rammed his stimulus home on a 100% partisan vote and blunty stated to speechless Republicans, “I won.” Then he proceeded to ram ObamaCare through the same viciously partisan way.

    Obama has created a political climate of total war, and then tried to exploit that climate of total war that he created. He has been the most polarizing and divisive president in American history. He has routinely pitted one group of Americans against another, whether it be making “the poor” hate the rich or whether it be exploiting race wars (such as when he told Latino groups they had to go out and “punish your enemies.”

    I would love to see a Reagan come along. But until one does I’m going to fight the above wicked man who repudiates everything Reagan stood for on every possible level as best as I know how.

  72. A Moderate Liberal Says:

    Very nice. You’ve “seen through the smoke screen” so to speak, and I shall return to my original posting name. I merely tried different names to see which approach would work the best to talk to you. Though I’ve failed in my original goal of convincing you to compromise, I must say it’s been interesting seeing the points you make, and your interesting debate strategies.

    I definitely underestimated your abilities, Michael. For that, I tip my hat to you as an opponent from across the ideological aisle.

    Respectfully yours,
    A Moderate Liberal.

  73. Michael Eden Says:

    A Moderate Liberal,

    I suppose that would have been my smokescreen if I’d been caught cheating on a test or plagerizing a paper: “Well played, professor. You caught me.”

    You deliberately and disingenuously tried to pass yourself off to me and to the readers of this blog as being someone other than yourself. That was a dishonest thing to do.

    You lecture me about “compromising” and about being more civil, and you actually end up serving as a quintessential example as to why there’s no point doing so when it comes to liberals.

    I get it all the time from liberals who come to my blog and dishonestly and disingenuously trying to pass themselves as something that they are not so they can lecture me. WHEN THEY’RE THE ONES WHO NEED THE DAMN LECTURE.

    LBJ began the culture war with his infamous Daisy ad. It worked.

    Ronald Reagan was attacked and demonized unlike any president who had ever come before him as Democrats began to shape their “Republicans are evil and they want to crush little people” narrative.

    The war over Supreme Court Justices was began by Democrats who started the ugly practice known as “Borking” to destroy conservative nominees.

    The loathsomeness goes on all around us. Obama demonized George Bush as “unpatriotic” and as a failed leader for signing a debt extension – only to sign the three highest debt extensions in the history of the entire human race himself.

    Obama demonized Bush for Gitmo and then never closed it because Bush was right and Obama was a naive jackass. Obama demonized Bush for “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” when he’s air-raided FAR more villages and killed FAR more civilians himself in only three years. Obama demonized Bush for his hugely successful surge strategy in Iraq and then tried and failed to use a surge himself in Afghanistan.

    It extends to everything: Obama demonizes Republicans as the party of the rich and the greedy when Republicans are FAR more charitable than he ever was.

    Obama has recently demonized the Republican Party as no sitting president has EVER demonized his opposition. And we’re somehow supposed to not be pissed off about it?

    In voting for Obama – THE MOST LIBERAL AND RADICAL AND POLARIZING candidate for president EVER – you liberals wanted a war.

    Please don’t you dare condemn us for trying to fight back with your own playbook.

    I keep saying that the quintessential ingredient of liberalism is abject moral hypocrisy. And liberals keep proving me right.

  74. sam giancana Says:

    Dear Michael Eden,

    I hope you are not too disappointed when you get to Heaven and realize that not only are all your conservative idols in Hell, but that the whole business is imaginary and you are all a bunch of idiots.


    Chico DeBarge

  75. Michael Eden Says:

    Sam (or Chico, or whichever of your mutliple personalities I’m addressing),

    I’m putting my faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ as revealed in God’s Word the Bible.

    You’re putting yours in Karl Marx and socialism and Barack Obama.

    I find it amazing that you – in the same breath – tell me first that I’m going to hell and that second that hell doesn’t even exist.

    How can I a) go to hell but b) there is no hell for me to go to because it’s just imaginary and c) you be even remotely sane???

    You clearly have the mind that you deserve.

  76. Mark Says:

    This comment has been moved by the administrator to the article which was being discussed: https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/secular-humanist-left-so-tolerant-they-want-to-purge-anyone-who-isnt-just-like-them/

    Please go there to see Mark’s comment and my response to it.

    There was nothing wrong with Mark’s comment. But I believe a comment should be given in the context of the article that is being specifically referred to.

  77. Michael Eden Says:

    See above and go here to see what Mark’s comment was and how I responded to it.

  78. markus Says:

    I am very gracious for the fine posting sir! Keep up your outstanding work. A large THANKS from me!

  79. Anonymous Says:

    Wow dude you are a raving lunatic. Please get therapy. Please don’t hurt anyone because of your delusions.

  80. Michael Eden Says:


    Stated like a true liberal: a personal demonization completely absent of any foundation or support whatsoever.

    People like you who go to a blog and have nothing whatsoever to say beyond expressing your own rabid hate never cease to amaze me.

  81. stevekerp Says:

    sundancecracker wrote something about Trayvon that I’m sure you will find fascinating: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/03/31/tea-and-skittles/

    Guess how far to the nearest convenience store? Guess what “tea” and “skittles” are code-words for.

    Love your blog. Write on!


    Anakypto Forum

  82. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve got to admit I find a strange fascination with the picture at the very end of this interesting piece you linked to:

    Obama's son Trayvon just like his daddy

    That of course referring to Obama’s incredibly demented, “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon (so please turn George Zimmerman over to the New Black Panthers so they can properly lynch him).

    When you’re dealing with evil, the truth is an ugly thing to look at. Nobody in PC society wants to look at Obama and see him for what he really is.

    Thanks for the good word!

  83. Frederic L. Milliken Says:

    Great blog, Michael. As my sister says about me, “you’re deep,” so I salute you. Keep up the good work.
    The Lexington Libertarian

  84. Michael Eden Says:

    Frederic L. Milliken,

    Thank you very much. I believe I have visited your site before (the patriot sitting in front of his computer blogging about liberty imagery stuck with me). You’ve got a great site over there, also.

    Your “you’re deep” comment strikes me: I find that being “deep” is not a measure of intellect, but rather a measure of simply being able to see the world as it truly is.

    On that measure and to cite pop culture, Forrest Gump was deep, and all the “smarter” people around him were fools in comparison.

    A sound theology and a sound history is the key. If you understand that the Bible is the Word of God and seek wisdom from it by trying to accurately understand its message, and if you contemplate history through the prism provided by that Word of God, you become “deep.” Even if you’re not a “genius.”

  85. Robby Says:

    Michael check out tolerance on diplay:

  86. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, Robby,

    That was informative and outrageous.

    I went ahead and wrote it up into an article here: https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/liberals-are-not-quite-as-tolerant-as-rabid-rats-as-they-keep-proving-that-they-are-the-true-fascists-threatening-america/

  87. Robby Says:

    Cool i passed the link on to the person that sent it to me – as i explained to him how i found your blog – few years sept 2010 back via link on ann coulter i also recall “michael eden” being mentioned by rush limbaugh 2-3 yrs ago – but he didnt mention name of blog just your name. dont know if you knew that.

  88. Robby Says:

    http://www.choose-life.org/index.php also check this out noticed the left coast – many states no one is working on this – what do you think? consider contacting the head of choose life you would be a great lead for whatever leftist state (think you are on west coast?) you currently reside in.

  89. Michael Eden Says:


    Yeah, a few other people told me about the Limbaugh mention via comments. I didn’t actually hear the program myself.

    Every now and then I’ll get such a mention from a Coulter or a Limbaugh and my hits will soar. Always welcome that, come course!

    I’m not quite as happy when some liberal doppelgänger of theirs mentions me as next thing I know I’m surrounded by a pack of biting liberals.

  90. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: Have a peaceful Memorial Day. Run the course and keep the faith.


  91. Michael Eden Says:


    Wouldn’t it be great if our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guard warriors were treated with the same sense of adoration that our athletes and movie stars get???

    I’d love to see trading cards featuring military units and their accomplishments.

    Our military secured – from the Revolutionary War until today – the freedoms that many of us take for granted. And many of our warriors did so at the ultimate price.

    May everyone who served have peace this coming day. And may everyone who didn’t take some extra time to reflect on the sacrifices that have been made by others on their behalf.

  92. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: Re: “I’d love to see trading cards featuring military units and their accomplishments.”

    As a matter of fact, I do have some “trading cards” specifically for Desert Storm weapons used in the war. I bought them at a comic book trading store a while back. Some kind of non profit put them out to raise money to support the troops with various services and assistance.

  93. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Desert Storm trading cards:

  94. Michael Eden Says:


    I actually have some of those Desert Storm cards myself. But when we’re going back more than 20 years to find the last example, you can’t really say “they’re available.”

    My real point is that our culture glorifies the wrong people and ignores the real heroes. I’m sure you agree with me on that one.

    It’s pathetic how we glorify the people who pretend to be war heroes in movies and television while patently ignoring the actual war heroes who are all around us.

  95. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: yes, I understood your previous point.

  96. Paul S. Atkinson Says:

    In response to the question over the social security issue. How could this accusation be true since Mr. Ludwig was still alive in 1977. In fact, he did not pass away until 1981.

  97. Michael Eden Says:

    Paul S. Atkinson,

    For the official record, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever you are talking about, as I never once mentioned “Mr. Ludwig” in my “about” page that you are commenting to.

    Perhaps you could post your comment to whatever article you are commenting on and I would have at least some chance to know what in the world you are complaining about.

  98. Timothy Miller Says:

    Hi Michael, I’m having a friendly argument with an atheist friend of mine, and he pointed me to this site:


    It points out these “flaws” in the bible. I can’t think of any good way to reply. Any ideas?

  99. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve got a few books on the subject of “contradictions in the Bible.”

    One is “The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” by Gleason Archer. It’s really good. Another is “Alleged Discrepencies of the Bible” by Haley.

    Probably the most comprehensive is Norman Geisler’s “When Critics Ask.”

    It’s good to have these works, and works like them, to deal with common attacks. Very often it is merely a matter of looking at the context of the passage in question.

    I clicked on the link you provided and just randomly scrolled down.

    These two were the first my eye saw:

    The answer is Jesus is equal to in one sense and lesser than in another. The same as we humans can be. John 1:1-3 clearly teaches that Jesus is ontologically equal to the Father. He shares His Father’s essence/nature. The Father is God; Jesus

    Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

    JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

    is God. They are equal. But in another equally true sense, Jesus has subordinated Himself to the Father. Am I equal to my boss? In the sense that we’re both equally human I am; in the sense that I work for him at his business I am not.


    Which first–beasts or man?GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    A response to this attack is found in detail here.

    On my shortened view, the words of the verses themselves as the atheists quote them from the Bible provide the answer: In Genesis 1, you have the ORDER of creation events listed. The animals were created first, then man as the capstone of creation. Genesis 2 zeroes in on specific points the writer wants to make about that creation. In Genesis 2, we get to the question of who would be Adamn’s helper. If we go on reading to verse 24 of Genesis 2, what is going on and why it is set up the way it is becomes obvious. None of the animals (who had been created before Adamn) are “helpers suitable for Adam.” God allows Adam to come to that realization himself, and then provides that ultimate, perfect helper by creating Eve. The purpose of Genesis 2 is NOT to provide a chronology; Genesis 1 already DID that.

    The Bible was written during a period in which writing materials were expensive. In fact, the scrolls were limited in length and you could only write so much, period. Given the obvious limitation of space, on what grounds does the atheist think that the writer of Genesis would have written a chronological order of creation and then immediately written a different chronological order all over again? Why would he have done that? And why on earth would he write that duplicative account to contradict the first one? Why would you pack all of these silly assumptions into your interpretation of Genesis 2???

    God assumes the reader won’t be a fool. Unfortunately Psalms 14:1 aptly describes the atheist.

    Personally, my tactic with a guy like this is to reject the firehose approach. I resolve one, he gives me another, and another, etc. ad naseum. I take this route: If you’ve got an objection, give me your best shot. Give me your very best “contradiction.” And if I can provide an answer, if I can explain it, if I can refute your refutation, if I can overcome your very best shot, then will you believe???

    What you ultimately discover is that these “contradictions” are a smokescreen. That isn’t their real problem. Romans 1 clearly tells us that it isn’t their problem. Their problem is sin and the fact that they don’t want to acknowledge a sovereign Creator God so they can go on being the gods of their own lives. They don’t believe because they don’t want to believe and literally suppress what is clear to every human being rather than believe.

    You get this guy down to ONE “contradiction” and I’ll gladly assist you. But I won’t play this guy’s game where it’s just one after another after another, and no matter how many times I show his “contradiction” really isn’t a “contradiction” that demands rejection of the Bible, he keeps playing his game because he can never lose that game even if you’ve already proven him wrong a thousand times.

    The biggest “contradictions” in the Bible occur when numbers are involved in the Hebrew Old Testament. Numbers/numerals were difficult for Jews to write: they relied on LETTERS which could easily be misconstrued as possible words. And while you can transpose a letter in a word and still know what the word is, if you transpose a letter as a number, you get a radically different number. So there are a couple of passages in which there is a question of is it this many or is it this many 3,000 years later. In most cases, if not ALL cases, scholars are able to use context, history and common sense to resolve any apparent “contradiction” and state which “number” was the correctly translated one in a passage.

    God did not send the Bible down from heaven in a book engraved in stone. If you read the Bible, you see that over and over again in every instance, God works THROUGH man. God breathed His Word, and men expressed the vision that God had given them in their words such that what they wrote expressed what God had shown them. God partners with man; God works through man. God gave man free will and dominion over the world He created BECAUSE of that. And of course man copied and re-copied that Word of God revealed to man. When you consider the obvious difficulties of having a Book that is going on 4,000 years old being accurately handed down to us today, and you consider EVERY SINGLE OTHER ancient work, the reliability of the Bible is simply miraculous.

    Then I realize that not one single archaeological find has EVER controverted the Bible. Which is particularly amazing give that just ONE chapter of the Bible – the “Table of Nations” found in Genesis 10 – has more confirmable archaeological information than the entire Koran which is the next closest rival.

    And when an atheist throws these niggling little things at me, pardon me for laughing.

    I know this: I am a literate Christians. I have the training to examine these “contradictions.” I can only point out that I have never come across anything that in any way, shape or form made me question my faith in God or even in the Word of God.

  100. Timothy Miller Says:

    Thank you Michael, I’ll be sure to point him towards your post. Keep up the fantastic writing!

  101. Liberal Atheist Says:

    Hi Michael, I’m a liberal atheist. Now, I know you hate people like me, but I just wanted to tell you that I’m glad your blog exists.

    You see, I believe that for every point of view, there must be a counter-point. Without a counter point, there would be little creativeness, because everyone would think the same way. You need faithful people and faithless people to spurn creative thought, debate, and much much more. Entire revolutions in the world were formed through opposing opinions. Just take Edison and Westinghouse. In their battle between AC and DC, they bitterly sought to undermine each side, but in the end, managed to revolutionize the world.

    That’s why this site is great. You attack liberals, and liberal blogs such as extremeliberal.wordpress.com attack conservatism. In the process, you expose flaws in liberalism, and liberals point out flaws in conservatism. Each side then gets to address its own flaws, and in the end, America wins.

    I’m not going to try to preach to you about my personal views. It’s your own website, and you can say whatever the hell you want. I’m merely thanking you for helping keep political thought alive through debate.


  102. Michael Eden Says:

    Liberal Atheist,

    It might surprise you, but, no, I don’t hate you, Liberal Atheist.

    I’m not going to say that I don’t “hate” anyone or go pie-in-the-sky on you, because there are plenty of liberals and atheists alike who drive me right up the wall.

    But you and I can at least find common ground on most of your sentiments.

    And I’ve got good Christian and biblical grounds for acknowledging and respecting your free will.

    Gleason Archer, in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, has this to say about human “intelligence” and “logic”:

    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.

    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.

    The same dilemma exists for “free will.” Where does it come from? Why do we have it? How did random, purposless evolution produce these things? How is it that one speces “evolved” so far beyond the moral and intellecutal capacities of all the other species? Why did evolution “need” to produce us? How is it that “evolution” works “upwards” and makes things more and more complex and sophisticated and intelligent when everything wlese seems to confirm the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and increasingly produce LESS order and MORE chaos?

    Just tonight on my walk I noticed that one rock was stacked on top of another rock. I immediately realized that someone had done that; because “random chance” or “evolution” sure wasn’t very likely to get that one rock on top of another rock. And when you consider how much more sophistitated and complex “life” and particularly “intelligent life” is, it really seems pretty common sensical that life was an intelligently guided and in fact designed process.

    The point I’m making is that yes, God created man with free will and free moral choice. He wants us to believe in Him and accept His plan, but He doesn’t FORCE us to. He gives us a choice. Heaven and hell are ultimately proofs that God is a respecter of human choice.

    I don’t know if you’ve ever seriously thought it through and tried to figure out how your worldview produces intelligence and logic and free will. I don’t know if you have any kind of explanation for why we’re not meat puppets that are entirely conditioned by our DNA and our environment. But I’ve got a very powerful reason for believing that, yes, Liberal Atheist, you’ve got free will. As a human being created in God’s image, you have intelligence and logical capacity and free will. And God respects you for that and holds you accountable for your decisions.

    And it is because of that belief that I respect YOUR right to hold YOUR views. I’m not somebody believes that there is no right or wrong, or good or bad, or logic or illogic, etc. etc., but I would never try to use force to “make” someone believe in what I believe in.

    Ultimately, whether I think you’ve got the necessary foundation to support intelligence, logic and free will, I am glad you believe in it and accept it in your opponents.

    Just the other day, I discovered in my local newspaper that there’s a Sikh communty in my smallish city. I frankly didn’t know that. And they were being interviewed because of that murderer who killed six Sikhs in their temple in Wisconsin. And while I haven’t done it yet, I have every desire and intention of reaching out to them to let them know that if something like what happened in Wisconsin were to happen here, I would do everything I could to help them. I hope they don’t feel isolated or alone. Even though I completely disagree with them religiously. In the same way, if I saw a group of people beating some Muslim “in the name of Jesus,” my instinct would be to jump in and help that Muslim or at least share in his beating by taking some punches that otherwise would have struck him. I wear a Star of David that on close inspection looks like the nails of the cross. I wear it every single time I go out in public, and I am frequently asked if I’m a Jew because of it. It gives me an opportunity to talk about Jesus Christ and the fact that I am “JUDEO-Christian.” But if they want to take the Jews away like they did in Nazi Germany, I hope they take me away with them. I’ve also said if they come after people to take them away for their views, I hope they come to take me away in the very first wave. Why? Because that way I won’t have to stand up and be brave after I see them dragging people away and then have to be brave knowing what will happen to me.

    So, yeah, I truly see where you’re coming from and agree.

    The thing that seriously pisses me off to no end, Liberal Atheist, isn’t “liberalism” or “atheism.” It’s hypocrisy. If you look at the comments and see where I get truly enraged, it is when liberals do crap like this:

    Michael Eden upholds the sterotype of all rightwing fringe lunatics I have had the unfortunate time on this earth to have known. He is a rabid Fox News watcher, name caller of people he’s nevr met,, and hater of anyone who isn’t the Koolade drinker he is. Eden is one of the many reasons the once GOP continues to shrink in numbers. Congrats Mikee….you contributed to the dumbing down of America.

    I imagine you understand why: this guy literally calls me two ugly names, then hypocriticaly condemns me as a name-caller, then proceeds to call me two more ugly names after he hypocritically denounced me as a name-caller. I mean, how does someone like that not have their head explode trying to contain the contradictions?

    In the same way, I get plenty of liberals telling me I’m a “racist” when my article had nothing to do with race. It’s merely a label that is solely intended to discredit me and shut me up. Plenty of times I have people dredge up garbage that has nothing to do with what I said. The word “hate” might apply in my response to these people. I truly hate their thinking.

    Ultimately I agree with Dennis Prager, who frequently says, “I prefer clarity to agreement.” It’s not that Prager doesn’t like “agreement,” but rather he understands that there is so much blathering and he would rather hear an honest debate where both sides get to present their views and explain why they think the way they do. And then allow people to listen and make their own decisions for themselves.

    It sounds like you agree with Prager on that, too. And for that I salute you.

  103. confused earthling Says:

    Hi Mr Eden.

    i am a scientific and religious debate enthusiast and i LOVE what you are doing for everyone by blogging about current events with your POV based on true facts and very relevant, respectable philosophy.

    Only recently i’ve read your post regarding the mars rover. and with so much free time recently i’ve found myself also reading the Vatican Observatory’s POV regarding Mars exploration via Catholic News Service.


    then i backtracked all the outer space related vatican affairs and i have found about this:


    What are your thoughts about this? What do you think is going on inside the head of American Political Leaders and the Catholic?

    (For anyone who might be upset for asking this, pardon me)
    Are they really making sense for prematurely believing there is life somewhere else?

    or is this one proof of a crazy stupid conspiracy hullabaloo between Catholic, Government and investor/manipulators? It’s too big of an investment by the Govt (BILLIONS OF $$). Too big of a commotion from the Vatican simply based on what?

    What sensible conlusion can I derive from this?

    Just to add… even the former president bill clinton beating around the bush (no pun intended) with aliens, global warming, ethical challenges and life on mars?

    what are the leaders of the world up to?

    you make good sense of everything on every statement that’s why i need to hear something from you Michael.

    -confused earthling

  104. Michael Eden Says:

    confused earthling,

    I watched the Clinton video you posted and, other than his general liberalism on issues, saw nothing troubling. Ultimately he said that with all the solar systems, the odds that there is “some form of life” are pretty high on his view. I don’t think so, but he’s entitled to his own view.

    As to the Catholics, they have a LOT of “issues” that arise because they ultimately believe the Church (by which they mean the Catholic bureaucracy) is above the Bible and that their traditions trump the Word of God (they reason “We wrote the Bible, so we get to decide what the Bible we wrote teaches.” The problem is that they DIDN’T write the Bible, the Catholic Church didn’t arise until centuries AFTER the Bible was written, and it is GOD Who decides what the Bible teaches). And as a result of their flawed doctrine of Scripture, the Catholics have an array of deeply flawed views about a monogomous priesthood, sexuality in general, when a child is conceived (they believe human life is in the male seed rather than in the union between male and female resulting in a zygote), in homosexuality, etc. They are also deeply flawed in their views regarding prophecy and the future.

    So, one of the issues Catholics have had for some time is their willingness to believe in evolution. Evolution is defined by “science” as a completely random and unguided process of chance; but Catholics tried to usurp Darwin and claim that “God is rolling the dice.” That God is guiding this “unguided” process.


    I do not know the age of the universe. I can literally read my Bible and find ample room for a young universe (i.e., young-earth creationism) or an old universe that came into being some 16 billion years ago when God said, “Let there be light” and there was the Big Bang. But both scripturally and scientifically, I can be quite certain that evolution is bogus.

    Let’s start with the origin of life:

    Evolutionists LOVE to basically say that time is capable of producing any miracle they want to wave their hands at. They don’t need God to do ANYTHING no matter how imporobable their own science says something is because just add billions of years and the impossible becomes probable.

    Actually, the 4 billion years science says the earth existed is nowhere NEAR enough time to account for the origin of life. Not even close!!! That’s why Stephen Gould proposed “punctuated equilibrium,” the theory that literally has a dinosaur laying an egg and a bird hatching from it to go along with “panspermia,” the theory that life came from another galaxy. But these are both RADICAL FAITH commitments. All “scientists” have done here is push the problem back beyond the realm of possible scientific inquiry. And the question still poses: how did life originate on THAT planet? How does a cell just suddenly undergo complete metamorphosis? All it does is tell me how incredibly determined these people are to rule out a Creator.

    I found an interesting discussion on the origin just of bacterial cells. It would take 10^500 (10 to the 500th power) trials to stumble onto the correct combination by random chance. And that is assuming that we had all the building blocks of nucleotides and amino acids from which to do the trials!!!! To quote:

    “Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago.”

    So 4.6 billion years isn’t anywhere NEAR enough time for even bacterial cells to form! We’re not talking about “From amoeba to man”; we’re talking about “From amino acids to bacterium”!

    Life didn’t “evolve.” It simply couldn’t have. We couldn’t even get to a damn bacterial cell!!!

    Now let’s consider the Big Bang:

    “Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

    Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

    According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10^10^123 to 1.

    It’s not just “Christian scientists” who accept that impossibility of the big bang according to all known science. Theoretical physicist Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton stated that her own calculations led her to accept that the big bang was impossible apart from a far-fetched existence of an infinite number of 3-dimensional universes which she believes string theory supports are possible.

    So let’s look at what theoretical physicist Mersini-Houghton has said:

    “That’s what theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton thinks. 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.”

    Mersini-Houghton is widely respected in her field and is frequently cited (eg. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/09/22/v-print/52900/scientists-probing-what-happened.html) in popular articles as well. She is an atheist (see below) who has expressly stated that scientists like herself are looking for some way to be able to abandon the anthropic principle that would seem to necessitate a Creator God.

    Why is this important?

    Mersini-Houghton’s theory was recently discussed in an article published in The NewScientist entitled, “Into The Void.” What was amazing about this article was not its presentation of new scientific findings (which it did not contain) but rather its open admission that this new “highly speculative” theory might provide the materialists with a way to rescue their atheistic belief system. The author actually openly states of her theory, “And it would do away with the anthropic arguments that have plagued string theorists in recent years…” Mersini-Houghton admits that the philosophical/theological reasons for developing her theory were to resolve the dilemma recent discoveries had created for String Theorists. “String theorists, who had so hoped to avoid the anthropic principle, have now been forced to invoke it to explain why our vacuum was selected out from the 10 to the 500th other string vacuums.” The main advantage of her theory is that it might allow these String Theorists to once again abandon the Anthropic Principle and return to a purely materialistic worldview because “Anthropic arguments leave many physicists queasy.” “It’s a much more scientific and legitimate way of picking out a universe like ours than the anthropic principle.”

    In other words, the belief that God created the Universe is illegitimate. The claim that the Universe just happened as the result of a cosmic accident is the only “legitimate” type of explanation. And therefore, for too many “scientists,” atheism is a priori to science and everything must be forced to conform with their REAL religion of atheism and materialism

    The Big Bang demands a Big Banger. The universe could NOT POSSIBLY have arisen by chance. And those who know the facts know that. And therefore you literally see a rejection of the Big Bang theory and an embrace of frankly BIZARRE theories to replace it specifically because of atheism. It is THEY who reject science, not Christians.

    The Catholics are simply wrong in embracing evolution. Just as they are wrong about a lot of things.

  105. jimdep (@jimdep) Says:

    Michael, I enjoy your blog immensely. I’ve referenced it everyday for the past year now. It’s helped me get through these trying times. jd

  106. Michael Eden Says:


    Thank you much for that clearly heartfelt comment.

    You can imagine that it is far easier for someone to keep doing what is often a tough job when they can have a sense that they are making a difference. And I appreciate your support.

    It was Corrie Ten Boom’s sister who ultimately perished in a Nazi death camp who told her sister who would record these words: “There is no pit so deep that God is not deeper still.”

    The times WILL be trying, even if Romney wins the day, but we have nothing to fear who put our trust in Jesus and what He did for us and offers us right now.

  107. Science Guy Says:

    What do you think about this ludicrous and huge movement of anti-vaccination campaigners?

  108. Michael Eden Says:

    Science Guy,

    It’s not my field. I’ve had vaccinations since I was a child and continue to get them.

    Some vaccinations are clearly good. It’s how we essentially killed Polio in this country. Others may not be so good.

    I DO know that I had the darn flu vaccine, and I’ll be darned if it helped me this year…

  109. glen cook Says:

    hey michael , it’s been a while , thought you would be
    interested to know that channel 10 news albany ny area
    reported a few days ago that states with toughest gun
    laws have lowest violence. i read your comments about
    chicago ( baracks home state ) , and chicago having over
    500 murders last year, so i thought i would write you
    and tell you so if you wish you can take issue with them
    if you are certain of your facts, maybe even call them and
    ask for a rebutal. as usual the news agencies put a nice
    slant on things. hope things are well with you.

    p.s. one thing you might find interesting. all this time since
    911 i knew people had the image of satan forming
    in the smoke of the burning buildings. but it never
    occured to me to look for god. when i did , i found
    his image twice in amazing ways. i then realized that
    in the middle of all that carnage JESUS was there
    literally batteling satan and taking home the souls
    of men who would call on him at that moment.

    gman alias glen.

  110. Peggy Says:

    This may not be the forum but I need more of your “Boot” advice. Wanting to get my brother some boots for Christmas… RedWings to be exact… he walks a lot all day and needs good support for his flat feet. Got any recommendation for a Red Wing military made boot that would fit the bill for longevity and foot care? Please?
    Also, many thanks for all the rest of your blogs… invaluable information!

  111. Michael Eden Says:


    This is where Redwing people (and Redwing people have shown up here, as you can see above) would come in handy.

    Basically, what you want for your brother, I wanted for ME.

    The orthotist/prosthetist I saw showed me how to test a boot for good support. Basically, take a boot by the toe and the heel and twist it HARD. If there is a lot of flexion, it does NOT have good arch support. If it is stiff/rigid, it DOES have good arch support.

    The orthotist said that the Hi-Tech boots you can buy at Big 5 have excellent arch support. Basically, the concept of “arch support” really came to its own in running shoes, and it is that “running shoe” platform that often has the best arch support. The downside of such boots is that they often don’t last as long as a good, solid pair of Redwings. And to add to that advantage in “longevity,” many of the Redwing boots can be resoled at least once.

    I’d go into a Redwing store and do my test with the toe/heel and ask the store guy to show you the boots that have the best arch support. But to have the best comparison in terms of the arch support I’m describing, look first at the Hi-Tech boots to see how solid they are so you can match the best Redwing boots.

    Good luck on your search for boots for your brother. That’s a nice and very thoughtful gift!!!

  112. Anonymous Says:

    Relax Michael, Jesus! You’re gonna give yourself a heart attack from all the self-imposed fear you’ve created for yourself. Look, Obama’s a lot smarter than you, OK? That’s why he’s President of the United States and you’re the president of your bedroom. The world’s gonna be OK, even though Bush and Cheney created all this death and destruction originally by letting us get hit on their watch on 9/11 and then invading Iraq on lies and for no good or honest reasons. So relax, Obama’s just trying to mop up the mess the righties left behind. Sometimes that that takes a little longer than one would like. In the meantime, start voting Liberal and stop voting conservative, so that we don’t end up in messes like the ones you and your right-wing, war-mongering nuckleheads got us into in the first place.

  113. Michael Eden Says:


    I marvel at how you liberals literally refute yourselves in your own words.

    You say,

    Look, Obama’s a lot smarter than you, OK? That’s why he’s President of the United States and you’re the president of your bedroom

    Okay, so any man who is president is therefore “smart” and his decisions are therefore wise.

    But, oh, wait, being a liberal you are also therefore by definition a hypocrite and a liar. So therefore you contradict your own theory:

    The world’s gonna be OK, even though Bush and Cheney created all this death and destruction originally by letting us get hit on their watch on 9/11 and then invading Iraq on lies and for no good or honest reasons

    But, but, but, Bush was a lot smarter than you, OK? That’s why he was president of the United States and you were the president of your bedroom. The world was therefore OK. I mean, that is exactly the idiotic argument you just fed me. To be president you have to be very smart and therefore you can’t make horrible mistakes. Except as a fascist your “reason” only applies when you want it to; otherwise just turn it on its head so it means the exact opposite thing.

    Yeah. Logic is a pretzel for you moral idiots that you just keep twisting around until it arbitrarily connects to whatever end you want it to.

    Which is why trying to reason with you people is such a complete waste of time. You are blinded by the devil and unable to see any light of truth whatsoever.

    I know that you hate and despise God and mock His Word, but He offers quite a few words for fools like you:

    When people are saying, “Everything is peaceful and secure,” then disaster will fall on them as suddenly as a pregnant woman’s labor pains begin. And there will be no escape. — 1 Thessalonians 5:3, NLT

    Confirmed: ISIS Fighters Have Returned To The US From Syria And The FBI Are Looking For Them

    You blame Bush for your pathetic messiah’s disasters because you are a liar and your father is the father of lies. Bush WON the war in Iraq. Joe Biden took credit for that victory, saying Iraq was one of Obama’s “greatest achievements.” Barack Obama boasted that “he” had created a “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant” Iraq. It was OBAMA who pulled all of our troops out over the generals’ fierce objections and allowed Iraq to descend into a terrorist hell. Yes, you fool, they PREDICTED Obama’s stupid plan would end in the disaster that it surely has ended in.

    The President Bush you mock so warned us about exactly what would happen:

    “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — George W. Bush, 2007

    Now let’s turn to Syria and see how your “incredibly smart” president Obama ignored ALL of his generals and ALL of his handpicked advisors and overruled them with his superior intellect:

    That set me thinking about an incident that has been widely reported, but whose true significance might not have been fully appreciated. Last year, the entire US national security team came up with a unanimous recommendation. These people very rarely agree with one another, but they all told Obama that the time had come for America to arm the Syrian rebels. The degree of consensus was remarkable: Leon Panetta, then defence secretary, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, and General David Petraeus, then head of the CIA, all advised Obama to tip the balance of the war by sending weapons to carefully vetted units within Syria’s insurgency. And the President turned them down.

    Now we are in a hellhole in Syria. We can’t topple Bashar al-Assad any more. All the actual moderate rebels are largely dead or were forced to sign truces with ISIS/ISIL by now. And if we bomb the terrorists it will only strengthen Assad’s stranglehold as HIS “boots on the ground” seize the territory our bombs won him.

    Meanwhile, ISIS has TRIPLED IN SIZE because of Obama’s dithering and will soon triple in size again. And they say that they are coming back to hit us worse than before. And now they’re vastly better funded, vastly better trained and vastly more powerful than the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

    And now we’ve got this: “Confirmed: ISIS Fighters Have Returned To The US From Syria And The FBI Are Looking For Them

    Leon Panetta
    – probably because he’s a Clinton stooge trying to help Hillary in 2016 – stated flat out the very night you wrote that Barack Obama ignored damn near EVERYBODY’S advice to arm the rebels in Syria years ago when it would have made a difference. After being asked by 60 Minutes’ Pelley if not arming the moderate Syrian rebels was a mistake, Panetta maintained that “I think that would have helped. And I think in part we paid a price for not doing that in what we see happening with ISIS.”

    In other words, according to Obama’s own handpicked top intelligence official, we are now reaping what no one other than OBAMA sowed. It wasn’t Bush who allowed ISIS to first take root and then grow stronger and stronger and stronger while he mocked them as “jayvee.”

    But no worries for you: because you live with your head buried in the sand and most likely you just keep it firmly up your nastiest orifice – where ALL you sodomites keep your heads.

    Now, if that isn’t enough, we turn to the future to see what a pathological, lying, two-faced HYPOCRITE you truly are. Because for all your vitriol about how “Bush screwed up the world,” you don’t give a flying damn that Hillary Clinton – YOUR CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016 – VOTED FOR HIM TO DO IT.

    When we got Saddam Hussein, Hillary Clinton tooted her horn that SHE voted for Bush to attack Iraq and go in there and get that bastard. She said:

    I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors.

    Hillary Clinton joined a long list of Democrats who voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

    But you’ll vote for her anyway, because you are without honor, without decency, without integrity, without honesty and without virtue of any kind.

    You just go on worshiping your false messiah and believing that everything is all right because you’re a hypocrite and deceiving yourself is what you do best. Soon you will be laughing as you gleefully take the mark of the beast and you’ll be just as insanely and stupidly smug about how wonderful things are at that time.

  114. Larry sterrett Says:

    I am 75 yrs old, and I have been taking cane defense for 7 year’s. I have had one confrontation, with A 35 yr old man. Plus several other people. No fights though.

  115. Mary Bradley-Carlson Says:

    When time allows, could you do a updated article on prophecy?
    Thank you,

  116. Michael Eden Says:

    Mary Bradley-Carlson,

    I’ll try, and thank and bless you for your interest in prophecy from the Scriptures!

  117. Mary Bradley-Carlson Says:

    Thank you! I really enjoy your blog it is so informative.
    May God continue to bless you as well.
    In Christ,

  118. Michael Eden Says:

    Mary Bradley-Carlson,

    Thanks for taking the time to comment. It actually means a lot, because most people just don’t take the time to write and you don’t really know who you’re reaching.

    Jesus is Lord, and He will soon appear in glory!

  119. Bob Jones Says:

    I stumbled across this blog and I’ve enjoyed reading several of your posts. How do I subscribe so that I get notifications of updates?

    Bob Jones

  120. Michael Eden Says:

    Bob Jones,

    You know what? That’s a GOOD question.

    My emails get bombarded with notifications of people who have subscribed to my blog. I assumed there was some easy way, but when you asked that, I saw there doesn’t seem to be and that there are
    “subscribe button” add-ons that I have never even heard about, let alone installed.

    I’ll look into that and try to remember to get back to your comment. But thank you for giving me the heads-up on making it easier for people to subscribe!

  121. Glen Cook Says:

    hey Michael. been a while. hope your doing well. do you recognize

    this drummer ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=624S_ek9Q70

    happy easter. blessings in the lord. keep up the good fight.

    your friend glen.

  122. Michael Eden Says:

    Glen Cook,

    Well, hello. Great vid to watch: I don’t know if he’s my favorite drummer (maybe he’s better than Neil Pert for all I know); but he’s definitely my favorite lawyer. I did a double take right away because I clearly saw Jay Sekulow and hadn’t looked at the title of the video until I’d already identified him.

    We need men like him who understand the times and know how to fight the enemy according to 1 Chronicles 12:32!

  123. William Campbell Says:


    I’d like to ask you for a little help.

    I’m starting a podcast, it’s going to be called Challenging Opinions. I will talk to people like you about your blog or opinion piece, and ask you to explain your opinion, and answer questions about it.

    The podcast is for political and philosophical ideas, and I want to include all ideas, left and right, liberal and conservative, progressive and libertarian. What matters is the strength of your argument, not the strength of your voice.

    Could I record a short interview with you? It’ll just take about 10 minutes on a landline telephone or on Skype.

    Let me know if you want any more details.

    PS, I’ve just started a Facebook page and Twitter account for the podcast, it would be great if you could like and follow them:



    Challenging Opinions

  124. Shannon Tomlinson Says:

    Ok. I had a question for you. I found this article that say the two parties did switch. I have the link right here http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-democrats-were-the-party-of-the-ku-klux-klan-and-slavery/ I was wondering if you could read this and tell me what you think. I always thought democrats were the kkk. Thank you for your time.

  125. Michael Eden Says:

    Shannon Tomlinson,

    Well, yeah: the Klu Klux Klan emerged from out of the Confederacy after the Civil War. If you have learned your history, you know that Abraham Lincoln (Republican) ran on the Republican Party platform of being anti-slavery and the Democrat Party had firmly wedded itself to the view that people ought to have “the right to choose” to own slaves. Actually, it never ceases to amaze me how the exact identical same arguments that were used to justify slavery are the same that are used to justify abortion today. I mean, blacks aren’t fully human, and I ought to have the right to choose whether or not I think they’re human and therefore not to be owned as property (or aborted) or whether they are human and should not be owned as property (or aborted). The zebras never changed their spots.

    So you look at an electoral map of the U.S. in 1860 and see which states voted for Republican Lincoln and which states voted Democrat, and it is the IDENTICAL same map as the Union (Republican) and the Confederacy (Democrat). And you have something very similar to what we are seeing from Democrats – have I mentioned they’ve never changed their stripes? – today as they go batpoop rabid hysterical in their hate and opposition to the elected president of the United States. The Democrat/Confederate attack on Fort Sumpter which initiated the Civil War was a DIRECT result of the election of a Republican president. And being rabid fascists who can without pang of conscience own human beings as slaves or even kill their own children in the womb where they should be safe, they refused to follow democracy. Just as today.

    When the Civil War ended, just as when the Trump-Clinton election ended, the Democrat Party rabidly refused to acknowledge our democratic process or their defeat. They kept fighting, becoming terrorists. That was what the Ku Klux Klan was: the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. Read about the KKK, which flourished yes, in the same southern states that unanimously voted Democrat, that unanimously joined the Confederacy and waged the vicious Civil War against the United States, that came to terrorize blacks and white Republicans in the areas they could attack. The very first targets of the KKK were in fact REPUBLICANS, black and white. http://www.wnd.com/2007/10/44171/

    This was the fixed patter for the entire second half of the 19th century and for decades into the 20th century. Look up “Klanbake” and you’ll see it was also known as the 1924 Democratic National Convention. The Democratic Party National Convention was SO in bed with the Klan that it was literally a Klanbake!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention

    So yeah, the article you posted is a good read and is describing something that is true and frankly which remains true today. And blacks are as much slaves as they ever were, in the sense that they are dependent upon Democrats and upon welfare for life which has kept one generation after another in subhuman, degraded conditions. For instance, you take a place like the infamous Cabrini Green, which was heralded by Democrats as a great achievement of the welfare system but was a cancer on the soul of humanity, and you had five generations of black people growing up there. That life was okay for great grandma, and okay for grandma, and okay for mom, so it is okay for me and it will be okay for my six babies with six different fathers, too. That’s just a different kind of plantation from people who never changed their stripes.

  126. stevekerp Says:

    Hi – have followed your blog for at least a year. Regarding the NFL players disrespecting the country (Colin et al) this is being done deliberately by the NFL. God only knows why. They have 20 or more cameras running all the time during pre-game and the game. Why does any cameraman point his camera at some over-paid miscreant who is sitting through the anthem? He can pan the stadium or point his camera at a player who is standing. But this is just one camera, and there are 20 or more views to choose from and air up in the booth. But the guy choosing what gets aired chooses this one camera showing a guy sitting through the anthem. Why does he choose this one camera shot. The NFL could tell these guys what not to show. They obviously have been told not to show the guys with the “John 3:16” signs. Maybe the NFL owners (who own the copyrights) think “controversy” will sell their product. It’s blowing up in their faces.

  127. Michael Eden Says:


    We can only hope it blows up in their faces.

    But I’m glad that President Trump has made this a dividing line between people who vote for him and people who hate their country. Because that’s what it’s come down to.

  128. Michael Eden Says:


    That’s a major good point: so much of this toxic melodrama is so encouraged by the media that it is driven and even generated by them. And they always have a wicked agenda, stirring the pot with a goal in mind to cook a certain type of toxic stew that they spoon feed the nation that can’t stop gulping it down.

    This is your chance, America: stop gulping the spew down. Turn the channel or better yet just turn the boobtube off and go for a nice long walk instead.

  129. stevekerp Says:

    I hope you will blog on this. I think you’re right – the media don’t report. They choose stories and perspectives and they are TRYING to wreck the culture. I’ve about had it with the NFL which used to be about the only reason I’d watch TV anyway. But there’s an evil agenda here. The players are compliant meat puppets. Why don’t the cameras ever show the “John 3:16” signs in the end zone?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: