Hillary’s Partying Like Its 1996

March 5, 2015

Ah, yes. Are you feeling it? The vibe of the 1990’s is back in the air. Yes, that time of one hundred thousand dollar cattle future deals, of Rose law firm billing records miraculously appearing in the White House after being missing for over two years, and yes that time when gravity was suspended and Vince Foster’s blood flowed uphill. Yes, with the Clintons ready to take their spot back on the political center stage, it’s déjà vu all over again.

It’s makes me a little nostalgic for the decade when the Bulls ruled the hardwood, Britney Spears was queen of pop, and Meg Ryan and Julia Roberts were duking it out for the title of America’s favorite sweetheart. They have all have come and gone, but not the Clintons. BillHill (or as I like to refer to them HillBilly) are back for more of the same and to reprise their roles as grifters-in-chief.

Hillary has created quite a kerfuffle with the disclosure that she utilized a private, non-governmental email account while Secretary of State in violation of federal statutes. Despite being advised of the government email requirement when she assumed the position of secretary, she used the private account anyway and actually set up a private server in her New York residence to handle the flow of email. In fact it now appears that she maintained several private email accounts and may have conducted government business through all of them.

No one should be surprised. Hillary has a history of shielding her activities from any scrutiny. In 1993 while leading a government effort to reform health care, Hillary was highly criticized for creating a wall of secrecy around the activities of the committee. She actually went to court to defend shielding the committee’s efforts from the public.

In 1996, in an interview with NewsHour host Jim Lehrer, she responded to his question of did she keep a diary of her time in the White House with, “Heavens no! It would get subpoenaed. I can’t write anything down.”

At a high-end fundraiser in 2000, Hillary is recorded saying to one of her largest donors that she would never use email because it could be used as evidence in an investigation.

Later in 2007 during her presidential campaign, she maintained a veil of secrecy about her time in the White House. Her opponents charged that she was being overly restrictive in not allowing access to pertinent White House records.

That same year, Hillary made a speech ranting about the secrecy of the Bush administration and its use of secret, private email accounts. And then less than two years later, Hillary sets up her own private email system and conducts government business through it. Ain’t politics grand?

Then in 2012, the State Department ousts Scott Gration, the ambassador to Kenya for using a private email account just exactly what his boss had been doing for years. Rules are just for the little folk, right?

As I see it, there are only two reasons why Hillary would be so secretive. The first would be to keep the public from seeing how incompetent she is.  Make no mistake; the woman is highly, highly incompetent. There is not one thing of significance you can point to that shows the ability to govern. Her leadership of the health care effort of the early 1990’s was a disaster and allowing the details of that sinking ship out would have damaged her beyond repair.

Her time as Secretary of State is no better. Russia disrespects us and is on the move in Eastern Europe. She left a disaster in the Middle East. Her culpability in Benghazi is yet to be proven but the ensuing cover-up was embarrassingly inept. She definitely doesn’t want the email cloud surrounding this sad episode becoming public.

The other reason for secrecy is of course to hide indictable activities. Obviously, Hillary knew of the illegality of her email actions. She did it anyway assuming that the gain of the actions she was hiding was worth the risk of getting caught violating a government regulation.

We may never truly know what she was really hiding. Handing over mountains of emails means nothing. Whatever emails have been turned over have gone through the HillBilly filter and mean very little. Maybe the NSA can help us out here. I’m sure somewhere in their yottabyte sized data farm that all of Hillary’s emails are available.

I suspect that she was making solicitations to foreign governments for campaign donations in return for favorable treatment when she’s president. Typical HillBilly stuff; use money to get power, use power to get money.

I think that this ultimately can sink the HillBilly ship. The lame stream media are showing some Clinton fatigue and appear to be tired of sweeping up after them. And the Benghazi committee smells blood. Hillary hasn’t announced her candidacy formerly because she needed to clear this email hurdle. I believe she has caught her foot and will soon tumble onto the track.

So where does that leave Democrats? There’s a lot of interest in Elizabeth Warren. However, with 2016 looking to be a Republican year, the Dems may not want to spend their first woman president bullet until election would be more certain. Look for a male dark horse (or donkey) to appear soon.

Does Obama Love America? Depends On How You Define America

February 27, 2015

Rudy Giuliani, speaking last week to a group of conservative businessmen stated, “I do not believe, and I know this a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America.”

Now, I have a lot of respect for Rudy. He set the standard for how an elected official should deal with an overwhelming crisis and has been a reasonably good spokesman for conservatism.

So what was so horrible with what he said? Was it horrible that he would break with political correctness and state the obvious? Or is it horrible that we have a president that doesn’t love America?

Of course, the Pavlovian left immediately sprung into its hard-wired mode of covering for this president. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, that bastion of objective thought, gave the comment four Pinocchio’s that it reserves only for the most “high octane baloney”.

The most eloquent Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, chimed in admonishing potential GOP presidential candidates to stand up and say “Enough!” to this kind of slander. She went on to say she never questioned President Bush’s patriotism despite wide disagreement on most issues.

Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen couldn’t resist playing the race card and questioned that, “Maybe he (Giuliani) thinks he (Obama) loves it three-fifths as much as Giuliani and his pals.”

I was sorry to see Giuliani later backpedal from his comments. He essentially changed his position to “OK, Obama does love this country, but he questions our exceptionalism”. You may remember Obama’s deep and thoughtful comment that America is exceptional, but our exceptionalism is not any more exceptional than any other country’s exceptionalism.

So, does our esteemed president love America or not? Well, yes and no. One can’t answer this question until you define what you mean by America.

There is an America that Obama dearly loves. He loves the gullible, ignorant one that put him in office initially with no track record of accomplishment, without understanding anything of his motivating worldview. He loves that America.

He loves the America that provides him with a world of celebrity and luxury that he can languish in, that sycophantically supports his every word. That same America with a mainstream media that has abandoned its watch dog mandate and instead mindlessly promotes his lawlessness. He loves that America.

He loves the America that is so cowed by political correctness and fear of being labeled a racist that common sense criticism and concern about the decline of the country due to his actions is rarely seen outside of a few conservative outlets. He loves that America.

He loves the America that has an educational system openly opposed to Christian values and that attempts to inculcate in our children an acceptance of totalitarian rule. The same America where on most of our college campuses any dissent with Marxist precepts is met with hostility and derision. He loves that America.

He loves the America where he can use his pen and phone to create and enact legislation on his own, ignore the job of real governing, and then fly off to the next fund raiser or golf outing. Oh yes, he loves that America.

What about the America that Obama hates? That’s the one based on the principles enshrined in our founding documents. You know, the ones I have never heard this president promote – individual freedom and liberty, personal responsibility and property rights, free speech and self-defense. Can you point to one speech where this president extols these values? This America is based on these principles, the ones that created the greatest society the planet has ever seen. That’s the America this president hates.

If you love America as founded, you do not pronounce with great fanfare that you are out to transform it. This president did.

If you love America as founded, you do not take over the health care system with the iron fist of government making it ultimately a method of control of individual citizens. This president did.

If you love America as founded, you do not weaponize the Internal Revenue Service and use it as a hammer of intimidation against your political opponents. This president did.

If you love America as founded, you do not lay open its borders and allow a flood of illegals to enter the country, swamp our welfare system, and bring back diseases that we haven’t seen in this country in decades. This president did.

If you love America as founded, you don’t veto the Keystone Pipeline that would bring a new flow of oil from a valued ally, reduce the flow of cash to countries that want to destroy us, and provide tens of thousands of much needed jobs in this country. This president did.

If you love America as founded, you do not squander the blood of our sons and daughters and hand back hard won victories in Iraq and Afghanistan to Islamists that are our sworn enemies. This president did.

If you love America as founded, you do not let four Americans die in Benghazi and not lift a finger to help them. You would not be AWOL while your leadership was demanded. This president did.

Does this president love America? Not my America.

The Politics Of UFO’s

February 19, 2015

Democratic operative John Podesta has created some major media waves this week. He is best known as the quintessential inside-the-beltway Washington insider. He was Bill Clinton’s last chief of staff and presided over the infamous Clinton pardons. He later founded the very liberal Center for American Progress in Washington. And for the last year, he has served in the Obama Administration as an advisor to the President focused on the issuance of executive orders.   He’s definitely not on this conservative’s Christmas card list.

Podesta’s involvement with the Obama Administration came to an end last Friday when he moved on to presumably work with the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign for president. Just before leaving, Podesta issued a series of statements on social media listing his accomplishments and failures as an Obama advisor in 2014.

The last of Podesta’s tweets was extremely strange and unexpected. He stated that his biggest failure of 2014 was not obtaining the disclosure of “the UFO files”. He didn’t say he couldn’t find out IF there were files. He stated that there ARE files and he couldn’t get them released to the public.

If Podesta is right, then despite the many, many documents the government has released over the last several decades, there are more that are being held secret and he could not pry them loose from whoever controls them. This gives credence to the idea that at least some of the thousands of sightings that have been reported are not just swamp gas or the planet Venus.

Turns out that Podesta has a bit of a history in asking for UFO information disclosure. In 2002 at a Coalition for Freedom of Information press conference, he called for the release of the truth about UFO’s saying “…because the American people can handle the truth. And we ought to do it because it’s the law.”

Podesta’s interest in the UFO topic seems to have germinated during his tenure with the Clinton administration. At that time, the billionaire philanthropist, Laurance Rockefeller, personally lobbied the president (and possibly the first lady) for the release of all government files on the topic. Bill Clinton admits that he did look into this but was never able to find anything.

Later during Clinton’s presidency, Podesta was instrumental in developing and implementing Executive Order 12958 that was an effort to declassify millions of pages of U.S. national security documents. Possibly some of these dealt with UFO’s.

So where does this leave us? Clearly, John Podesta thinks there is highly strategic information about the UFO phenomenon that the government has and is not releasing to the public. It’s not clear if he knows what it is or if he just knows there is something being hidden from the public.

So why would he send out this strange tweet? He hasn’t retracted it or mentioned anything further. He just floated it out there for public consumption.

I believe that as with all things in Washington, politics is behind Podesta’s disclosure on disclosure.

If indeed extra-terrestrial (ET) beings are visiting this planet, confirmation of this would constitute the biggest event in world history. Its impact would be monumental on all aspects of the global community. It would greatly expand our perspective on our place in the universe. It could provide access to new technologies that would dramatically enhance all of human existence.

Therefore, whoever was able to break through the veil of secrecy to bring the truth to the masses would be forever associated with the greatest event in human history. What politician could resist that?

It’s hard to believe that it would be Obama who would be standing in the way of disclosure of ET evidence. There’s never been a more narcissistic, political animal in the White House. The opportunity to add ET disclosure to being the first black president would be something he couldn’t resist.

Podesta could be trying to leverage some unseen Pentagon bureaucracy by going to the public to build pressure for disclosure. The UFO community is on fire with this and is aggressively lobbying all levels of the federal government for disclosure. And the pressure for disclosure is not just on the U.S. government. Many countries are being pressured to come clean with what they know.

So in effect, we could have a kind of international disclosure race. Which world leader will be the first to disclose the truth about ET’s? If indeed there were truth to be disclosed, would the U.S. want Putin to grab the disclosure glory? How about Merkel of Germany? Netanyahu? That would be a disaster.

No, the way things are in Washington these days, I believe that our government would make sure that any truth of ET existence would come from the U.S. first.

So if there really is ET truth to be revealed, I believe it would have to be disclosed soon. However, if we are where we are ten years from now with no confirmation of ET presence, then I would just say fugetaboutit!

Lincoln And Darwin – Diverging Parallels

February 13, 2015

So who’s birthday did you celebrate last Thursday? Most people know that February 12th is the birthday of our sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln. He was also our first Republican president but liberals please keep reading.

A lot of people however do not realize that February 12th is also the birthday of another maybe even more influential person in history. Charles Darwin, father of the “theory” of evolution was also born on that day. In fact Lincoln and Darwin don’t just share the same birthday, they were both born on the same day in 1809.

Historians point out that there were a number of similarities these two men shared besides just being born on the same day. For instance, they both lost their mothers when they were young boys, Darwin when he was eight and Lincoln when he was nine.

In adulthood, they both lost young children, Lincoln a son of three and Darwin a daughter at the age of ten.

Neither man achieved any level of success or notoriety until their late forties. Lincoln gained national attention from his debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858 and a year later Darwin became one of the most famous scientists in history when his opus On the Origin of Species was published.

While there are parallels in their lives, the lasting contributions these two men made to human history stand in stark contrast.

Abraham Lincoln, of course, held together the union of the United States, fractured over the issue of slavery (though there were other issues like states rights, tariffs, and trade). Lincoln took this nation to war against itself to preserve the foundational principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence:

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

 Another interesting parallel between the two men is that Darwin like Lincoln was a staunch proponent of the abolition of slavery. Darwin felt it was a great curse on humanity.

What’s ironic however is that the very theory Darwin developed lends justification to the slavery he so abhorred. While Lincoln’s worldview saw that all men were of equal value and constituted with a divine spark, Darwin’s theory reduced man to just another animal living by survival of the fittest.

Darwin’s theory eliminated the need for a Creator and in turn by necessity disposes with natural rights, the rights our civil society is based on. Therefore, why treat your fellow man better than a horse or some other beast of burden? If you are the stronger or smarter or more powerful, in Darwin’s strictly materialistic world, dominating whoever you can to get what you want is not only possible but for the increasing viability of the species, desired.

I always found it interesting that Karl Marx was so interested in Darwin’s theory. He and Darwin were quite the pen pals. Getting rid of God the Creator and reducing the intrinsic value of man to no more than that of a deer or Pacific kelp makes it much easier on the conscience to “manage” the proletariat.

The eugenics movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in this country thoroughly embraced the Darwinian model and was seen as the way to preserve and improve the groups already dominating society. Oh yes, survival of the fittest was all the rage in this country before Hitler even put on his first boot.

Over thirty states in the early twentieth century passed sterilization laws to prevent “inferiors” from reproducing. Euthanasia on a wide scale was contemplated though fortunately never implemented.

Of course the aforementioned Hitler later used race superiority and survival of the fittest to fuel and justify the most heinous chapter in human history. And later, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did their best to keep the string going. And there will be others if we allow it.

The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote in his novel “The Brothers Karamazov” that if God did not exist, everything is permitted. There is some dispute that Dostoyevsky really wrote this, but whether he did or not, it is absolutely true. Without God, there is no grounding of morality. Morality becomes what we make of it. Therefore, he who has the power makes the rules, you know, survival of the fittest.

Darwin’s theory is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of wide ranging scientific evidence to the contrary. However, it remains the lifeblood of world politics. It’s the gift that keeps on giving for tyrants.

Darwinism will eventually make its way to the ash heap of history and a better day will reign. Until then, the battle will rage.

Imam In Chief

February 6, 2015

I believe our president’s true allegiances are now coming into sharper focus. His comments yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast are a clear warning sign that we should not ignore.

The president’s comparison of the Christian Crusades from centuries ago to the violence perpetrated by true believing Islamists today is a brazen attempt at making a moral equivalence.

Yes, violence has been done in the name of Christianity. However, those Christians that engaged in such violence were not following any exhortation from the New Testament. Jesus’ instruction only speaks of seeking peace and of loving your neighbor as yourself. Therefore, you can’t judge Christianity by misguided Christians acting badly.

However, the violence we see being perpetrated by Islamists around the globe is exactly what the Qur’an is compelling them to do. They are not misguided. They are not some fringe radicals, as our news media loves to make them out to be.

These Islamists have their ideology right. Engaging in violence to subdue the infidels is exactly what Islam calls for despite all of Shepard Smith’s hyperventilating to the contrary.

I believe the president in making his pronouncement at the prayer breakfast is engaging in what Islam calls Taqiyya and Kitman. These are essentially two forms of lying or distorting facts to infidels to further the cause of Islam. Come on think about it, no Bible believing Christian as our president portrays himself to be could make such an incoherent comparison.

This administration simply will not acknowledge the clear facts of Islamic terror. Instead, they use vague, general terms to describe our enemy and their actions. They are slow to react to the threat and actions then taken are minimal and indecisive.

Has any effort the White House has taken really been effective at slowing down the spreading scourge? Not exactly. ISIS is expanding the territory they control despite the president’s goal of “degrading and defeating” them. Yemen is rapidly falling into the hands of Iran. Of greater concern, Iran is rapidly closing in on a nuclear weapon with a delivery system and our president dithers and gives them more time.

The administration can’t release the worst of the worst out of Gitmo fast enough. And for the record, Gitmo is not a recruiting tool for Islamists but letting these terrorists go free certainly is.

Throughout the “Arab Spring”, the administration has backed the Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts to establish a Middle Eastern caliphate. They supported the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya. They supported the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood. Now that Egypt has thrown the Muslim Brotherhood out, this administration has essentially turned its back on Egypt.

This cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood is a cause for great concern. I believe the points cited above indicate that this jihadist organization has extensive influence on the actions of this White House.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been operating in the country since the late 1960’s and has established a vast influence operation attempting to subvert keys areas of our culture, media, education, and government. While they portray themselves as peaceful and civilized, their secret strategy states something much different.

The archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America were uncovered in 2004. Those archives contained their overall strategy that is stated to be “…a grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers…”. Doesn’t sound too peaceful or civilized does it?

The Muslim Brotherhood is cunning, relentless, patient, and has almost limitless money. The “grand jihad” they mention in their strategy is in a covert or stealth mode now, what they call a civilization jihad.

Through this type of approach they have to a large extent established information dominance over their interests and have established significant influence with key decision makers in our government. Note that the strategy makes the point of saying that part of the sabotaging and the destroying will be done by “our hands”.

Could this not describe the actions of this administration? Our borders have been left wide open. Our military is being degraded and hollowed out. Our economy is being crushed with astronomical debt. Our space program has been reduced to hitchhiking with the Russians and dedicated to making Muslims feel better about themselves.

America, wake up! The barbarians are within our walls and are actively chiseling away at the very foundations of our civil society. Do not accept what the news media and our government are saying about this threat. This virus is virulent and deadly and ignorance will not provide immunity.

One last thought. If indeed our administration has been subverted like much of the evidence would indicate, the next two years could be filled with great peril. Think about it. We have a president who at best is very sympathetic to the Islamic cause and at worst is cooperating with the Muslim Brotherhood on their goals. This president has two years left in his term and there will never be another president more cooperative with Islamic interests than this one. Just sayin’.

Bill Nye The Science Shill Guy

January 30, 2015

The New England Patriots head coach, Bill Belichick, is now officially busted in the “Deflate-Gate” scandal. Bill Nye, commonly referred to as “the science guy” has shown through ironclad, empirical data that the weather at the AFC championship game could not have affected the air pressure in the footballs as Belichick claimed. Therefore, watch for severe penalties to be meted out against the Patriots after this Sunday’s Super Bowl courtesy of the science guy.

Of course, Nye could not resist during his rant against the Patriots to admonish us all for not paying attention to a real problem – climate change. And as a science “expert”, lay people like us are not to question Nye about anything he says because well, he’s smart. And like climate change we shouldn’t challenge what Nye proclaims about the origin of life and evolution either.

Nye makes this clear in his new book, “Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation”. The motivation for writing this book came from his debate entitled “Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?” with Answers In Genesis founder, Ken Ham. In the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit that I have not read Nye’s new treatise. However, I did watch the debate and it’s clear that Nye’s position on the origin of life is the common neo-Darwinian view that forms the foundation for secular life today.

Neither Nye nor Ham made a coherent case for their position in the debate. As much as I respect my Christian brother, Ham’s insistence on a six thousand year old earth with its creation in six twenty-four hour days is hurting our efforts to make Christianity a viable alternative for thinking people.

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports a four and a half billion year old earth and this is NOT in conflict with the Bible. The most reasonable interpretation of the underlying Hebrew in the Book of Genesis supports the creation days being eras and not twenty-four hour days. However, with respect to the universe and life being created by a vast intelligence, I am in total agreement with Ham.

Nye on the other hand ignores the overwhelming data pointing to intelligence behind the material universe and instead promotes the life by chance position, i.e., Darwinism. Actually it’s neo-Darwinism that says the vast array of life on this planet is due to random mutations to DNA within cells producing changes in the organism that either improve survivability or decrease survivability.

Darwin apologists today ignore the doubts that Darwin himself had about his own theory.   Darwin was very concerned that the fossil record did not support his naturalistic mechanism. If natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for all life as we know it, there should then be a wealth of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Darwin wrote that a severe lack of such intermediate steps between species would essentially negate his theory, but he was sure the fossil record would be filled in as time went on. Well, it hasn’t. One hundred and fifty years later, the fossil record is as sparse in transitional forms as it was when Darwin first published his theory.

There is a bigger problem for Darwinists than the fossil record though. We now understand that all life is based on vast amounts of very sophisticated information. The DNA code is essentially a computer program but far, far more advanced than any program generated by man according to none other than Bill Gates.

We are also finding now that there is far more information in biological systems than just that contained in DNA. Scientists have found a new reservoir of information termed epigenetic information that is contained in certain cell structures and may be more elegant and sophisticated than DNA. While DNA contains the information the cell needs to make the proteins it must have to function, the epigenetic information is what determines how cells join to become tissues and in turn organs and on to organisms.

And to manage this entire process, scientists have identified mechanisms they call developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRN’s). These networks control which genes turn on and when they turn off.

You simply cannot get new life forms by changing one bit of DNA information in the nucleus of a cell. You have to have a coordinated set of changes in DNA, the epigenetic information and the dGRN’s. The odds on this coordination happening in a positive way to produce a more sophisticated life form are so astronomical as to be impossible.

This kind of sophistication has only one cause – a mind. Natural processes do not produce information. Information only comes from a mind and with the complexity and sophistication we see in biological systems, the mind behind it is astoundingly intelligent.

I’d like to ask Bill Nye how the first life got started. Where did the information come from to run the first cell?

The Darwinist premise is kind of like an old Steve Martin joke. Martin would proclaim that he had a sure fire way to make two million dollars. “First”, he would exclaim, “get a million dollars!” The Darwinist argument is highly analogous. They like to talk about how evolution works on life that is already here. They never want to talk about how the first life got started using simply naturalistic processes. I guess they can always fall back to Richard Dawkins’ position – aliens!

State Of The Union? Shadows Within Shadows

January 23, 2015

I sure feel better now that our president has pronounced that the “shadow of crisis” on our nation has passed. And here I was thinking we were getting into a deeper mess on all fronts.

We were told Tuesday night that we are now out of recession and our economy is creating jobs at a rate not seen since the 1990’s. We were told that the situation in the Middle East is well under control and there’s nothing more to see there. So the president wants to get back to doing what a good little Marxist does best – spread the wealth.

Well, not so fast. Methinks there be a bit of the blarney there. Let’s take a closer look at how things really are with our economy and with our effort to preserve something at least remotely resembling second millennium civilization in the Middle East.

The economy is creating jobs, but it seems progressives aren’t very nuanced when it comes to defining what constitutes a job. For them, one job seems to be just as good as another for judging the state of the economy. A job working thirty hours a week at minimum wage running a cash register is just the same as a full time structural engineer working on, dare I say, a shovel ready new bridge project. Seems we could use a little more granularity here. Most of the jobs this administration touts are of the thirty-hour retail variety rather than the more value producing engineering type.

Of course, the unemployment number is now below six percent, that has to be good, right? Could be, but you have to understand that this particular measurement called the U3 is quite easily manipulated. You can get whatever number you want just by making a judgment on who is really looking for work and who isn’t. (I would have bet the house this number would have been below eight percent before the 2012 election and dang if it wasn’t.) In any event, non-citizens have taken all the net jobs created anyway.

The more accurate jobs number to look at for judging the state of the economy is the labor participation rate. This now stands at sixty three percent, a FORTY-YEAR LOW! Don’t be alarmed though. We’ve added thirteen million to the food stamp rolls since this president took office and we know that people living on government assistance add just as much to the economy as a structural engineer (at least according to Nancy).

Our operating deficit is now over $18 trillion and counting which means that we each owe around $57000. Now I understand why the administration wants to let more people in to the country. With just a couple of hundred million more immigrants, what we each owe becomes much more manageable. However, don’t forget the $150 trillion we owe in unfunded liabilities too. No one in Washington seems to want to talk about that.

So our economy is still in deep shadow but what of the Middle East? Does it not seem that everything this administration does in the Middle East promotes the advance of Islamist jihadists and does nothing to reduce the threat we face? Consider the following points:

  • This administration refused to help the protestors in Iran seeking western type freedom back in 2009.
  • This administration has refused to rein in the Iranian pursuit of nukes and is standing alone against further sanctions.
  • This administration refuses to properly label Islamic violence. Fort Hood was workplace violence? You gotta be kidding me.
  • The strategy against ISIS is ineffective and in fact, ISIS controls more of Syria now than at the start of the effort to defeat them. The administration’s actions seem to solely check a box that they took some action rather than effect victory.
  • This administration is releasing dangerous Islamists from Guantanamo with a high percentage chance of their return to the battlefield.
  • This administration has all but cut off diplomatic relations with Egypt after they threw out the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • This president refuses to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits Washington next month and continues to poke Israel in the eye every chance he gets.
  • This administration sponsored and presided over a symposium of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation that promoted Islamic blasphemy laws that were in direct opposition to our First Amendment.
  • This administration lied about what precipitated the Benghazi attack and is still stonewalling on what our ambassador was doing there.

Do you get the picture here?   I can add much more to the list, but these dots knit into a very ugly picture of what this administration’s intentions are with respect to the Islamic threat.

Speaking of Benghazi, has anyone seen Trey Goudy? I had really high hopes that we might get to the bottom of what happened in Libya on 9/11/12 but so far very little has come of it. If the Citizens Commission on Benghazi is right, this administration could have been providing weapons and support to the very Al Qaeda Islamists we are supposed to be fighting. The specter of treason would cast a very dark shadow on Washington. And yeah, where was our president for those hours when Americans were dying in Benghazi. That answer remains in shadow too.

Securing Freedom – At Last A Strategy

January 16,2015

Just when you think nothing good can ever again come out of Washington, a ray of pure white light breaks through the perpetual smog.

Last Friday, the Center For Security Policy, a national security think tank located in Washington D.C., unveiled its strategy for neutralizing the totalitarian threat presented to the free world by Islam and its legal system, Shariah.

Frank Gaffney, a former assistant secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration, leads the Center For Security Policy and its team of national security experts. In a press conference at the National Press Club, Frank and members of the Tiger team who directly contributed to the report, presented an overview of the strategy contained in a ninety-four page document titled, “The Secure Freedom Strategy – A Plan For Victory Over The Global Jihadist Movement”. This report can be downloaded here: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Secure_Freedom_Strategy_01-16-15.pdf

The report endeavors to provide a clear vision of the threat we face and to establish a multifaceted plan for neutralizing the Grand Jihad that is underway. The strategy follows a method similar to the plan that Ronald Reagan followed in defeating the Soviet Union and prescribes the following initiatives:

  • Establishing a clear understanding of Islam and Shariah and what is driving Jihadist tactics. While we all understand the danger presented to us by individual or even teams of Jihadists like we saw recently in France, most are unaware that the Muslim Brotherhood through what they call a Civilization or Stealth Jihad is actively undermining this country. They have established information dominance and are blinding our government to their real intentions through political correctness and other influence operations. We must begin immediately to dismantle this. It can’t happen if we don’t understand our enemy and their strategy.


  • Establishing a clear objective. At this point, we are rudderless in the struggle against Jihad and Shariah because we have not defined our enemy clearly and established goals to defeating what it is that threatens us.


  • Stop the hollowing out of our military. We are in greater peril now than ever before from the Jihadist movement. Now is not the time to be scaling back our capabilities. Instead, through a clear understanding of what we face, we have to reverse course and begin rebuilding the capabilities we will need to confront this many-headed hydra.


  • Defeat the Islamic Ideology. Certainly we must be able to defend ourselves from the violence the Jihadist movement brings. However, that demands a near term, tactical strategy. Long term though, we must defeat the ideology. We must present a superior alternative to Islam that will win potential Jihadists from embracing the violent prescriptions of Islam and instead bring them into productive, modern society.


  • Reestablish our covert capabilities. We must develop enhanced intelligence capabilities and engage in a kind of stealth jihad of our own that undermines our enemies through psychological operations and cyber warfare. We need to beef up our human intelligence as well. How about instead of just blowing up key Islamist operatives with a drone we capture them and get intel? What a concept.


  • Wage economic or financial warfare. One of the biggest things we can do is GET OFF MIDDLE EASTERN OIL! We are sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to our enemies that they in turn use to undermine us! And we have an administration that has thwarted any effort to reduce our dependency. More on that in another column.


  • Engage in cyber warfare. Tis the twenty first century. A man at a keyboard can now do more damage than a fully loaded B52. We have the best and brightest minds in this field. Let’s use them.

I watched the press conference on line and from my vantage point, I did not see any big time media at the event. Would it be any surprise that not one word of the Center For Security Policy’s existence or this strategy makes it to the light of day with the lamestream media? No, I think not.

This is where you readers come in. If you gotten this far in the column, hey, you’re one of us good guys. You know how important this fight is. Our very survival depends on getting as many Americans up to speed on this threat as we can.

Therefore, download the Secure Freedom Strategy. Read it and get command of what it spells out. Once you understand it, talk to your family and friends about it and give them a copy of the strategy (ain’t electronic files great?!).

Don’t stop with just family and friends though. Do what you can to get elected officials at every level of government exposed to this strategy. How about talking to your city officials or the local Sheriff if you know him (or her). Heck, don’t stop there. How about your congressman or even the governor? Let’s don’t be shy about this.

Seriously, the threat of Islamic inspired Jihadism is one of the most serious threats this country has ever faced. The barbarians are within our walls. We need as many people as possible to understand the threat to begin neutralizing it and we all have a part to play. Godspeed.

Empathy For Islam? The Sure Path to Dhimmitude

January 9, 2015

Dhimmitude – the Muslim process of controlling non-Muslim populations brought to submission through jihad.

This week’s murderous attack on the staff of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, while heinous and tragic was not unexpected. The publication has been an equal opportunity offender of all the world’s religions since its inception. However, its propensity for poking Islam in the eye put the staff of the ultra-liberal, anti-religious magazine in great jeopardy given Islam’s murderous censorship of anything it deems offensive.

I have tremendous respect for the publication’s resolve in sticking to their satirical formula in spite of Islamist threats. Even though its offices were firebombed in 2011 after publishing its “Shariah Hebdo” issue, the magazine has maintained its irreverent roots and has not been deterred from depicting the tenets of Islam in a comical light.

Even this attack will not prevent Charlie Hebdo from publishing its biggest ever run next week. With the help of Google and other French publications, the magazine will publish one million copies instead of its typical thirty thousand.

This kind of rock solid resolve in the face of seventh century intimidation is really commendable. I doubt the media in this country would be so stouthearted. In fact, I know they wouldn’t. And the fact that they won’t stand up to Islamic intimidation insures more aggression here in this country.

Let’s again set the record straight about Islam. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of conquest. The peaceful verses cited in the Qur’an that lend a semblance of civility have all been overwritten by hostile, aggressive verses. The peaceful verses are there, but Muhammad himself has rendered them null and void. True believing Muslims know this and don’t want you to know it.

Islam sees the world consisting of two factions – the world of Islam and the world of the infidels. The Qur’an instructs true believers to constantly strive to bring the world of the infidels into submission. They are to never stop making war against the non-Islamic world until it has been conquered for Allah.

Muslims are instructed to lie when it furthers the ultimate submission of the infidels. They cannot be trusted to honor peaceful statements they may make nor treaties they may sign.

Outreach by mosques to Christian churches is not about establishing common ground. It is always about conversion.

Everything is viewed from the viewpoint of power – gaining it, expanding it, and exercising it for the good of Islam. Islam will use peaceful, stealthy techniques to advance its cause when they are weaker militarily. They will turn to violence when they believe they are stronger.

Given this, does the typical excusing and rationalizing of Islamic violence by our government and liberal media make sense? No, it makes violence much more probable. When we do not clearly label Islam for what it is and rather apologize for it, we embolden the true believers.

When the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee for president, Hilary Clinton, states in a speech at Georgetown University that smart power consists of understanding our enemy’s point of view and empathizing with it, Islamists see us submitting.

When our government labels the Fort Hood massacre work place violence and ignores the fact that it was an Islamic imam shouting “Allah is great!” as he methodically gunned down unarmed Army personnel, Islamists see us submitting.

When the New York Times expresses that their greatest concern about the Charlie Hebdo murders is that it may give rise to right wing persecution of Muslims, Islamists see us submitting.

When our U.S. intelligence and security agencies use politically correct threat analyses that expunge all references to the religion of Islam, Islamists see us submitting.

When our president refuses to use the words Islamic and terror to describes events like the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Islamists see us submitting.

We simply cannot afford to be stumbling around in a politically correct, utopian haze with respect to this threat any longer. We have to clearly recognize what it is we face, cultural sensitivities be damned. As Sun Tzu stated, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.” In America, our leadership knows neither.

Hilary calls for empathy. How about empathy for the people she wants to lead and protect? You know the ones she will rely on to put her in office. How about following your constitutional duties and defending us Americans from all threats foreign and domestic?

Through liberal cognitive dissonance or just plain willful denial about the true nature of the Islamic threat we face, we are all at increasing risk to be slaughtered while picking out a nice steak for dinner at our local market. I for one have had enough.

Want A Third Party? How About The Transhumanist?

December 26, 2014

The drive to the 2016 elections is now beginning and likely candidates are starting to come into focus. Naturally, Hillary Clinton will be running again for the Democratic nomination. I mean she is entitled to it, right? What that woman has had to go through and she’s so eminently qualified too.

Of course, we have to get another Bush in play for the Republicans in 2016. It will be eight years since the last one, so we’re right on schedule. It’s going to be utterly fascinating to watch Jeb attempt to win primaries by alienating the conservative base. Boy, that’s smart. Most candidates would wait to get elected before throwing their most active party members under the bus.

If you don’t like those choices though, take heart there may be another alternative. In a recent announcement, Zoltan Istvan has announced he is in the early stages of preparing a campaign to run for president in 2016. What party is Mr. Istvan going to represent – Libertarian, Communist, Green, Bull Moose maybe? No, no, nothing so pedestrian. Mr. Istvan will be running on the Transhumanist Party ticket. Haven’t heard of the Transhumanist Party? Well, keep reading.

The Transhumanist movement consists of futurists, life extensionists, technologists, and others who appreciate science and are willing to use technology to fundamentally change society and the individuals of which it is comprised. They have this transformation thing all over Obama.

Istvan’s platform sounds noble if a little farfetched:

  • Provide science all the resources they need to overcome human death and aging.
  • Create a cultural mindset that will essentially look to science to solve all our pressing issues.
  • Build firewalls and safeguards that would protect society from possible technological abuses during the transition to the Transhumanist utopia.

A lot of what Istvan projects I really don’t have much of a problem with. For instance, bionic hearts will improve dramatically and eliminate the need for transplants. Tremendous progress will be made with prosthetic limbs and possibly allow for entire exoskeletons that would allow paralyzed individuals the ability to walk and move. Our smart phones will become genius phones. These kinds of developments are essentially extrapolations of the path we are on and are beneficial for all. More funding and emphasis on research and development on these kinds of solutions I believe is well served.

However, there are other aspects of the Transhumanist movement that are unsettling and present some profound ethical dilemmas. For instance, Transhumanists believe that in the near future we will be able to upload a human mind into a computer. These “mind clones” would be capable of doing what its biological source can do such as reading, watching videos, conversing, etc. What kind of rights would these clones have? What happens to it when the human source for the mind clone dies? No one knows.

Our military is investing heavily in various aspects of this kind of revolutionary technology. DARPA is working on a wide variety of applications that will enable our soldiers to maintain peak abilities and recover more quickly and fully from injuries suffered in battle. Multiple technologies are under development that will allow soldiers to more effectively interface with advanced, complex systems. This research could have dramatic implications for longevity and disease immunity for our population as a whole.

While these developments appear to hold great promise for improving the human condition, DARPA is involved in other areas of research that in my opinion can be highly problematic. DARPA has a BioDesign program that is focused on developing new life forms. Why use less than optimized humans when you can synthesize the perfect fighting organism? Theoretically, you could develop an organism with the eyesight of an eagle, the ability to run like a cheetah, the strength of a gorilla all with human intelligence. It could have rapid healing capability. It could be able to go many days without food or water. It could have no fear. You know, better soldiering through chemistry.

These organisms would be superior to us in many ways. What if they decided they want to take over and run things? Don’t worry; DARPA plans to include a kill switch with every model.

Seriously though, what rights would such an organism have? What happens to the idea of unalienable rights when such organisms exist? Nobody knows.

As a Christian, I believe the Bible when it says Jesus will return one day to judge the world. I’ve often wondered if there could be a triggering event that would have God saying, “OK, that’s enough. Time for judgment.” If you think about it, none of our technological developments since history began have threatened to alter anything God has made. Not even learning to split heavy atoms or fuse light ones to create energy has effected His material world. However, messing with the pinnacle of God’s creation, that be us, He may not allow. Start contaminating the foundation for what makes humans human, well that may be the final straw. I would urge you non-Christians to take heed.

Newtown Evil – A Rifle Or Madness?

December 14, 2015

A lawsuit was filed on Monday by the families of nine of the twenty-six people killed and a teacher that was injured in the shooting two years ago at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

The families are suing Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the AR-15 rifle used in the attack along with the distributor and the retailer of the weapon purchased by Nancy Lanza, the mother of the shooter, Adam Lanza for unspecified damages.

I understand the desire by these families to take action that can prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. They have suffered an unimaginable loss and it is only natural that they would want to do everything they can to insure such a heinous event could never occur again.

The wrongful death lawsuit charges that the AR-15 rifle is designed strictly for military use and should not be available to the general public. The plaintiffs are making the assertion that Bushmaster and their distribution chain are “selling a product to the general population who are not trained to use it nor even understand the power of it”. I believe this action is misguided.

First, the case is built around the myths the anti-gun lobby has constructed about the AR platform. An AR doesn’t really require any more training to use than a conventional rifle. It has a trigger, a safety, a bolt, a magazine and sights just like every other semi-automatic rifle.

It looks more complicated because of its modularity that makes it configurable for the individual user and has led to it becoming the most popular sporting rifle in America. There are other rifles of conventional design that can fire as many rounds just as fast yet they might have stocks of wood and don’t look so “scary” and are therefore tougher to demonize.

With respect to the .223 round that the AR fires, yes, it is lethal. However, it is considered in the shooting world to be a varmint round suited for game like prairie dogs or coyotes. It has less than half the power of the rounds fired from your uncle’s deer rifle. That has made if very popular with female shooters since its recoil is so light as to be negligible.

The second issue I have is with the nature of this lawsuit. Suing a manufacturer of a product because an individual made the decision to commit a crime with said product is seriously misguided. The weapon did not malfunction due to faulty manufacturing or design and kill or injure someone. A deranged individual made the decision to use it to kill and maim others.

If a manufacturer can be held liable in this kind of situation, what would prevent the surviving families of the victims of the World Trade Center attack from suing Boeing for damages because their planes can be used as flying bombs? A kitchen knife manufacturer could be sued into oblivion when one of their knives is used to commit murder.

The greatest problem with this legal action however, is that it does nothing to alleviate the real cause of this evil. The AR did not cause this tragedy, a seriously disturbed young man did.

Adam Lanza was off the charts deranged. He was diagnosed at an early age with Asperger’s syndrome that made it very difficult for him to engage in normal social situations. Compounding his condition, he also suffered from what is called a sensory processing disorder. This caused neurological signals in his brain to become disorganized preventing them from being properly integrated and resulting in bizarre responses to routine stimuli.

Adam was simply not able to handle normal social situations and this caused him to withdraw into a world of darkness filled with violence and death. His mother, Nancy, dedicated her life to taking care of him and seeking effective care but was never able to find it.

By the time Adam had reached his late teens, Nancy felt that Adam was a lost cause and she rapidly lost touch with him. Adam was reduced to sitting in front of a computer isolated and alone playing military style video games for hours on end.

In this country today there is a dramatic shortage of medical professionals that can effectively treat patients suffering from the kinds of neurological and psychological disorders Adam exhibited. It is quite difficult today to find anything more than minimally adequate care. And this will get worse as states continue to slash budgets for community health services.

It’s unclear to me how this suit will proceed since in 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed that protects gun makers from lawsuits over criminal use of their products. The families are trying to get around the law using something called a negligent entrustment exemption to the law. This could hold the seller liable for selling to a person who was unstable or suicidal.

Whatever the outcome of the litigation though, I hope that we will see attention brought to our crumbling mental health system and our anemic abilities to deal with severe mental cases like Lanza’s. If indeed some kind of a settlement is reached, I hope the proceeds go to bolstering mental health care availability and maybe, just maybe prevent another tragedy.

The Monkey Trial Part Deux

December 11, 2014

Last week in a little noticed decision, a three-judge panel in Albany, New York unanimously ruled to deny personhood to a chimpanzee. Yes, a chimpanzee. Tommy, as the chimp is known, lives in a cage under conditions that the animal rights group, Nonhuman Rights Project, argued were essentially that of a person living in solitary confinement.

The group’s lawyer argued that chimps have qualities similar to humans and therefore deserve rights normally provided to humans, like freedom from imprisonment. While this case is a setback for their effort, the Nonhuman Rights Project intends to pursue additional cases in other states.

In a similar case in 2012, a suit was filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) on behalf of five killer whales at SeaWorld charging that the captivity of the whales constituted slavery. Fortunately, the clear thinking judge in that case ruled that the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applied only to humans and dismissed the suit.

Now you might be thinking how wonderful it is to see our courts decide something in a rational manner. However, even though these cases went the right way, there is great danger lurking ahead with this issue.

Animal rights advocates are working hard to find one court that will grant to animals what our legal system calls legal standing. Providing legal standing to animals such as chimps or maybe cows or even chickens would allow lawyers to sue on behalf of these animals for whatever injustices they could creatively dream up. Need a new European supercar? Well, just sue the American Kennel Club for the injustice of keeping the dogs in cages or on leashes at the last dog show.

PETA’s attorney in the orca case indicated that even though the SeaWorld suit didn’t go their way, “progress” was made. Once one court allows such a case to proceed, there will be a stampede to bring others to trial.

In cases of this type, animal rights advocates are arguing for the granting of human rights to animals. However, what really lurks behind this is much darker. The intense desire of the core of this movement is not to bring animals up to human status but to bring humans down to the animal level.

The radical animal rights movement believes that humans are the earth’s biggest enemies. Many argue that the human population should be pared back by ninety percent so that the rest of the animal world has their equal share of the earth’s resources. They proclaim that human life is of no greater value than bacteria and deserves no special status.

Filmmaker David Attenborough sums up it up this way:

“Humans are a plague on the earth.”

This, I believe, constitutes the cultural battleground we find ourselves in today. Are humans exceptional, made in a supreme creator’s image, endowed with unalienable rights or are we of no greater worth than the common house fly? Are we the pinnacle of creation and have sovereignty over it or are we just another one of its constituents of no greater worth? The answer has enormous implications for life as we know it.

I believe Darwinism has played a key role in defining human worth down.   It has provided fertile ground for the non-exceptional view of humans to take root. Darwin’s theory of the origin life where we are simply the result of natural selection acting on random mutation removes the need for a supreme creator. We just came randomly from previous life. Humans become just another branch on the evolutionary tree and therefore have no more intrinsic value than a snail darter. By the way, don’t ever ask Darwinists where the first life came from. I have seen dislocated elbows result from their hand waving.

I have always found it interesting that Marxism began to take flight as Darwin’s theory became widely known in the culture. Marx was quite fascinated with the natural selection premise and in a letter to German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle he wrote:

“Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in the natural sciences for the historical class struggle.”

 The idea that humans have no divine spark and are just animals plays very well in a totalitarian scheme. How much easier it is to gain and hold power when survival of the fittest is the prevailing mechanism of societal structure. When humans are merely a co-equal constituent of nature, reducing the population is no different that clearing a forest. Starving millions to eliminate the possibility of rebellion is merely prudent.

When we are reduced to animals, do we not then have license to behave as animals do? What happens to the qualities of kindness, altruism, charity, self-sacrifice and honor when we simply occupy one of Darwin’s branches? The view that we are just animals promotes ruthlessness, aggression, and cruelty all in the name of survival. We have seen this repeated many times in history and it appears this new legal route is another indication that our society is headed towards the same destination.

Holiday Hand-To-Hand: A Little Self Defense for Christians At Christmas

December 4, 2014

Tis the season and this time of year, most families like to get together and spend time reuniting and celebrating. In today’s world many families are scattered about the country and Christmas may be the only time of the year when family members can actually be together and catch up on what the last year has been like and what has been going on in their lives.

And your family may be like many today in that it is a mixed family. No, I don’t mean that you are of mixed races (certainly nothing wrong with that). What I’m getting at is that you may be a family of mixed worldviews. Some in your family view the world through the lens of Christian understanding and values while others may subscribe to a materialist or atheistic explanation for creation.

Now everybody gets along fine provided the conversation stays in the realm of the college football playoffs, the latest zany pet video on YouTube, or the great deal mom got on the Christmas ham. Whatever you do though, do not let the conversation stray into such inconsequential questions like was Jesus a real person or is the universe the result of an intelligent agent or is there a purpose to life? Nothing can curdle the eggnog faster than the vitriol that steams up between Christians and atheists when stepping on one of these intellectual land mines.

Generally, I think Christians do not fare well when the conversation breaks through the unsaid but understood boundaries preventing talk about topics that can be so divisive. Honestly, I find atheists better prepared to evangelize for their worldview than Christians.

Our Bible makes clear that we each have an obligation to defend our faith but most Christians when pressed about what we believe can do little more than rattle off a few verses. Nothing wrong with having some scripture memorized but it is simply not enough if we are going to be the effective ambassadors we are called to be.

It is much more likely that an atheistic cousin will take the offensive and challenge our beliefs than for us to initiate a dialog about how our faith may have strengthened us during a difficult time. And today atheists are seizing on the presence of evil and suffering in the world to dismiss the validity of Christian belief.

They cite examples of the terrible, seemingly senseless violence perpetrated on innocent children and proclaim the conclusion that the existence of God and evil and suffering are incompatible and since there is evil and suffering in the world, the Christian God cannot exist.

If you were confronted with this challenge, how would you respond? Could you respond? The existence of evil and suffering in the world is a very difficult question and does not lend itself to a quick and easy answer that will send your cousin scurrying back to the punch bowl. However, there is a way to diffuse the attack and hopefully, set the stage for a substantive dialog.

Atheists very freely make judgments about events or actions people take and describe them as wrong or evil or immoral. They see a child being abused and call it awful. They see racial discrimination and call it unjust. They see a corporate tycoon rip off his investors and call it deceitful. Well, do atheists have a right to make such value judgments? Well no, they don’t.

If you believe that the material universe is all that exists, if everything is nothing more than molecules in motion, you can’t say something is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The atheist can say they don’t like it or that it makes them unhappy or they wish this wouldn’t happen, but they cannot say that anything is right or wrong. Why?

In atheism, any moral judgment has to be made within the confines of a closed material universe. Nothing exists beyond the molecules and physics that the universe consists of. The material and physical laws of this universe simply do not supply any basis for making moral judgments.

Therefore they have no objective standard to judge morality or goodness against. For something to be truly right or wrong, there must be an objective moral standard against which to compare the events. In an atheistic worldview, there is no objective standard. Therefore, everything is simply a matter of opinion.

In the Christian worldview however, we do have a standard. We can objectively affirm something is good or bad, moral or immoral. Our standard is the perfect moral nature of a transcendent God, a God that exists outside of space and time and impresses this standard on each of us. We all have a sense of right and wrong built into our nature, both Christians and atheists.

So I’m not saying that atheists can’t be moral or know when something is good or unjust. They most certainly can. What I’m saying is that they cannot justify their morality since it is not grounded in anything.   Their judgments of morality can only be opinion because they deny the transcendent basis for morality.

Therefore, if you have an atheist throw some moralistic challenge at your faith this holiday season just tell them they are not entitled to make such a judgment because their beliefs are not grounded in objective morality. It will be good for hours of fun!

Islamo Dissonance – What You Won’t Acknowledge Will Kill You

November 28, 2014

Let’s check in and see what’s been happening in the world of Islam. Forty-five volleyball spectators are blown up at a tournament in Afghanistan by a suicide bomber. Check. Four Jewish rabbis worshipping at a synagogue in Jerusalem were hacked to death by two Palestinians. Check. ISIS beheads another American in Syria. Check.

One thing you can say about the “Religion of Peace” is that it is consistent. Of course our president declared that ISIS’s actions in executing Peter Kassig represented no faith. And did we not just have an interfaith prayer event at the National Cathedral in Washington? Christian leaders of that event claim that it demonstrated the ability to establish common ground between Christianity and Islam based on American values. I’m sure Christians will be welcomed to worship Jesus at a mosque near you real soon.

If I hear one of our ruling class geniuses proclaiming Islam a “Religion of Peace” just one more time, I swear I will put one of my size eleven Ariats through my big screen!

Look, I don’t have issues with individual Muslims. I have friends that are Muslims and they are fine, fine people. They are welcome in my neighborhood. They are welcome in my home.

What I have a problem with is the theology of Islam and the willful denial of its true prescriptions by our government and media elite. With just the smallest amount of effort and research, anyone can see its true nature and why violence springs from its faithful practice.

Islam divides the world into two “houses”, the Dar al-Islam or house of Islam and the Dar al-Harb or house of war. The Dar al-Islam is the areas of the world where Islam dominates and Sharia law is in effect. The Dar al-Harb is where Islam does not dominate. Islam demands that Muslims engage in conflict with the Dar al-Harb until it is subdued and becomes part of the Dar al-Islam. This is an unending struggle until the Dar al-Islam is victorious. There is no common ground to be had with Islam. It’s Islam or conflict.

And what of all those peaceful, loving verses in the Qur’an? Well, they are not quite what they seem to be because of something called the Doctrine of Abrogation.

Muhammad’s ministry had a first phase and a second phase. In the first phase, Muhammad began receiving his revelation and started his ministry in Mecca. At that time, he preached a message of peace, respect, and accommodation. However, he was unable to gain a significant following. Since he wouldn’t do miracles, the Jews wouldn’t follow him and his message of monotheism didn’t sit well with his tribe, the Quraysh, who had a thriving idol business with polytheists.

So Muhammad was forced to leave Mecca and start his ministry anew in Medina. His continuing revelation then changes dramatically and becomes aggressive and violent and he gains a great following.

This is where the Doctrine of Abrogation comes in. To resolve the conflict between the earlier Meccan revelation and the later Medinan revelation, the Doctrine of Abrogation declares that the later Medinan verses override or nullify the earlier Meccan verses whenever they conflict. The peaceful aspects of Islam depicted by the Meccan verses are essentially rendered null and void by one Medinan verse:

Sura 9:5 “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)…..”

The terrorists that are waging bloody violence across the globe are following exactly what the Qur’an is telling them to do. They are getting the theology right. They are not some fringe radicals bastardizing a great religion. Islam is about conquering the Dar al-Harb by whatever means necessary.

And lets not forget another feature of Islam called Taqiyya. Taqiyya makes it acceptable and even obligatory for Muslims to lie, especially to non-Muslims to advance Islam. So how can we trust anything Islamic leaders may be telling us?

All of this can be confirmed with a little effort. So why do we hear all this nonsense about a “Religion of Peace” from those we are trusting to look out for us? Why are Judaism and Christianity getting bashed and portrayed as the big obstacles to world peace?

Could our secular elite be so preoccupied with driving Judeo-Christian values out of the public square that they are willing to characterize a clearly hateful, tyrannical ideology as peaceful in an effort to contrast Christians as judgmental xenophobes? Maybe they view Christianity as the real immediate threat to their utopian fantasies and the threat of Islam is something that can be dealt with after their eradication of Christianity is complete. Sounds like the age-old strategy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to me.

The problem is that this unwillingness to see clearly or to acknowledge truthfully the threat that the ideology of Islam presents will cause untold suffering and misery. Utopian dreams will turn to existential flames. Beware.

Curiously Hawking

November 19,  2014

With the release of the feature film “The Theory of Everything”, the famous cosmologist Steven Hawking is back in the public eye. The movie chronicles his early life, his marriage to Jane Wilde, and his devastating battle with ALS resulting in his brilliant mind becoming increasingly isolated from physicality.   It is truly a fascinating story.

Hawking now retired from Cambridge has advanced our understanding of the universe in many ways, most notably in the physics of black holes and he is considered the most prominent scientist of our time. He may best be known though as the author of the least read best seller of all time, “A Brief History Of Time”.

When last we saw Hawking in mainstream media, he was featured in the premier episode of the Discovery Channel series “Curiosity” which debuted a few years ago. Curiosity was intended to provide popularized and entertaining answers to the big questions science is exploring about reality, much like the recent resurrection of Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos”. The first episode entitled “Did God Create The Universe” takes on the biggest question of all (used to be found here: http://vimeo.com/55419263).

And who would be better than Stephen Hawking for such a presentation? He is so ravaged physically that he can only move his eyes and communicates through a specially designed optical computer system through which he can speak with an artificial voice. His condition adds strangeness to the presentation that I’m sure enhances the show’s appeal to the general audience.

The bulk of the 42 minute episode was spent switching back and forth between stunning graphics of galaxies, super novas, and nebulae and Dr. Hawking’s creepy, twitching eyes all the while pointing out how science has dispelled all of religion’s mythology about creation.

I was beginning to wonder if the show would ever provide its answer to the creation of universe question when finally, with just a few minutes left, Hawking bestows his insight on us – God could not have created the universe since time did not come into being until the Big Bang. Huh? That’s it? I could have watched two episodes of “Duck Dynasty” in the time I wasted getting to this vacant conclusion.

Hawking provides no argument for why God has to exist in universal time. There was no justification for it. He just floats it out there. It’s purpose seems to be to provide an easy and simple answer atheists can use to squash their Christian acquaintances at the backyard barbeque – “Hawking says God must exist in universal time and since time was created at the Big Bang, God couldn’t have been the cause. Ha! Now, pass the potato salad!”

Well, let’s take a look at Hawking’s position. Scientists all agree that time, space, and matter/energy came into being at the Big Bang. Nobody disputes this. I do find it ironic that while the show hammers the point of how science has disproved the mythologies of the past, they somehow neglect to tell us that Genesis accurately described all along how the universe had a beginning a finite time ago. Science for many years clung to a view that the universe was eternal until the evidence dragged atheistic scientists kicking and screaming into agreement with the Bible, but please forgive me for I digress.

So everyone agrees that the universe – time, space, matter/energy, and the laws of physics came into being in one fantastic creation event. Hawking says it can’t be God, but it could be particles suddenly appearing in energy level variations in a quantum vacuum. What? Did I miss something here? Didn’t we just agree that time, space and matter/energy came into existence at the Big Bang and therefore prior to the Big Bang nothing existed? This includes quantum vacuums and energy level variations that are constituents of this physical universe. So how can the universe essentially create itself prior to its own existence? I guess the show just sort of left that out. Too complicated for the low brow masses perhaps?

Christian apologists use the Kalam Cosmological argument to show the necessity of a first cause that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial (not to mention highly intelligent, highly powerful, and purposeful). The argument can be articulated as follows:

  • Everything that begins to exist has a cause
  • The universe began to exist
  • Therefore the universe has a cause.

Note statement one, everything that begins to exist has a cause. The word begins is the key one. The universe had a beginning. Our understanding of the Creator is that He is eternal with no beginning. And again, to create time, space, and matter/energy the cause had to be none of these, i.e., timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. The show clearly fails in providing a cogent answer to the question it poses. And Hawking? Well, I think Einstein said it best, “The man of science makes a poor philosopher”. Looks like Albert got that right too.

Another Big Lie

September 2, 2014

Our dear president made history this week with his trip to Alaska. He is the only Oval Office occupier to cross the Artic Circle and as NBC reports “become the first U.S. president to receive a crash course in survival techniques from Bear Grylls”. I can’t say I know who Bear Grylls is but with a name like that he just has to be a wilderness authority, right?

I wonder why our president felt it necessary to learn wilderness survival skills. Maybe he is trying to bolster his manly-man cred. Vladimir Putin makes a strong claim to the most buffed world tyrant title, so this could be Obama’s way of shedding his more “metro” persona. More likely, he is showing us the skills we will all need in the near future as a result of his economic policies.

Besides his “Bear” encounter, Obama took the opportunity to rename a national monument. Yes, Mount McKinley will now be called Mount Denali which means “the high one” – how appropriate. Obama cites the premise that most of the people in Alaska call it that anyway. If that’s a reason for renaming something, maybe Obama should change his name to what most of us are calling him.

And of course, true to form at the Glacier Conference, Obama couldn’t resist again warning us of the greatest threat to our national security – no not Islamic terrorism, not an $18 trillion deficit with $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, not Russian expansionism, not a new strain of Ebola nor artificial intelligence. No, we heard once again that man-made climate change, aka global warming, is the biggest threat we face as a nation. In an especially shrill speech Obama sternly warned:

  • The climate is changing faster than our ability to address it.
  • The U.S. is one of the main causes of the problem.
  • The time to heed the critics and the cynics and the deniers is past.
  • It’s no longer enough to just have conferences.

As I have previously written, the global warming rhetoric is going to get more and more apocalyptic. The coming United Nations Climate Change Conference at the end of November is slated to put global governance in place and we are going to hear more alarming predictions of coming climate catastrophes to fuel acceptance.

The real data does not support any kind of CO2 induced temperature rise yet we continued to be lied to about it. Why? Well, let’s take a journey back in time to Nazi Germany. To get the German people to buy in to the Nazi scheme, Hitler and his minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, used a technique called “The Big Lie”.

Goebbels described the method this way: If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

 You get the idea? Those who point out that the real data clearly show that mankind is not causing the planet to heat up are described as cynics, deniers. Truth is the enemy. And, you have to move fast or else the population will catch on to what you are really up to – global Marxist tyranny.

And we can’t leave out Saul Alinski, one of our president’s mentors. In the chapter on tactics from his book “Rules For Radicals”, tactic five says: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.” Just try to deny global warming in public and see what you are called by the political/media/academic class.

Alinski’s seventh tactic says: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” The climate change promoters know the clock is ticking and they now have to move fast. As I said earlier, their rhetoric will become increasing shrill and the predictions more dire.

Alinski’s eighth tactic says to “Keep the pressure on.” Do you hear Obama speak on much of anything else these days? When he’s not speaking of global warming he’s goading the EPA to write more onerous regulations on our energy industries.

Finally, Alinski’s thirteenth tactic: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Their target is CO2 here, the natural byproduct of societal prosperity. If you wanted to attack a technologically advanced society, you go after its energy. Everything we have and enjoy is based on energy. And energy production and use produces CO2. So if you want to control and affect the United States, you control its energy. To control its energy, you go after CO2 emissions.

Let’s concede for a moment that the earth is warming like the climate changers proclaim. Is that really such a calamitous thing? I don’t think so. Historically, a warmer planet has been better for mankind. A warmer planet gives you longer growing seasons and wider areas for cultivation. More atmospheric CO2 means plants grow more lush and produce more fruit. Sounds like a good thing to me. Maybe we need more CO2 not less.

Don’t fall for The Big Lie. Our nation’s sovereignty depends on it.