An Excerpt From Glenn Becks "Common Sense"

("Common Sense", by Glenn Beck.  Chapter 1, page 15,16)

Incendiary class warfare is not a solution, it's a diversion.  But nothing can divert us from the reality that our government has proven to be an unreliable and untrustworthy partner in safeguarding the promise of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If you understand the threat to the Republic, it is your duty to wake up your neighbors by asking them to consider some simple questions:

• Do you trust those in power to always tell you the hard truth - especially if it would hurt them at election time?
• How is it possible that every president since Jimmy Carter has promised to lower our dependence on foreign oil, but now we import more oil than ever from countries that do us harm?
• Are we to honestly believe that the country that took the idea of a man walking on the the moon and turned it into a reality within eighth years, or the country that built a transcontinental railroad in seven years (without power tools or machines) doesn't have the ability to completely build the 670-mile fence along our southern border that was promised to us in 2005?
• Why are the same politicians who insist America is a "melting pot" the first ones to insist that different races, nationalities, and ethnicities retain their distinct languages, identities, and practices?
• Why are those who respectfully question the science behind global warming mocked and condemned?
• Do you believe that your elected representatives view themselves as truly being "public servants" who place your well-being above their own?
• Do you believe that those in Washington see your face when they make decisions or, instead, the faces of those who richly contribute to their campaigns?
• Do you believe that our "public servants" have your best interests at heart and will defend your life, liberty, and property?

You know where you stand on these issues.  You believe in the promise and future of America.  You must heed the call of generations past and commit yourself to becoming part of America's solution.  This will not be an easy or popular journey, but by now we've seen that the allure of the "easy" journey is wrong since it often means having to take an even more treacherous road home.

A Conversation with a Credit Card Issuer

Me: "Yes, hello?  Hi, this is Card Holder calling.  I would like to talk to you about my current credit card balance and limit."

CCI: "Hello Mr. "Cardholder" what is it I can do for you?"

Me: "Well, I have a slight problem.  See, my wife had this card before me and she charged a pretty good chunk of money on it and being in a pretty tight spot financially already, I had to use this card to pay other bills and also pay back people I've borrowed from.  It's come to my attention that I've almost reached my credit limit.  Can we raise the limit so I can continue to use this card?"

CCI:  "Sir, the logical thing to do would be pay down the amount.  You're not in a very good position and quite frankly we wouldn't feel comfortable raising the limit."

Me:  "I understand, but it was my wifes fault.  I have to fix it.  How else am I going to keep paying my other bills?"

CCI: "Do you have any unnecessary expenses?  You may have to lower you standards a bit.  Buy generic food and clothing instead of name brand.  Cut back vacations and eating out.  You're the head of a major company, correct?  You have many employees?"

Me: "Yes I do."

CCI:  "You may have to cut wages or even a few jobs.  It's tough times I know an..."

Me: "I'm the head of a major company!"

CCI:  "Yes, and other heads of other companies are having to make these same decisions.  You can't keep spending in the manor you are or you could bankrupt your entire company.  That would be far worse than just cutting a few jobs.  You could possible avoid that if you only cut wages.  You should discuss that with your employees."

Me:  "Maybe I can take out a loan to help pay down this balance..."

CCI:  "Sir, I wouldn't advise that.  You'd only be digging yourself another hole."

Me: "Well, you're asking me to be responsible for something my wife screwed up.  It's her fault, I have to fix this and to do that, I need more room to spend."

CCI:  "Sir, it's not my place, but if it is your wife's fault you are in this position, why are you wanting to do things that would make it worse?  I'm trying to offer advice to help you, I really don't care who's fault it is."

Me:  "Thanks for your advice but if you're not going to help me, I'll do it myself.  Being head of this bank, I'm ordering you to up my credit limit."

CCI:  "Very well sir."

Son of Impeach!

I read a lot of blogs, spend time reading in forums, and read tons of YouTube video comments.  Though I don't comment much myself, sometimes an idea get's formed and I bring it here.  There's one common rant I keep running into and it's those comments from posters, in all caps, yelling, "WE NEED TO IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!!!"  This may come as a shock, but I am 100% against impeaching Obama.  OK, maybe 99%.  Let me explain why.

While I do agree with some of the reasons given and agree that said reasons offer Constitutional grounds for his impeachment (article II, section 4 which I'll cover shortly)  I strongly feel that his sole removal, though slightly helpful, is akin to putting a band aid on a gunshot wound.  The problem lies inside, not just the wide gaping hole on the outside.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says this:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Lets break this down and take a brief look at each cause for impeachment.  As this blog is not focused on defending why he should, I'll only touch on each.  You can do the research yourself, as you should anyway.

Treason is defined as, "the offense of acting to overthrow one's government... the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith..."  One could argue that if his massive spending and policies that are damaging to a free market system are being done on purpose (this blog does a nice job explaining that argument) that he is, in fact, acting to cause about the destruction of and, consequentially, the fundamental transformation of our current form of government into a new form of government.  Acting to overthrow in a very methodical but not flagrant way.  (Also, pay attention to Obama and the Climate Change Summit.  Our sovereignty could be at stake.)  As for a breach of faith, anyone with any willingness can find plenty of examples of broken promises.  You don't have to look hard.

Bribery is defined one way as, "anything given or serving to persuade or induce."  At the sake of keeping this post as truncated as possible, I will post a link to an article written in the Nigerian Times that makes a strong case for then Senator Obama's acts of bribery and also an article showing now President Obama's acts of bribery.  So the case could be made that he stands to be convicted of bribery as well.

Finally, the oft misidentified high crimes and misdemeanors.  Here is an excellent work done by Jon Roland of the Constitution Society defining "high crimes and misdemeanors."  Here is an excellent article from the Norfolk Examiner detailing some of these misdemeanors.  The case can be made that Barack Obama is also guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors as well as treason and bribery making a call for impeachment warranted.

Now, the part that would run up against a brick wall if impeachment was pursued is "conviction of."  With as many liberal sympathizers and Obama worshipers in Washington today, actually getting a conviction would be improbable.  Getting new people in Washington with even a modicum of moral clarity?  That, however unlikely, is, well, much more likely.  Therein, I believe, that is where we should focus our efforts.  If Obama was to be impeached, Joe Biden takes over as acting President.  Even removing him gives us Nancy Pelosi, a frightening thought indeed!  All the leftist radicals, socialists, and those that despise and seek to destroy capitalism are still in the White House.  Just removing Obama does not solve the problem.  We have a problem that is imbedded deeply within our Government.  The only way to stop the radicals is by removing that which is rotten and replacing it with good fruit.  We need representatives that won't stop for even a second to vote against unconstitutional legislation and will fight to prevent anti American policies from becoming a blight on our freedoms.  Take the current health care bill for example.  If we had decent men in the house and senate, it never would have made it this far.  Obama can't win without those votes and right now, he's getting them.  The leftist radicals can still get their agenda through without Obama, he just happens to be a powerful catalyst for them right now.  So while impeachment would be slightly helpful, it's not going to solve the problem.  It would slow the bleeding, not stop it.  We have to stop it.  Next year we have a chance to start removing those bullet fragments and begin healing our Country.  Stop yelling for impeachment and start voting the radical leftists out and getting the right people in.  Finding the right people isn't always easy but I believe Glenn Beck has provided a decent measuring stick with which to start.  Don't cast a vote for a representative that does not hold to, at least, these 5 pledges: (note, this list is not exclusive)  We need representatives willing to stand FIRM on the Constitution.

The Problem With Rats

There's one advantage to being a rat on a troubled ship, you'll be the first one off, guaranteeing yourself safety from the perceived doom. The problem is, if the ship gets fixed, you're left floating in the sea, which would almost seem suicidal. Sometimes it's not the ship that's the problem. It's not even the crew that's the problem Sometimes, the problem is the captain. His failure to understand how the ship is supposed to work coupled with a complete and utter breakdown in communication with his crew can spell real trouble at sea.

The political seas are no different. The problem with the rats abandoning ship is that they don't see what the trouble actually is and most may just be following the first rats that jumped. The ship is not the problem. The republican party is not the problem and it does not need abandoning. Is there a problem within the party? Sure is, the leaders are out of touch with their base and are not standing on the fundamental principles of the party. You need look no further than the recent special election in the 23rd congressional district of NY. The democrats had their man in Bill Owens and for reasons beyond my understanding the Republican leadership chose left-of-moderate Dede Scozzafava. Those that decided to stand on Conservative principles, which are the foundational principles of the Republican party, threw their support behind the third party conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, who got the endorsement of the likes of Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, Tim Pawlenty, Fred Thompson, the anti-tax group Club for Growth, and the Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund, which opposes abortion rights. The republican primary voters were also behind Hoffman. We knew Scozzafava's liberals stance on issues such as abortion and gay marriage and we were aware of her ACORN connection. Republican leaders were the ones standing behind a RINO, not the true party. Even Mike Huckabee, whom I happen to be a fan of, refused to officially support one of the candidates which upset me. Standing on principle made the choice easy, Hoffman all the way. The irony in all this is in what happened after Scozzafava realized she had no chance and dropped from the race. She put her support behind Owens, the democrat. Shocker. Despite all the naysayers predicting Hoffman to cause the democrat to win he finished just 4 percent behind Owens. Scozzafava got 5 percent. If the republican leadership had endorsed Hoffman from the start, those 5 points could have gone to Hoffman, making the results a much different story. Purely speculation naturally.

I understand the draw to telling both parties to "stick it" when neither seem to have anyone willing to stand firm on conservative principles. That's not to say there isn't anyone because there is. The problem lies directly with the leadership. When the Republican party leaders give us people like McCain and Scozzafava it's clear that new leadership is needed. Our party leaders need to vow to only support and endorse those candidates which stand on conservative principles. Let's face it, that's how we vote and so should they. The base, the primary voters, they are all saying the same thing, "We want principled leaders." Right now, we have none.

I refuse to abandon the party because I understand the real issue. The ship may be in disarray but it's not the ships fault and it's not the crews fault. We need new captains that can sail us in the right direction. The rest of the rats can jump ship if they like but I would ask that you reconsider. Instead of rejecting the entire party, stand with us principled members and help us fight against the corrupt and unprincipled leadership. Bring constitutional conservatism back to this party. Sometimes mutiny is far superior to joining a lesser ship.

Adam and Christ are Sitting on a Fence

You remember the oft repeated and incredibly annoying children’s rhyme of Pete and Repete? “Pete and Repete are sitting on a fence, Pete falls off, who is left?” “Repete!”  And thus it begins with no less annoyance than the song that never ends.  Yes, it goes on and on, my friend.  Well you know what else goes on and on?  The debate on whether Genesis is historical narrative or simply poetic.  I pose a question: Adam and Christ are sitting on a fence, Adam falls off, who is left?  The answer?  Nobody.  Removing the living breathing real life Adam from Genesis is effective in making Christ disappear or at the least makes Him nothing more than another bible story character.  I know the difficulty in people accepting my comment here but let me explain.  First, the reason most people feel the need to accept a poetic, non-literal translation of Genesis is because of its supposed incompatibilities with the Big Bang.   I find it odd that, of the two, Gods Word is the one that becomes less reliable among Bible believers.  Now, the Big Bang, despite what you may have heard, is still nothing more than a theory.  There is an open letter out to the scientific community stating that, “Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method — the constant testing of theory against observation.”  This open letter has been published in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004) and is not just a random posting by anti Big Bang supporters.  Other statements from the letter include:

• The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
  
  
• An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that “science is the culture of doubt”, in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
  
  
• Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Lets shift gears a bit to anomalies.  What is an anomaly?  One site defines it well when it says that anomalies are “alleged extraordinary events unexplained by currently accepted scientific theory.”  My natural question is this, how many anomalies does it take before the theory is scrapped?  How many events do you need, that can’t be explained by a currently accepted theory, in order to question the validity of the theory?   I have to agree with the following statement from Skeptical Investigations when they say, “[Thus], anomalies are viewed not as nuisances but as welcome discoveries that may lead to the expansion of our scientific understanding.”  I have a hard time believing that hardcore Big Bang supporters hold to the idea that anomalies are welcome discoveries.

My point in all this is simple, let the Big Bang be open to question!  Don’t ignore the anomalies, of which there are many, and keep promoting the Big Bang as fact.  Also, in the religious community, ESPECIALLY those of which adhere to true Biblical interpretation, do not be bullied into thinking you have to adopt a Hugh Ross view of creation!  Don’t feel pressured by the “majority” of the scientific community to subscribe to a theory that does not match with a true reading of Genesis.  The argument that you would be ignoring scientific proof is false and comes from a crowd of credulous supporters.  If the Big Bang theory was ever met with opposition and failed, was scrapped, and had a new theory brought in to replace it, what then would happen to such movements as Progressive Creation?  What would people like Hugh Ross, that promote the idea that the Bible actually defends the Big Bang, do with a creation model that would be interconnected with an invalidated theory?  You mean the Bible defends and even teaches a theory that is crap?

Back to the crux of this blog, if Genesis is to be read poetically as to avoid any incompatibilities with a literal historical narrative interpretation and the Big Bang theory, you will effectively reduce Christ to a nonexistence or at the least reduce Him to nothing more than another bible story character.  This is easily supported by Scripture in the genealogy of Christ as found in Luke.  You can trace Christ’s earthly lineage all the way back to Adam.  Christ is referred to as “the last Adam.”  There are 7 verses in the New Testament that make reference to Adam, 2 of which have direct ties to Genesis and 3 of which are connected directly with Christ.  Christ’s earthly existence is indissoluble with Adam’s.  On the fence of Genesis interpretation which so many straddle, when Adam falls off, nobody is left.

The Driving Force

Are you familiar with Darwin?  His hardcore followers are, but those that are not, or just haven't read much about him still know of his book, or have heard of it.  The interesting part is what you haven't heard or don't remember.  When mentioning his book it's usually titled as "On the Origin of Species" and left at that.  That is not the entire title.  The less often recited is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection."  You may have heard that before.  In your mind you may be thinking "Yeah, I think I have heard it like that before, sounds familiar.  But...that is not the entire title either.  The last part of the title of his book is often left off and one can only guess as to why.  The entire title of Darwin's book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Favored races?  I'm sure you've heard the term "survival of the fittest."  The weaker gives way to the strong.  God has something to say to that in "the meek shall inherit the earth."  Polar opposites, God and Darwin, on many things including the very origin of life.  But that's for another day.

What is Eugenics?  To put it simply, positive human breeding.  That is, to encourage the breeding of stronger, more "fit" humans and to discourage the breeding of weaker, less "fit" humans. The word was coined in 1883 by English scientist Francis Galton (a cousin of Charles Darwin).  From Gk. eugenes "well-born, of good stock," from eu- "good" + genos "birth."  In his book "Inquiries Into Human Faculty And Its Development" he writes "The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced." He is also quoted as saying that eugenics is the "...study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, either physically or mentally."

In the early 20th century two population control movements formed: Eugenics and the birth control movement. Charles Benedict Davenport and other eugenics leaders brought about human sterilization in an attempt to directly alter the type of people allowed to produce offspring.  Inferior humans, mostly thought to be the mentally retarded, were forcibly sterilized to prevent the spread of these peoples deemed genetically inferior.  The goal was to produce an intellectually superior civilization.  Where Davenport felt eugenics was to be empowered to the states, the leader of the birth control movement, Margaret Sanger, felt it was to be empowered to women.  She felt women should receive the scientific knowledge to limit their own reproduction.  Both movements shared the same foundation in eugenics.

Eugenics was commonly accepted in America and by 1910 organizations such as the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) and American Eugenics Society (AES) were being financed by the Carnegie Institution and Harriman Railroads.  Eugenic sterilization laws were being passed by many states and in the 1927 Supreme Court case, Buck vs. Bell, the act of involuntary sterilization in the United States was upheld.  From 1927 to 1941 forced sterilizations jumped from 8,000 to more than 38,000  with California and Virginia leading the way in involuntary sterilizations by as late as 1970 with an additional 30,000.  On May 2, 2002, Mark Warner of Virginia became the first governor to publicly apologize to the many thousands of people who were sterilized against their will during the eugenics movement in the United States.

1933 could be considered the turning point in Eugenics history.  It was in 1933 that the Nazi party seized control of Germany and the Hitler era began.  While at first the Nazi party only enacted sterilization laws, it soon progressed into something darker than it already was.  In "Mein Kampf" Hitler wrote, "anyone who wants to cure this era, which is inwardly sick and rotten, must first of all summon up the courage to make clear the causes of the disease."  The disease being mental and physical inferiority, the causes being inferior races.  On July 14, 1933 the Cabinet passed the Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseases in Future Generations. This law, which was to be implemented on January 1, 1934 called for the sterilization of "lives unworthy of life". These "unworthy lives" included those persons suffering from congenital mental retardation, schizophrenia, manic-depressive insanity, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, hereditary blindness, hereditary deafness, grave bodily malformation, and severe alcoholism. To enforce the sterilization laws, Nazi leadership created special "Hereditary Health Courts." All physicians were legally required to report to the courts anyone they encountered who fell into any of the categories for sterilization. As a result, by 1937 some 225,000 individuals had been sterilized by German authorities, a figure that was roughly ten times the number in the United States. Surprisingly, many eugenic supporters saw the rash tactics of Germany as a threat to the United States eugenic movement. Many began to argue that the United States was in fact sterilizing too few people. In 1934, Joseph S. DeJarnette, a key figure in Virginia eugenics said, “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”*

We all know how far this regime went to bring about a perfect race.  This movement both in America and in Germany of positive humankind progression through eugenics is viewed in a different light today.  The early 20th century is looked at as a dark era in the scientific community.  But what was the root of the problem?  What gave people the idea that eugenics was a good thing to do?  What was the driving force?  It was evolution.

Evolution lays the very foundation for eugenics.  The very logo for eugenics shows undeniable proof of this with the slogan "Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution."

The idea that we've all evolved from a common ancestor through natural selection via genetic changes and mutation is at the very heart of it.  In our history there are many examples of people groups being considered less evolved, less human, or not even human at all.  Darwin himself on his famous ride aboard The Beagle considered the peoples of Galapagos as less than human.  Racism thrived under the belief that blacks were a less evolved branch of white humans, pygmies were half men, and aborigines were not human at all.  The movie "Australia" paints a picture of how aborigines were treated during the early 20th century.  Every leader that has pushed for eugenics has held to the belief of Darwinian evolution.  From Hitler to Davenport, the ideas of Darwin were evident.

While eugenics is all but dead today, there is still a silent push for population control via interference in breeding.  Margaret Sanger's vision still lives today in Planned Parenthood.  A washed down, cleaned up, less offensive version of pure eugenics.  In 1942 after the Nazi horrors discredited outright eugenics (killing the “unfit” in order to breed a “master race”), the ABCL (American birth control league) was renamed Planned Parenthood.  At that time the organization’s affiliates made legal access to unrestricted abortion a high priority. As one medical director stated, “You can’t get adequate fertility control with contraception alone. You have got to grapple with sterilization and abortion."   Therefore, PP began pressuring governments to limit births through incentives and punishments. It also called China’s brutal one-child campaign a “stunning success.” Government entitlement programs currently pay for much of PP’s lucrative business based, in part, on the idea that it will reduce welfare costs by reducing the number of people.*

Planned Parenthood is under the deceptive description of providing quality women's health care but the truth is abortion rights are at the forefront of Planned Parenthood.  While the idea of "self directed human evolution" is not the basis, evolution plays a very important part in PP's success.  Evolutionary ideas have convinced people that babies in the mother's womb are not yet human, and therefore killing them is morally and even legally acceptable.

In 1868 Ernst Haeckel proposed the ideas that the human embryo went through evolutionary stages and that they showed "gill slits."  This gave rise to the "not human until birth" idea that is prevalent even today.  Haeckel produced drawings of these phases and even though his theory was thrown out and his drawings proved to be fakes, these images were still shown in school textbooks as well as college course texts as late as 1990 and the idea of evolutionary stages is still taught even today.  Society has been convinced that it's not human and it's ok to kill.  The truth is that life starts at conception, and the unjustifiable killing of that precious life is murder.  PP's vision of weeding out "less people" may not be verbally spoken, but it's there.  When it was still the ABCL they catered to the welfare population in an attempt to halt its breeding in order to "better society."  Even today, PP caters to the welfare population and inner cities.  They've changed their name and changed their claim of what they are about, but the process has not change.  The target crowd has not changed.  The procedures have not changed.  To the careful observer, they see no change at all.  Planned Parenthood is still eugenics in a friendlier mask.

Our new president promised to usher in a new era of change.  He's done just that.  It is because of Obama that our tax dollars will now fund abortions overseas.  He's appointed many members to his administration that are staunch abortion supporters.  This year his pick for chair of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius was approved.  Sebeluis was touted by the president as "a women of unquestionable integrity."  She had close ties with late term abortionist George Tiller, failed to pay taxes, lied about campaign contributions, and vetoed bills that would regulate late term abortions.  This is unquestionable integrity?

Also during the campaign Obama said "..are there ways we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?"  He touted working together but has yet to nominate one single pro-life member to his administration.  And, during his White House Health Care Conference, failed to invite one single pro-life advocate.  He also claimed there was a "moral and ethical element to this [abortion] issue," yet despite that he proposed revoking the conscience rights for medical personal that refused to perform abortions because of moral reasons.  This is working together?

Obama's views on abortion are disturbing.  But it's not surprising when he is also a supporter of evolution.  When the question of position toward the teaching of evolution in public schools was, he answered:

I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state.  But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.

Why he put "I'm a Christian" at the start of that, I'll never know.  That self proclamation is worthy of question itself.  But the part that troubles me is when he said he thinks it's "a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't' hold up to scientific inquiry."  An admission that science is superior to God.

God's most precious gift, life, has been mistreated and abused for a long time.  Americas early 20th century treated life as something to toy with, instead of something to honor and cherish, with eugenics.  Hitler treated life as a means to create a superior race through eugenics.  Planned Parenthood treated life as a way to weed out inferior humans through birth control and abortion aimed at, as they see it, lesser people in the welfare community and people in the inner cities.  Obama treats life as less than precious and worthy of extermination.  All behind the driving force of evolution.  Remove God and you remove conscience. Remove conscience and you remove morality, remove morality and anything is permissible.  This is the path that evolution leads.  This is the path our leaders are taking us.  It's time for a new driving force.  It's time for real change.  It's time for God.

Keep Those Lines Drawn

From the UK Telegraph the headline reads, "Barack Obama angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan."  A headline linking to the same story goes as far to say "furious."  Nowhere in the article does it state that Barack Obama is angry at the General.  Very misleading.  What he does state (emphasis mine) is that "According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week."   From the very beginning the author places all blame squarely on the shoulders of General McChrystal. "The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war."

Really?  The strain between the President and the General is solely because of General McChrystal's comments and not Obama's lack of apparent interest in  having discussions with the General in a timely fashion?  The author continues to make assumptions that are based on nothing, such as his comment that the General was "summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid."  Awkward for whom?  Obama's out trying to win an Olympic bid for his home city while General McChrystal is still waiting on a discussion of his report on Afghanistan from back on August 31st.  A report that Obama himself asked for.  If anyone should feel awkward it's Obama for having some jacked up priorities.

Maybe Obama was so busy for over a month that he didn't have time for the General.  Well, what's he been up to?  Here's a short list.  Some of the days he was busy with more than what I listed.

September 1st - Briefing discussing "preparedness and response efforts" surrounding H1N1
September 2nd - Phoned Japanese Democratic Party President Yukio Hatoyama to wish congratulations on results of lower house elections.
September 3rd - Announced intent to nominate 3 individuals to key administration positions.
September 4th - Requested the 12.1 trillion dollar statutory debt limit be raised.
September 5th - Announced new steps to make it easier for American families to save for retirement.
September 6th - Found no activity.  Seems like a good day to talk to McChrystal!
September 7th - Gave remarks at the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic.
September 8th - Gave speech to school kids.
September 9th - Speech to joint sessions of congress on health care reform. (You Lie!)
September 10th - Another speech on health care reform.
September 11th - Delivered remarks and participated in wreath laying ceremony in remembrance of 9/11
September 12th - Traveled to MN for another health care reform rally.
September 13th - Rumor has it he took in a televised football game.  Call McChrystal maybe? No?  Hm.
September 14th - Traveled to NY and gave remarks on financial issues.
September 15th - Traveled to Ohio for a roundtable with auto workers and gave remarks on economy.
September 16th - Promoted Chicago's bid for 2016 Summer Olympics.
September 17th -  Addressed health care reform in MD, announced H1N1 continued fight, and nominated Ben Bernanke for reappointment (chair of FED).
September 18th - Did taped interviews with morning shows on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and Univison

September 19th - Discusses "Global economic crisis." (all activity I could find, perhaps another chance to call the General.  No?  Hm.)
September 20th - Found no activity.  Perhaps another chance to call the General?  No?  Hm.
September 21st - Appeared on the David Letterman show.
September 22nd - Delivered remarks at Climate Change Summit.
September 23rd - Addresses the UN and also has several meetings with foreign leaders.
September 24th - Hosted G-20 Summit in PA.
September 25th - Held news conference at end of G-20.
September 26th - Addressed the Congressional Black Caucus.  (annual Phoenix Awards Dinner)
September 27th - Took family members on a monument tour.
September 28th - Announced that the President will travel to Copenhagen, Denmark on October 1 to support Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.
September 29th - Met with NATO Secretary General in Oval Office.  Afterward, held a joint press conference.
September 30th - Has FIRST INTERACTION with General McChrystal

In no way am I saying President Obama was not busy or that any of the above listed activities were unimportant but what I am saying is that when it comes to our military, they should be much higher on the list or priorities than they seem to be right now.  In McChrystals August 31st report he said, "The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort."  There should have been a much quicker response to this report then there was.  American lives are indeed at risk and with a situation deemed serious and in need of revision, room should have been made to sit down with the General much much earlier.

As a side, one of the worst ways to hide your political sympathies is to use the phrase "critics say" right before a claim.  Obviously whatever you are about to claim is going to be in opposition of your view on the topic.  However, it is unfair to say that an obvious fact made aware to you or the public is strictly from a "critic."  At the end of the Telegraph's report the author states, "Critics also pointed out that before their Copenhagen encounter Mr Obama had only met Gen McChrystal once since his appointment in June."  The fact that Obama only had one meeting with the General since his June appointment is not simply a claim from critics, it's a documented fact.  Obama did indeed only have one meeting with General McChrystal since his appointment.  This sort of partisan journalism is consistent as it falls in line with other lunacy like the leftist complaints about smear campaigns.  Smear campaigns that used video evidence and quoted documentation.  It's things like this that keep those lines drawn and prevent unity from ever becoming a reality.

A Pigment of Imagination

It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing. Such a little thing.

Boromir may have been talking about the One Ring at the time, but oh how true this is for something else.  Melanin.  Dictionary.com defines melanin as “any of a class of insoluble pigments, found in all forms of animal life, that account for the dark color of skin, hair, fur, scales, feathers, etc.”  A pigment.  That’s it, the difference between you and anyone with darker skin than you is more pigment.  The difference between you and anyone with lighter skin than you is less pigment.  Melanin.

Races, they’re good at Daytona, and that’s pretty much it.  The whole idea that there are different “races” of men is a farce anyway, we’re all of one race, the race of Adam.  Which is to say, I am a human and guess what?  You are a human too.  Genetic ancestry can be traced back to a single person, or thing, depending on if you’re an evolutionist or a creationist. By the way, if you’ll notice, by that definition of melanin, animals also suffer from the inhumanity of some having less and some having more of this evil thing, melanin.  You don’t see them hating each other over it.  Then again I forget, they’re not rational humans like us.  Melanin also seems to be tricky to spot depending on who you are.  If you have something against large quantities of melanin or minuscule quantities of melanin, you’ll see those with the amount of your discontent as being inferior to yourself.  Which I find odd since you both have it, just in different amounts.  It’s like Coke hating Diet Coke.  Weird seeing two Cokes fight.  Seems kind of childish too.  True conservatives seem to forget there’s differences in the quantity of melanin that some may possess.  Sadly, liberals are there to remind them.  Liberals also tend to see melanin that would otherwise go unnoticed.  Such as claiming anyone that voted for Bush is a racist.  Or anyone opposed to Obama is a racist.  I haven’t been able to connect the dots yet, but I’m sure a liberal can help me out.  It seems, to the liberal, that a disagreement with someone on the basis of principle or ideology is grounds for racism.  I fail to understand a statement such as “…this has everything to do with a black man in office” when, as for me, it has nothing to do with melanin.  Alan Keys shares a similar melanin content count as Obama yet, I’d have no problems with Keys in the White House.  That does bring me to another point.  According to some liberals, if a person with a high melanin count opposes Obama, that person hates himself because of his own melanin concentration.   Do what?  A black man dislikes Obama so he’s a self hating black man?  This is what I mean by liberals being able to spot melanin better than anyone.  It never seems to be an issues until a liberal brings out that card.  They have no reservations in playing it.  They seem to spot melanin from a mile away.  Which leads me to make this statement and make it with confidence:  Liberals lean more toward racism than conservatives.

There are some other reasons for the different feelings toward melanin quantities in persons and it stems from an evolutionary root.  The belief that certain peoples who’s melanin content is in polar opposite of their own are somehow lesser humans because they evolved slower than another branch of humanity.  So they became half people.   Or more historically accurate, they were three fifths of a person.  Or, worse still, in other countries they weren’t considered people at all.  All because of melanin.  That is one form of racism.  Not the only form, but one form.

The Anti-Defamation League defines racism as:

“…the hatred of one person by another — or the belief that another person is less than human — because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person.”

By that definition, of which I would agree, racism is not simply an issue that stems from only one source but can come from anyone and from anywhere to anyone and to anywhere.  Racism itself is a misleading word.  You hear racism and think “skin color” or “race.”  But by definition, it’s discrimination based on many different things.  Which explains why I dislike the word “racism” so much.  I prefer discrimination.  If you treat someone hateful because of his skin color, it’s discrimination.  If you treat someone hateful because of his language, it’s discrimination.  If you treat someone hateful because of his customs, it’s discrimination.  If you treat someone hateful because of his place of birth, it’s discrimination.

Or “her”, for you gender sensitive readers out there.

A final statement, or question if you will.  How can we move past discrimination when we still use it to promote our agendas?  If I say I’m against Obama, do not first assume I’m racist.  It’s asinine!  I am opposed to his policies.  That is why I don’t like him.  If he was white, I’d still dislike him.  His melanin is not remotely involved in my feelings toward him and this constant habit of accusing opponents of racism is discrimination itself.  Calling someone racist based on no credible evidence and on purely an opinion or hate is discrimination.  You bear false witness of someone based on “any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person.”  And why?  So you can make yourself look better and higher than the other.  It’s the highest form of self absorbed narcissism.   And those that play the race card look like idiots and continue to show how much they hate their fellow man.

Czar Wars: Revenge of the Libs

Most, if not all, of my posts are inspired by something I see or read in the news or about the news.  Typically it's in the form of comments to videos or articles and this one is no different.  I was watching a video on Chicago's failure to win its Olympic bid and for some odd reason the following unrelated comment was posted:

Bush had more "Czars" than Obama. FACT.
Oh and BTW this clip is from Michelle Malkin - who is a an anchor baby, who is against anchor babies. FACT.

NeoConservatism = Hypocrisy at its best.

Actually the clip was from www.townhall.com which Michelle Malkin contributes to, along with a slew of others, but is not editor-in-chief.  As for the anchor baby comment it is very misleading (shocker).  In order for Malkin to be a legitimate "anchor baby" we would have to know the intent of her parents.  Did they come to America for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child and using that child to gain their own citizenship?  We can't know that.  It's a moot point anyway as the commenter is attempting (and failing) to point out a hypocrisy.  In order for it to be hypocrisy Malkin would have to be against what she accepts for herself.  So, we have to know what she's against.  The following excerpts are from a July 4th, 2003 post entitled, "What Makes an American?"

...Clearly, the custom of granting automatic citizenship at birth to children of tourists and temporary workers such as Hamdi, tourists, and to countless "anchor babies" delivered by illegal aliens on American soil, undermines the integrity of citizenship -- not to mention national security.

This is what has the libs in a stink.  "She's an anchor baby and shes against anchor babies!  Hypocrite!"  Not so fast young padawan, the anchor babies she refers to are "delivered by illegal aliens on American soil" and Michelle Malkin was born to legal aliens on American soil.  Here's another distinguishing point:

...He [Hamdi] spoke their language, not ours. He went to their schools, not ours. He embraced their culture, their religion, and their way of life. Not ours.

Malkin takes issue with the idea that someone can be considered an American citizen through the "anchor baby" process while at the same time not embracing what America is.  She has embraced it.  In fact,  when accused of being an "Asian Ann Coulter" Malkin responded, "I'm not Asian, I'm American, for goodness' sake."

Now I'm sure we can chalk up this little error on the libs part to simply "misspeaking."  I'm sure they've actually done their own research and aren't just repeating liberal talking points. Yeah, I don't believe that either.

Now for the Czar wars.  The fact, according to our friend, is that Bush had more Czars than Obama.  The only thing I can say to that is DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.  Bush indeed had czars, many of which were actually vetted and none of which were self avowed communists.  The number in question is debatable depending on who you ask.  You ask a liberal you could end up with 47 but ask a conservative and you'll get as low as 3.  What seems to be a common list of Bush's czars totals around 19.  That seems to be consistent with a comment by Glenn Beck from a recent program when he said:

President Obama's favorite line when deflecting criticism is, "Bush had 'czars,' why weren't you yelling then?" I was and I have the archives to prove it. But Obama has doubled — at least — the amount of "czars" Bush had and those "czars" didn't have the radical ideology many of these do.

Beck subtly raises the point to which the liberal attacks miss. "...those 'czars' didn't have the radical ideology many of these do."  This is the very point to which we (conservatives) take issue.  It's not the number per se.  The two main issues we have are what, if any, power they have and their ideologies.  So to say that Bush's czars outnumber Obama's is fact is simply fiction.  Furthermore to assume that we oppose Obama's czar appointments solely on the basis of quantity and then give a fictitious number of Bush czar appointments to show hypocritical opposition is intellectually dishonest.

Neither one of the proposed facts are such, thus giving your accusation of hypocrisy no leg to stand on.  As is typical with most liberal "talk first, research later" comments and opinions.

here's a little image I designed just for this blog post :)  hope you like it!

Waiter! There's a Dinosaur in my Soup!

Most people laugh at the idea of dinosaurs still being alive today.  The fact is evolution tells us they have to be dead. The common belief is that they died about 65 million years ago and they never coexisted with humans.  My question is how do you know all dinosaurs are dead?  Have you been to every part of the globe and viewed the landscape around you only to come to the conclusion, "Nope, no dinosaur here!"  There's plenty of evidence that humans and dinosaurs actually did live contemporaneously and did so even in recent history.  They may even still be around.  Don't laugh, I know it sounds crazy as we've all be brainwashed by evolutionists to believe it's impossible but the evidence is there.  It's observed, it's recorded, and most times it's sadly dismissed and in some cases die-hard evolutionists have failed in their refutations.  So for the critics that proclaim all dinosaurs are dead and gone, finish reading and then tell me I'm crazy.  If you can.

In 1836, Louis Agassiz discovered a fossil of a fish he called Coelacanthus, the coelacanth.  It was believed to have became extinct around 60 to 90 million years ago.  For almost 100 years this was the common belief, but in 1938 a living Coelacanth was found off the coast of South Africa.  To date there's been over 200 living coelacanths found.  Before the fish was found swimming around, the coelacanth was touted to be a missing link between fish and land animals.  The problem with that claim was that the coelacanth has changed very little over the supposed 400 million years of its "known" existence.  If it hasn't "transitioned" yet, it's ridiculous to call it a missing link, and as a matter of fact, they don't consider it that particular link in the proverbial chain.  That distinction was given over to Tiktaalik in April of 2006.  The always accurate and unbiased New York Times wrote a report on it.  It has the same claims attached to it as did the coelacanth.  The assumption of Tiktaalik's place in the evolution of species from sea to land may be a bit rushed in my opinion.  This could someday be another coelacanth, a fish that existed with dinosaurs and still living today. 

In the mid 1900s a fossil was found in the fish beds of the Talbragar River in New South Wales, Australia.  The foliage in this fossil, Agathis jurassical, supposedly dates back 150 million years to the late Jurassic period.  The last known existence of this specimen was believed to have gone extinct over 2 million years ago.  That is, until a living tree that matched the fossil was found in 1994.  David Noble, a New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service ranger, was out on a weekend bushwalk in a remote gorge in the Wollemi National Park, near Sydney, when he discovered what is now called a Wollemi Pine. Another similar story belongs to the Dawn Redwood of south central China.  These trees, believed to have possibly been a food source for dinosaurs and once believed to be extinct, are alive and well today. 

I know what you're thinking, "Those aren't dinosaurs, what's your point?"  My point is simple, these are perfect examples of something that was thought to be extinct and existed contemporaneously with dinosaurs but are alive today.  If these still live, why is it unreasonable to assume that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?  Why is it unreasonable to assume some dinosaurs could still exist today?  If a fish that existed with dinosaurs and trees that existed with dinosaurs exist now with man, why not dinosaurs?  Is there any evidence to support this assumption?  I believe there is. 

If you ever take a trip to Utah, stop by the Kachina Bridge in Natural Bridges National Monument.  There, you can find petroglyphs (rock carvings) of a dinosaur.  This same petroglyph also depicts what appears to be a man.  In the book Prehistoric Indians, Barnes makes the comment that "There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with a long tail and neck, small head and all."  These images were carved by Anasazi Indians who inhabited the area from very early AD to 1300 AD.  There are a few interesting things about Mr. Barnes' quote and the timeline of the Anasazi Indians.  If this image is indeed a Brontosaurus, that means the Anasazi Indians had it anatomically correct before paleontologists did.  For years the Brontosaurus was depicted with the wrong sized head and it wasn't until 1970 that this fact was proven by John McIntosh and David Berman.  If the Anasazi Indians had it right many hundreds of years before they did, it begs the question of how did they know?  They didn't have pictures or museums to draw inspiration from.  It's reasonable to assume they had firsthand accounts with these animals and carved what they saw as is typical of ancient carvings.  By the way, while you're in Utah, head over to Moab and check out the Dinosaur Tracks! 

Located in northern England a few short miles from the border of Scotland lies Carlisle Cathedral.  In the walkway between the choir stalls lies the tomb of Richard Bell, who was consecrated Bishop of Carlisle in 1478 until he resigned in 1495, one year before his death.  What is interesting about his tomb is the brass engravings.  One engraving in particular is arguably a clear depiction of a dinosaur.  Of the two images on this engraving, the one on the right  is very clearly a sauropod while the one on the left seems to either depict another dinosaur type, or a type of large cat like beast such as a tiger.  There's no way to tell if the animals depicted are both fully grown adults or adolescents.  So the argument that it cannot be a sauropod with a large cat since sauropods were very large is not a valid argument.  If it's reasonable to assume the sauropod is an adult and would thus be much larger than a large cat, then it's reasonable to assume it could be an adolescent sauropod being attacked.  The image does indicate a struggle.  The year of the engraving is the intriguing part.  The first hint of any discovery  in relation to dinosaurs was a femur from Megalosaurus in 1676 by Robert Plot.  That was just one bone.  It wasn't until 1858 that the first nearly complete dinosaur skeleton was discovered in Haddonfield, New Jersey.  If the engraver of Bishop Bell's tomb had never heard of a dinosaur, or seen a picture of one, or even seen a skeleton of one, how then was he able to depict one so accurately? It had to have been something he had seen before, something drawn from memory. 

The Cambodian ruins of Angkor, located in South East Asia, are home to another mystery.  The many ruins of Angkor were built by the Khmer civilization that lived from the end of the 9th century to the end of the 12th century.  Among the different temples and ruins of Angkor lies the temple-monastery of Angkor Thom and in Angkor Thom is a very curious bas-relief sculpture of what is clearly a stegosaurus-like dinosaur.  Speculation runs deep on this particular piece of evidence, in my opinion, because of how clearly representative the bas-relief is and it's implication on the status quo.  There is evidence and argument on both sides of the fence attempting to prove it's authenticity and well as disprove.  I've done my own research at its authenticity seems clear to me.  Again, this begs the same question of how the Khmer could carve such a creature unless they had a firsthand account of it.  Depicted from memory of a personal encounter. 

The last bit of evidence I'd like to share is probably the most controversial.  The (pre-Columbian) Ica Stones of Southern Peru.  I would highly recommend the book "Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines," by Dennis Swift.  It is an excellent book defending the truth of the greater majority of stones found in that area.  The Ica Stones are, to put it simply, stones with dinosaur carvings on them.  They also depict a great many things we would scoff at today.  From his book Dennis Swift writes, "The engraved stones show Indians performing complex brain, heart, and caesarian surgeries predating modern operations by thousands of years.  Equally scary is the startling sight of stones with men dressed in loincloths and headgear and looking through telescopes at the planets.  That is impossible; we all know Galileo invented the telescope, or did he?  The most disturbing images on the stones are those of dinosaurs with man together: men riding dinosaurs, even attacking them with axes, spears, bows, and arrows."  There is much controversy over the authenticity of the stones, as seems to be the case with anything damaging to an evolutionary timeline.  While some stones have been proven to be fakes created by locals to sell to tourists, a majority of stones have been tested and confirmed as authentic.  The question is the same, how were they carved so accurately if not from personal encounters? 

I would encourage you to do the research yourself.  As for me I am convinced.  There is nothing strange about any of the accounts I've mentioned when applied to a true Biblical timeline.  Especially considering Job has his own encounters with dino's and dragons!  So, if you're ever at a diner, don't be alarmed if someone yells, "Waiter!  There's a dinosaur in my soup!"