Putin is Right: Turkey is a Traitor in the War on Terror

Putin is right; Turkey’s rising Islamic fundamentalism has made it a traitor in the war on terror. Turkey has stabbed Russia in the back just as it has stabbed the United States in the back. Unlike the United States’ doormat diplomacy, Putin’s is likely involve measures not words.putin

Whether you are Russia or the United States, Turkey is unreliable. In a way similar to that often ascribed to President Obama, when the political winds turn in an ugly direction against radical Islamic fundamentalism, you can expect Turkey to choose Islam. Turkey’s current population, as a majority, is not interested in Western, Christian values such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and security in one’s person from tyrannic imposition by any form of government. This majority makes Turkey a traitor in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism because a great number of their voting population embrace radical Islamic principles.

By the way, the Marxists have all left Russia. Apparently, they’ve immigrated to the United States and are faculty chairs at Harvard. Nevertheless, the United States and Russia now have more in common than the United States and Turkey, but don’t expect anyone among the learned Western elite to admit that.

1413642615684_wps_64_In_this_undated_but_recen

Betrayed by Turkey, these Kurdish fighters are on the front lines of the war on terror.

Consider Turkey’s unwillingness to open the northern front for the American invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. Instead of opening the front, by July Turkey had special forces in Northern Iraq trying to assassinate Kurdish leadership. Then, in August of 2015, Turkey finally agreed to let the Obama administration fly sorties “against ISIS” from its air bases. But instead of helping target ISIS, Turkey limited its air war to intense attacks on Kurdish fighters in Northern Syria and Northern Iraq. In so doing, Turkey used its U.S. “ally’s” air war against ISIS as a pretext to break its 2013 ceasefire with PKK and to harm one of the regions best fighters in the war against ISIS.

The entire American air war against ISIS is very suspect. It is dismaying that the Kurds had made significant inroads against ISIS in Northern Syria throughout 2014  and 2015 only to be attacked by what surely appeared to them to be an American-Turkish air alliance. Russia took in the back once; we got it twice..but shhh… We don’t want to offend our important ally.

The standard logic for Turkey’s failure as an ally is that the Kurdish PKK rebel forces in Turkey are a terrorist group like ISIS. If the PKK are a terrorist group, it is only as the Irish were terrorists in Belfast. There is a political guerrilla, civil war going on. These are not religious terrorists like many of those in Palestine and all of those in ISIS and Al’ Qaeda. However, the truth is far more complex. In 2015 Turkish officials worked with top ISIS leadership. (OK, make that three times Turkey has stabbed America in the back). Is it simply oil money? Is it simply a territorial problem with the Kurds? The rational West, if one still exists, ought to be asking itself why Turkey can’t get along with the Yazidis and the Kurds, and why they can’t deal in good faith with the United States’ war on terror.

Despite the proliferation of liberal fluff pieces on the Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) by outfits like the Berkley Center or the Brookings Institution (groups that want secularism above all else and turn a blind eye to the reality of faith for virtue and for evil), Turkey’s ascendant Muslim fundamentalist majorities have ongoing associations with the Muslim Brotherhood, and, reputedly, they openly raise funds for ISIS and other terrorist organizations. The fact that Putin is bellowing about an ISIS-Turkey link only shows that he believes our once great ally Israel.

Given this background, it’s certain that the Russians were not targeting the Kurds or their allies in Northern Syria, and, given Turkey’s history, it’s more likely that Turkey shot down the Russian Su-24, not for a violation of Turkish airspace, but as payback for successful Russian sorties against Islamic fundamentalist groups. Their brazen ambush of an unsuspecting Russian pilot, was not a traditional shot across the bow; it has the hallmark unprovoked cowardly violence one expects of terrorists.Sukhoi_Su-24_inflight_Mishin-2

Meanwhile, American “leaders” continue to fight the cold war. Instead of recognizing that Christians, Yazidis and non-aggressive Muslims are far safer under Assad than they are under the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Queda and ISIS, they carry on as though Russia needs to be brought down a peg.

Russia may have taken over America and NATO’s leadership role in the Middle East, but the West has no one to blame but its liberal blindness. If the western powers can actually bring themselves to say “we are at war against radical Islam,” they would be fit to lead once again. Perhaps, if the West would actually name names of Radical Islamic groups, and if they openly exposed the central doctrines that are hateful to all mankind, they could emerge again as a profitable force for conscience in the Middle East. Until the West can do these basic things, they should be quiet and stay out of the way of real leadership, wherever that leadership may arise.

Transgenic Cows and the Odds Against the Darwin Theory

The mathematics against the origin of life arising by the interaction of normally occurring natural forces are easily understood, but the probabilities of naturally occurring mutations that result in entirely new species are not as simple to measure. However, recent news about the failure to mix human and cow DNA in transgenic cows provides a small window into the problem. The evidence shows that each species’ DNA is so awesomely complex that it is not malleable; it is not naturally mutable.

29_fransiscrickWhile one of the co-discoverers of DNA, Francis Crick, believed the odds were so stacked against life originating by the operation of natural forces that alien intervention would be at least as reasonable to assume, the complexity of  variables in DNA and epigenetics makes similar computations for the relationship between species extraordinarily complex. Nevertheless, the failure of top scientific intellects to design a blend of the DNA between two species, human and bovine, show how intensely the odds are stacked against evolutionary theory.

Recently, GE Free New Zealand released a report covering 15 years of AgResearch trials using 60 cows bred to express certain transgenic proteins, including a human protein, in their milk. The report is based on information obtained from New Zealand’s form of the United States FOIA request called an Official Information Act request or OIA. After fifteen years of experimentation, from the many thousands of transgenic embryos the cows have carried, the average live birth rate has ranged from 0 – 7%.

Starting with Crick, modern genetic engineering itself represents a developing communal intelligence of over fifty years. This communal intelligence has made many genetic breakthroughs. For instance, the New Zealand genetic engineers have achieved solid success in developing species specific bovine traits that benefit the beef industry. However, when endeavoring to handle transgenic bovine-human DNA, genetic engineers have experienced nothing but failure.

Consider the significance of this for the Darwin theory. The intelligence these labs represent intervenes into the treenatural environment and accomplishes in hours what Darwin speculated might happen over the course of thousands and thousands of years. That is, these scientists introduce a new, genetically diverse bovine DNA code into the “evolutionary cycle.” They introduce something like a transitional species such as is needed in the phylogenetic trees essential to the Darwin theory’s explanation of the fossil record.

This millennial “time lapse” occurs each time a scientist generates a single embryo. These New Zealand scientists generated thousands of embryos with diverse DNA. In addition, these scientists endeavored to generate compatible strands of DNA. They were not randomly mutating genes. These scientists had a specific “evolutionary” goal in mind and extensive experience in genetic mapping. Furthermore, the genetic goal was not even an “intermediate” species or hybrid between cow and human. The goal was a slight expansion or alteration of bovine specific DNA beyond a cow’s natural species specific genetics.

The experiments were utter disasters. AgResearch’s annual reports cataloged “a sad and profoundly disturbing cowstory of illness, reproductive failure and birth deformities.” Even worse for the Darwin theory, most of the transgenic cows were not able to reproduce past the first generation. Sterility resulting from genetic transformations, no matter how profitable the new adaptation might be for the survival of the species (and none were at all profitable for adaptation), is death to evolution. Even more ruinous for Darwinism is that the transgenic cows which did produce a second generation all bore sterile offspring.

In Darwinian evolutionary terminology, thousands upon thousands of years finally produced a single alternate form of Bovine DNA, but the embryo couldn’t survive until birth. Multiply this failure by thousands of thousands of years of failures until a single embryo survives. Then that embryo is sterile. Then repeat the millennium again and again until, at last, an embryo survives that can breed… but… but… its offspring… all sterile, as sterile as the Darwin theory.

Perhaps some day, heaven forbid, mankind will be able to generate mutant species, monsters that can survive and breed. It won’t be by chance. It will only be by intelligent design.

If twisting a species’ DNA requires intelligent design. How much more intelligence must it take to originate a species. How much more intelligence must it take to engineer all of the teeming multitude of living things that swim, fly and walk the earth, surviving and interacting in ways more intricate than the human mind can fully comprehend, let alone express. Now think about the Planner Who is the only possible explanation for the Universe. That’s not church. That’s logic.

 

RINO Glittering Generalities versus Conservative Health Care Reform

Yes, it was is important, very important, that well before 2016, GOP candidates outline a positive plan for health care. Seven debates and forty-five million ridiculous ‘gotcha’ questions later, not a single debate has focused on health care reform. Conservatives want a clear plan, a plan obamacarethat changes an angry nation into a nation excited for specific, honestly conceived, and openly debated reforms that EVERYONE can believe in.

Below are bullet points from ex-Speaker Boehner’s address to the House on the eve of destruction, an address given just before the passage of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” on March 23, 2010. (A name that would make George Orwell proud.) In typical Boehner fashion, the ideas were not nearly radical enough. They are mere platitudes piously mouthed, almost in jest, as crumbs for the satisfaction of the mob (that’s us). They generally glittered like shiny little pills. They were slick slogans: dithering words full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

Ex-Speaker Boehner’s points are in italicized type below. The addendum are specifics, specifics lacking from most GOP plans, addendum that make Conservative change out of RINO nothings. Now, some of the addendum added below were inspired by bills that received no debate and less media coverage. Nonetheless, before 2016, let’s give them till March. Conservative candidates, especially Trump, must go much farther than the RINO’s ever dreamt in their most “radical” fits of fanaticism. Sons of liberty, we better get after it.

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

This very general, RINO formulation has been supported by all the candidates. Rubio talks about changing insurance regulations and tax credits for purchasing insurance, but it’s still very vague.

Addendum 1: Every variety of health care coverage must also be permitted. Perhaps committed “bachelors” are not john-boehner-1508926e2b4c7415interested in gynecological services. Contracts should exist for a variety of time periods. The typical one year time periods should not be the only contracts available. No candidate has taken this position.

Addendum 2: Furthermore, since, at least in California, crack cocaine will surely become legal, risk pools should involve participant reviews. The percentage of needle sharing drug addicts found in various career fields (such as education) ought to be factored into costs. Although no health insurance corporation should be allowed to mandate this, random drug and urine tests ought to be permitted in accordance with pricing reductions the market will bear. No candidate has taken this position.

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

Addendum 1: Let church groups and denominations form risk pools across state lines, on a federal level. Studies churchshow that those that pray, live longer, and that monogamous church goers live even longer. This is a sure way to avoid insurers that practice the outrages of refusing insurance to those with pre-existing conditions or dropping those who become ill with long term illnesses. Would you continue to attend your church if they practiced such abominations? No Candidate has taken this position.

Addendum 2: Although McCain got Bush foot-in-mouth disease while trying to explain his logic on this in ’08, it wasn’t bad: Corporations should be given tax write-offs equal to what they would have received for providing insurance to employees WHEN the employee accepts the employer’s optional offer of a “health care savings account.” The health care savings account would also be “tax free.” Ben Carson has discussed health care savings accounts as the salient feature of his plan, but he hasn’t mentioned taxation. Rubio has adopted a plan to give tax credits to individuals as a way to purchase health care insurance.

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

Addendum 1: At the state level let doctors form organizations, like law firms, but with additional powers. The additional powers will include the legal right to apprentice college students through scholarship/internship trumpprograms, binding indentures (as in ROTC and military programs) and the right to certify, without state of federal
regulation, such indentured students to provide health care at various levels of supervision. This Health Provider Physician firm may have these rights ONLY IF they make a list of services provided with “generic” pricing [pricing without complications, including typical procedures] AND ONLY IF they issue “insurance” utilizing approved accounting and risk management software. This would be sort of an “all you can eat buffet” pricing mechanism. [Bye-bye middle men… Bye-bye federal bureaucracies.]

Additionally, this new insurance model would change the paradigm. Doctors would have an incentive to keep patients healthy and happy so they keep bringing their money to the firm. Yet, they would be motivated to do so with as few procedures as possible. Additionally, they would be motivated to serve as many patients as possible as quickly as possible. It might actually pay to miss a few rounds of golf. No Candidate has taken this position.

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Addendum 1: At the state level, let doctors forming provider pools include arbitration language wcarsonith limits on lawsuits. This contract language can be part of risk pool pricing. Federal governments may rate each kind of contract as a consumer service, but they may not legislate concerning the language except to demand that a variety of legal options are presented.

*****

This was all Boehner had to offer in 2010. Now six years have passed, and insurance companies have become even greater crony capitalists. Even worse, the regulatory burdens on hospitals have closed many doors. We’ll need far greater resolve going forward. One possibility is to develop national licensure standards in addition to the state standards for licensure. In having clear national goals for excellence in medicine, medical colleges can take a clearer aim at common standards, and America can increase the supply of excellent medical professionals. An increase in supply would then decrease demand and lower prices. In exchange, a young person’s medical training might be reduced by an increased supply of medical programs. If the United States could produce as many doctors as lawyers, we’d have a far healthier future.

Finally, the GOP needs to decide whether or not “we” are going to cover everyone. Obamacare was supposed to do that. Instead, it simply increased regulatory burdens, decreased coverage for workers, and increased coverage for non-workers. However, it has not come close to covering everyone and is even farther from covering everyone adequately. Lowering costs is the first step. Perhaps, a combinations of health care vouchers and tax credits may be the best answer for our poorest. Great wealth, of course, is the true answer. America will do far better paying their doctors with oil and gas revenue than it will with pizza’s and Frappuccino. Trump has alluded to fair trade as a way to raise revenue to pay for Medicare and Medicaid.

End the Iran Agreement by Killing the Virtual Filibuster

With the Iranian Nuclear “treaty-not treaty- agreement” on the table, the voice of the American people as expressed kerry bowsin their legislative houses will be utterly muted. Why? Because an antiquated tool of the D.C. establishment has, again, slit the throat of the people’s voice. The Democrats will filibuster, and not in the old style manner of Cruz or Paul, but in the anonymous, effortless, no-commitment style of the 1960’s push-button filibuster, a style of filibuster actually enacted under an LBJ Democratically controlled congress in 1975. To pass the legislation that censors the Iranian nuclear agreement, conservatives and constitutionalists should kill the virtual filibuster and bid it good riddance forever.

The hour of action on killing this irresponsible filibuster has long passed. Because the push-button filibuster hides senate votes, it has allowed cowards to control our foreign policy and elite insiders to control our budgets. Today, not only will the cowards seek to appease Iran instead of stand, the cowards in the Senate will avoid a vote entirely, keeping their base acts from seeing the light of day.

The elitist Senate, since the August recess, has surprised the nation by displaying a noblesse oblige, hinting that they were, perhaps, inclined to independent thought after all. There was such a dramatic change from the usual snore and pull-for-party attitude that all America wondered. For a second, everyone actually thought that Senators were going to deliberate, a phenomenon not seen since befo1153re Watergate. For a glorious moment it appeared that the eloquent and noble minded Senate was planning to put what each senator deduced to be the best for the nation ahead of his or her own political faction. Yea, right…

This week, a per usual, as liberals returned to the city of their corruption, far from their families, their natural interests, and their constituencies, they reverted to kind. Marching in lock-step they now plan quash the vote of the Senate and House majority. They will simply silence it, for a vote condemning the oil-rich, Russian-led, Iran appeasement bill simply cannot be condoned. The liberal Senate silence us via the safe, censorship-proof tool of the “virtual” filibuster.

Since the Civil War, factional battle lines have never been so hardened. Into this climate of faction, enter mullahthe overreaching executive, the tyrannical courts, and a filibuster that effectively shuts the mouths of the American people. There is nothing good about any of this and, essentially, because of the 1975 cloture rules, the congress has become a dead letter institution allowing the other branches to become overgrown and hideous. End the “virtual” filibuster now.

As much as one wanted to suspend disbelief and be surprised that, after all their grandstanding, liberals went forward in lock-step unity, it is even harder to be surprised that the do-nothing GOP establishment chain of fools did not procure a simple up or down vote when this entire matter came up last spring. The GOP leadership, in fact every member of both houses, knew this would happen. They knew no vote on the most blatantly weak foreign policy ever initiated by an United States president would not even receivea Senate vote. Yes, they knew it. Yet they marched harmoniously together in a show of bi-partisanship. Why? Only those privy to cloak room agreements know for sure, but it is certain that, even if the GOP leadership really had a wit of sense, no deal with a straight up or down vote would have made it through the current Senate cloture process.

One senator, a Senator Murphy of Connecticut, claims that a veto fight would embarrass the country. This is proof that the cloture procedure has become a cloak of cowardice, censorship, and tyranny, for Palin-Rallies-Tea-Partiers-AP-Photo-640x480while a veto fight takes fewer votes than a cloture fight the liberals want no part of it. The liberals have no desire that the voice of the people is heard by their directly elected representatives.

A veto fight is the constitutional way the executive and legislative branches are to engage. The founders never envisioned the current fights over cloture as part of the legislative process. The modernized, no-commitment, liberal cloture, the push-button filibuster, is the way of the shiftless, corrupt, and irresponsible. The vermin are hiding in its darkness. Before whom does Senator Murphy fear embarrassment? Would he be embarrassed before Russia? How about Iran? Maybe he’s afraid of the mocking words of the Chinese? Are Murphy and the President afraid to defend the constitutional processes of a free people before the dictators and tyrants of this world? The push button filibuster is the way of cowards. It is time to end it once and for all and ending it to yell at the top of our lungs about the evil before us in Iran would be a lasting and profound historical statement.

The Scientists Supporting Obama’s Iran Agreement are Puppets

The scientists supporting the Iran agreement have immense skill in their areas of expertise, but foreign policy is not one of those. When the New York Times trumpeted the support of 29 “scientists” for Obama’s nuclear Iran rajast62agreement, a number of facts were misrepresented. However, this misrepresentation of scientific expertise as political expertise, accomplished by omission, is especially illuminating; for it not only shows how scientists can be made puppets, but it highlights a number of 20th century fallacies that are turning the West to into similarly enslaved wooden dolls.

It doesn’t matter how many times we find scientists whose entire life work is dependent on government grants, we just can’t believe that scientists are puppets. That’s because we have been virtually brainwashed into connecting the word “scientist” to both objectivity and wisdom. One wonders if “honest scientist” is about to become as much a laughing stock as “honest journalist” or “honest politician.”  One recent expose by the New York Times highlighted a connection between a clear conflict of interest and extraordinarily dubious scientific research finding that consumption of Coke and other soft drinks does not lead to obesity. Sadly, the objectivity of the Times was just a veneer covering over its failure to expose the backgrounds of the scientists supporting Kerry’s deal with Tehran.

Leaving the notion of objectivity among scientists who have been part of governmental bodies in the past, or who have had labs funded by government in the past (as many of these signers did), consider their wisdom. In fact, the slightest bit of honest journalism by the Times would have easily dispensed with the notion that, scientists or not, the key signatores to this letter of support are wise in matters of foreign policy.

For instance, one of the key signers, Frank Von Hippel, has been a proponent of unilateral denuclearization for decades. His understanding of the workings of nuclear devices may be excellent, but his policy application of this scientific knowledge has been extremely unwise.

Again, a second big name scientific signatore, Sidney Drell, believes nuclear weapons do not deter Drellmilitary aggression in the modern world. Such a presupposition might lead Drell to think that a failure of a nuclear treaty with Iran is a lesser evil than the military or financial actions needed to neutralize Iranian nuclear capability. Again, Drell’s scientific knowledge concerning the details of the Iranian agreement may be immense, but his policy application of his knowledge is extraordinarily inadequate.

Yet another big name scientist signing the letter in support of President Obama’s treaty with Iran, Freeman Dyson, also once favored unilateral American nuclear disarmament (p. 245). These three are among the four top names and typify the 29 signatores. In other words, when it comes to the subject of American foreign policy, this list of highly skilled scientists is basically another collection of far left radical liberals. If they are not financial puppets of the big government left, they are certainly ideological puppets: unseeing, lightweight, painted faces dragged about by the dark, hidden powers of liberalism as they are made to to dance in a false light of policy expertise and objectivity.

A comparison of Senator Schumer’s press release to the letter signed by the 29 leftist scientists clearly demonschumer-flag-pin-jpgstrates where science meets policy. For instance, Schumer carefully explains the weaknesses of the twenty-four day “waiting” period, despite the administration’s “innovative” approach of searching for tell tale radioactive isotopes. Schumer is fully capable of rebutting the “scientific consensus” of the 29 because of his policy and political expertise. Indeed, any dime store philosopher could go even further than Schumer in asking why on earth a regime would even ask for a twenty-four day waiting period if it was negotiating in good faith.

The cabarets of Western life are really only puppet shows. We’ve become enslaved to darkness and inhuman in our reckoning perhaps, in part, because we have been far too haphazard in drawing the lines between science and philosophy. Just as it is so easy to imagine that a consensus of 29 scientists must be right about the Iran agreement, so also, far too frequently, in every area of modern expertise we blur the lines and, in so doing, we drink falsehood with facts and madness with science. There is absolutely no logical reason to connect a knowledge of science with an expertise in foreign policy, but these random appeals to authority are so frequent in our culture that making the assumption has become second nature. The hollow callousness of the West has come from the sorcery of those who, often not being experimental scientists themselves, tell us that science teaches blind, materialistic atheism. That’s just a lie.fathers

Tragically, in the fields of archaeology, paleontology, in historical analysis, in public policy, in legal analysis, in psychology, in ethics, in virtually every aspect of modern society, we have, without blinking, allowed a person’s scientific or specific expertise in a branch of study to cover for an atheistic philosophy. We’re being blinded. It is imperative that educational institutions understand and teach the demarcation among the kinds of science, the limits of each category of science, and, once again, reach into our own American history to return to the philosophical logic that once made our institutions and our culture great.

Of Political Fanatics, Leftist Cults, and Totalitarianism

thisenemy

Unlike many German Christians, someone in America read Mein Kampf

A desperate, anti-American totalitarianism has all but made bankrupt our political, judicial, and educational institutions. Hitler, Marx, Stalin were political fanatics of this kind. Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln were leaders.

The first group put political ideology above truth and the human life. The second group willingly offered their lives to stand for what was right. The first group secretly amassed fortunes using their movements as fronts. The second group pledged their fortunes for what they believed in.

In America the new totalitarians hate their neighbor because of his or her personal thoughts.

Americans persuade; the new fanatics persecute.

And, no, both political parties are not equally guilty of this fanatic commitment to control the thoughts of their neighbors.  To make light of what is really a very dark state of affairs, the new American totalitarians have become so self-righteous that even God isn’t good enough for their party platform.

Totalitarianism is: “a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible (Conquest  74).” While every definition of totalitarianism is secular, recognizing the relationship between ‘political fanaticism’ and ‘religious fanaticism’ shows why the idea of America has, for so long, immunized the United States from the ravages of twentieth century megalomaniacs. Comparing the “passions” of the godless to the religious fanaticism America was designed to guard against shows how and why the principles of America still work.

Almost every in-depth discussion of totalitarianism ultimately touches on thought control. A totalitarian state, for some reason, wants more than a citizen’s tax dollars. It wants the citizen’s very soul. In the twentieth century the wars against totalitarianism have often been fought by those of personal religious conviction. Interestingly, the main opponents of medieval, church-influenced, ‘thought-control’ monarchies were also those of profound personal faith. In antiquity, totalitarian empires made no bones about the desire for citizens to bow before the emperor or Pharaoh as before a living god.

The American idea, in guarding against the historic evils, has been a saving balm against the lethal expression of both religious and political totalitarian regimes. Our founding documents, designed to frustrate tyrants, really infuriate totalitarians. William Penn is an example of American prescience. For real Americans, the ends never justify the means. Marxist politics would have had no chance in Pennsylvania while Penn taught. Not teaching the truths of real life in the schools and in the public square, as Penn once did, allows leftist cults to fester.

The well-weighed but often abused checks and balances in our legal system are only an expression of the American idea, and it’s thepenn idea that has protected us for so long. The founding precept of the American idea is a deep and abiding respect for truth, honesty, and for one’s neighbor’s political, social, and religious convictions. If we lose the heart of the American idea, our Constitution is no stronger than paper.

Americans now must decide what to do about neighbors who have rejected the American idea of respect, discourse, persuasion and constitutional processes to determine law. For many of their neighbors now reject the rule of law, the law of conscience and respect for the right of others to have a different idea. Many Americans are faced with neighbors for whom the idolatry of their political cause is enough to justify, hypocritically, democratically enacted laws and ordinances. An unapologetic, raw hatred motivates far too many to justify their unethical and illegal actions because of the “rightness” of their noble “goals.”

The definitions of totalitarianism are secular because all of the totalitarian regimes that have arisen in the twentieth century, with one exception, have been godless. If we would insist on the American idea of religious tolerance in all of our foreign policies and demand that tolerance at home, we could identify the totalitarian, cult-like elements of Radical Islam, engage them, and defeat them.

In the United States, hating the people who hold differing ideas began as a Leftist revolutionary tactic, but it has metastasized through a guilt-ridden, godless, and desperate culture into a fierce fury against any with ‘incorrect’ thoughts. This hatred is seething in every arena of American life and culture.

Marxists believed that their ideology was so noble that the ends justified the means, no matter how violent or how deceitful those tactics were. This proud Leftist lie then became a means of corruption so that no Marxist movement was ever “pure Communism.” How could one be?

meme2From this Leftist root has sprung many branches. Radical environmentalists place the life of “Mother Earth” above human life, and all who disagree are enemies. If coal workers become impoverished over CO2 emissions or if California farmers are ruined over a minnow, it’s all in a day’s work. These honest, hard-working Americans are acceptable sacrifices at the Left’s altar of earth worship. A compassionless, un-American hatred of all not fully committed to the cult dominates the ‘green’ movements.

The Left’s cult-like hatred of their neighbor simply for his thoughts has poisoned even our educational systems. This is apparent from anecdotal evidence of bias against conservative students and professors at virtually every public campus. That the root is poisoned is also tragically evident from the fruit.  Many incoherent articulations have become dogma in the ivory towers of learning. Such include: “the Darwin theory has now become fact!” or “Climate change is now settled science.” These bandwagon catch phrases for the uninformed are travesties of genuine academic knowledge. These aren’t the words of honest scientists. They’re designed to shut down conversation. Those who espouse such rhetoric demonstrate no respect for the ideas of others.

smelt

A recent survey found only a single Delta Smelt left in the wild. Countless farmers were ruined for one minnow.

Even worse, such rhetoric often appears to be the power-plays of guilt-ridden swindlers shilling for a Leftist educational power base of soulless men. A theory never evolves into a fact. Such is an absurdity on its face that convinces only when coupled with a bullying emotional appeal. And any science that is “settled” is simply not science at all. Science is the mathematics and art of questioning everything all the time. Scientists delight in the questions and ideas of others. Only religious dogmas must be accepted as “settled.” And there it is: the plain connection between Leftist hatred of others over their ideas and a religious, dogmatic fanaticism about their own views.

Western academic freedom has been brought to a horrid low. Many of our academics are simply a disgrace to humanity.

Is there time to speak of the institutionalized lack of respect for the ideas of others that has resulted in a judicial arrogance, a fanatical corruption of justice, that  claims it is right to fine a couple $150,000 dollars for not making a cupcake? Or of booing God in a national assembly? Or of bullying a presidential candidate for saying “all lives matter”? Is there time to review the history of an anti-war movement founded in a profound Christian ethic to one now based on cowardice and acrimony? No, there’s no time. We’re out of time America.

America was never built for the hateful, and no land can have liberty that is without a reverence and love for truth and for one another. Good will toward all, not the pureness of one’s ideology, is character.

Democrat-delegrate-voting-no-to-putting-God-and-Jerusalem-back-into-DNC-platform

Democrats booing a motion to include God in the party platform.

The judgmental are often hypocritical. Their accusations against others are a defense mechanism meant to distract from their own personal failings. Under an exterior of whitewash are dead men’s bones.

Of course this is a sword that could cut both ways. Those who believe in free enterprise could have a lawless hatred of anyone professing anything resembling communism. Sadly, and it’s approaching tragically, many of those who hold traditional American views of dialogue have assumed that they were discoursing with others with the same foundation. The Right has not awakened to the fratricidal hatred raging on the Left, at least not fully, at least not yet. When the Right fully awakens, no one can tell whether the response will be lawful or lawless, but the odds are, if they are still American, it will be a Godly response.

 

Top Evolutionary Scientists Concede Darwin Makes About as Much Sense as Space Aliens

The theory is called “directed panspermia.” It was first proposed by Nobel Prize winning evolutionary

Crickscientist Francis Crick in a 1973 paper he co-authored with biochemist Leslie Orgel. Basically, these two say that man didn’t come from apes (well not entirely); mankind came from space aliens!

The question is, why did these top scientists reject the gradualism of neo-Darwinism in favor of a theory that sounds, well, silly?

Crick was a thorough, dedicated scientist and mathematician who was, with James Watson, one of the co-discoverers of the DNA molecule. Crick, though, realized that the DNA molecule was too perfect to have arisen by chance. Even given the eons of time postulated by the big bang theory of the origin of the universe, the complexity of a single cell makes its appearance by chance combinations of inert chemicals and proteins utterly impossible.

Thirty years after his discovery of DNA Crick wrote this about the most plausible explanation of the spontaneous generation of DNA from RNA: “What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely (my emphasis) sequence of events.”

If gradualism, one of the theoretical elements of evolutionary change in the reconstructed Darwinism of the 1960’s, is inadequate in explaining the origin of life, then another force, besides undirected materialistic ones, must be in play throughout the history of life on earth. If there is another, non-materialistic, force involved in the history of life, the Darwin theory is incomplete, and, therefore, inadequate. But wait! What if there were aliens who seeded earth with life? This theory solves the origin of life issue and accounts for the missing non-materialistic force that would, otherwise, render neo-Darwinism utterly incoherent.

Likewise, Leslie Orgel, the co-author of the theory of “directed panspermia” and a pioneer in the study of RNA as the evolutionary precursor toaliens DNA, was also not satisfied with any contemporary theory of life’s origin. Orgel’s last comment on the subject was that “almost everything else about the origin of life (except a timeline) remains obscure.” For Orgel and Crick, space aliens were as likely an explanation for life on earth as the reconstructed Darwin theory of the 1960’s that we teach our kids.

Essentially, in supposing extra-terrestrial sources for human life, Crick and Orgel threw in the towel on Darwinism and the neo-Darwinism of the 1960’s. In other words, for those who care little for scientific jargon, over thirty years ago, two top scientists, Crick and Orgel blew off the scientific theories of cellular origin found in virtually every high school textbook word-wide. If you haven’t been in school for a while, see this very same debunked theory is proudly spun on page 31 of this international biology textbook.

While there are a number of “fringe” groups that bring this inconvenient truth up before the public once in a while, for the most part all of this breaking news three decades later!

Even more amazingly, guess what the buried lead is? Sure, Crick and Orgel decided that space aliens provided a more likely scenario for the origin of cellular life than our kids’ evolution-based science curricula, but the real headline is that, in contrast to the random selection involved in the Darwin theory, these two top scientists chose Intelligent Design as the best possible explanation for life on earth. Here is the abstract from Crick and Orgel’s original paper:

“It now seems unlikely that alien01extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms embedded in a meteorite. As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately (my emphasis) transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings (my emphasis) on another planet…”

That’s correct. The intelligent designer these top scientists postulate isn’t God… No… no…. it’s space aliens… But the buried lead is that these scientists endorsed an intelligent design theory for the development of life on earth over thirty years ago, and no one has said a word. Instead, scientists have been fired and or vilified for proposing such a scandalous notion. Courts have broken their gavels decrying any curriculum that even suggests an intelligent designer for life.

In the end, no one makes fun of the audacity of suggesting that space aliens designed life on earth as opposed to the traditional world wide belief in a Creator. That’s because modern Western culture prefers to believe in space aliens than in an Omnipotent Creator.

It hasn’t always been this way. Western culture for victorious generation after victorious generation with eyescientists as bold as Francis Bacon, as ingenious as Gregor Mendel, and as magnificent as Sir Isaac Newton, accepted and extolled a munificent Creator. The West has become a tragically perfect illustration of that which was written: “professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”  Today, from the Hubble telescope to the electron microscope, we can see the wonders of creation as no other people ever dreamt and what do we choose to believe in? Space aliens.

 

The Eclipse of the American Idea

The legacy of the Declaration of Independence is well over two hundred years old, but the American idea has never been in greater danger.

First, the idea that the individual has been endowed by his Creator with the sovereign right to a government that works for him has been eroded by a hundred years of creeping socialism, but recently matters have become much worse. The most enduring legacy of our Constitution, a liberty that has stood unscathed, suddenly lies in smoking ruin. America’s religious liberties are gone. Their light has been eclipsed.

In deciding to make homosexual marriage the law of the land, the Supreme Court has, for all practical purposes, made homosexuality a protected civil rights class like race, religion, and gender. They have done so without a constitutional amendment or any attempt to solicit the will of the people. That they could do this shows how far gone our Constitutional liberties already were, but the court has made matters much worse.

The proof that the Supreme Court of the United States has unlawfully rewritten the United States Constitution is that our religious liberties are no more. The self-evident proof that our religious liberties are gone is in the desperate and pathetic attempts of some conservatives to produce bills downloadprotecting what has now been ripped, in practice, from the U.S. Constitution.

Our laws protecting religious liberty from government, a model that has spread world wide, have been twisted into a weapon to affect the very persecutions they were once written to end. For instance, as a Christian, I may not agree with other Christian florists and bakers who refuse to participate in a homosexual wedding. Indeed, I might make points about Christian charity and its power to change lives. Nevertheless, my brothers and sisters are under no legal obligation to agree with me. That’s the American way. That’s freedom of religion and of speech.

When the courts add homosexuality as a protected class, the American tradition of no government involvement in religion is utterly undermined. In practical effect, a church that espouses Christian charity for bakers, tailors, photographers, and florists is favored by government while Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish religions that begin to perform marriages for same sex couples would be even more highly favored. Ultimately, churches that refuse to self-edit their Bibles concerning homosexuality will come in conflict with the force of anti-discrimination laws once written to protect their liberties. Whether they use this authority or not, our government has now been granted the ability to establish a religion or to persecute a religion over its views on homosexuality. Oh, by the way, you can bet they’ll use it.

constantine swordThe sword Constantine the Great drew in the house of God, Thomas Jefferson sheathed in our founding documents. Constantine did not mark the birth of Christianity, but he marked the birth of Christendom in the West. From that day until our founders took their stand, by special endowment or by the use of military force, European governments sponsored teachings and leaders in Christian organizations. More blood ran from Constantine’s sword over the course of European history than from the Black Plague. Once the New World was discovered, courageous people couldn’t get away from Europe fast enough. The Supreme Court has drawn the sword of Constantine again. America’s Copernican shift in the view of the relationship between good people and their government has been shrouded in medievalism.

A Tyranny of Judicial Madness Continues in Oklahoma

Recently, the Oklahoma State Supreme Court ruled that a statue of the Ten Commandments on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds was contrary to the Oklahoma Constitution because, the court held, the Ten Commandments jack-nicholson-the-shiningbenefited a religion. Which religion it was that benefited from the monument is apparently a somewhat abstract concept to the Oklahoma court. Nevertheless, even though the monument doesn’t benefit any certain religion, it must be damned because it is part of Jewish and Christian faiths. Logic is blind to its assumptions. In Oklahoma insane assumptions about religion have led to a judicial tyranny that history will characterize as madness.

Simply, a faith is not necessarily a religion. One may have a faith in a Just and Orderly Creator and seek Him by way of a variety of religions. One may even believe in the Christian Messiah and seek him in by way of variety of Christian denominations. Indeed, this last scenario was the one that the founding fathers were most concerned about. The great variety of Christian faiths that arose after the Protestant Reformation were welcomed without governmental judgment in the New World. Jefferson sheathed the sword first wielded among Christians by Constantine the Great.

A lie believed is a tyranny of the soul. A lie enforced by a government is grounds for its abolition. Legislators in Oklahoma are calling for the impeachment of all seven justices who can’t see beyond their highly elevated noses. That’s not enough. The Oklahoma legislators are also calling for judicial reformation, a reformation that bars the state bar from monopolizing judicial appointments. That might go far enough, but it’s still an open question. Attorney General Scott Pruitt spent far too much time emphasizing that the monument was historical in nature.

Arguing that the Ten Commandments are of historic importance to our legal system, a systemTen-Commandments-statue-JPG that has now ‘evolved,’ is simply inadequate to reformation. Tell the truth: the monuments to the Ten Commandments are a symbol of our common faith that a Just God rules; that from Him all justice proceeds and before Him all our human justice will be judged. This is not a religion. Catholicism is a religion. Classical Reform Judaism is a religion.

For a century, Americans and their justices have been fed on the fat of the lie that governments can exist without a soul and, like the dust beneath our feet, continue objectively on. It’s just not true. If our government loses its soul, its humanity, we, as a nation, lose ours. Every key idea from how the value of humanity contrasts with the animal kingdom, to the meaning of nature’s voice in the relationship between the genders in marriage requires a primary axiom for logical conclusions to foster laws. All of these matters require and depend on a faith that a just Creator, the God of Nature, is out there somewhere. This is not a religion. When it concerns matters of jurisprudence, it’s a philosophy. The founders called their version of this philosophy Deism.

The Deism of some of the founders was an Enlightenment view of the Divine Right of the individual and of the Creator’s limits on the rights of collective society, of government. When this faith or belief that a Just Creator is ‘out there somewhere’ changes into a belief about how people should seek Him, the faith can be named religious. Otherwise, a faith that a Just Creator reigns is the philosophic foundation for the panoply of all religions. (When Deism moves from its rational, philosophic, intelligent design ideas to worship of some sort, it, too, can be called religious; however, it is generally too disorganized to make it as a formal religion.)

For instance, apparently, the highly intelligent and well-educated Oklahoma justices ignored the claim Islam makes on the Ten Commandments. The claim is somewhat tenuous and is perhaps made by some for less than forthright TJFlag-ForceCannotDisjoinreasons, but, because of the claim on the commandments made by others in Islam, it can be fairly argued that also among Muslims, the role of the Creator as a lawgiver, One Who governs in the affairs of all people, is understood.

Apparently, a satanic church, in the firm belief that equality of outcomes is the same thing as justice, petitioned to have an idol placed along side the monument to the Ten Commandments. That idol is a summons to worship while the Ten Commandments forbid anyone from worshiping any stone monument. Hence, as a summons to worship, it does profit a religious viewpoint. Most importantly, a free people dedicated to laws and justice has no need to give equal time to a self-proclaimed god of lawlessness and evil.

Likewise, a Hindu group also wanted to place a symbol of its worship on the capitol’s grounds. If that symbol is not a call to worship, and if it is a symbol of the belief that a Creator somewhere rules and gives laws to people, put it to a vote. The Ten Commandments are genuinely elegant in appearance, eloquent in letter, and inspiring in content. Those are plenty of reasons for the electorate to favor one monument and not another. In any case, put it to the public, not to un-elected, poorly educated, elitist, shriveled heads with gavels for brains.

To make a long story short: A Hindu, a satanist, and an American walked before the bar. None got justice, but they all heard the insane laughter of evil men howling as they butchered a free nation.

Liberals Married the Arab Spring and Spawned ISIS

obama-muslim-300x265

Then senator Barack Obama on a visit to Kenya in 2006

It’s often claimed that the President of the United States is a Muslim and that because of secret ties to the Valerie Jarrett and Huma Abedin, he purposely supported the rise of Islamic fundamentalism among the Arab League, resulting, ultimately in the terrorist state ISIS. Indeed, the pattern of Obama’s failed foreign policies looks very much like a plan to establish ISIS. The greater traitor, the traitor that engulfed the Western media, the U.N. and the entire Obama administration was Harvard Liberalism. The elitist Liberals fell in love with the Arab Spring and spawned ISIS.

The pattern of Obama’s failures and the West’s are extraordinarily extensive. For instance, why did the administration in concert with the U.N. mount a seven-month air campaign to rid Libya of Muammar Gaddafi only to abandon post war Libyan reconstruction? While the mad-dog of the Middle East blamed Al Qaeda for what was, by all accounts, a surprisingly sudden revolution, was he wrong? Recently released emails show that Hillary Clinton was actually interested in arming the Libyan rebellion. If she managed to do this, it would certainly explain the suddenness of Gaddafi’s fall. But Gaddafi wasn’t wrong; Al Qaeda was behind large parts of the military forces supporting the revolution. Why didn’t the United States and it’s allies realize this?  They certainly should have. Wikileaks exposed a memo to the Hillary Clinton state department from the embassy in Tripoli explaining the strong Al Qaeda sympathies there.

Even more strangely, since a West Point study had identified Benghazi as an Al Qaeda hot spot, why wasn’t the U.S.hillary Consulate properly protected, and what was its purpose in the first place? Stories persist and evidence mounts that United States and their agents, at the least, monitored and didn’t stop the arming of Syrian rebels by shipments sent through Benghazi.  These are just two instances in which it appears President Obama intentionally forged policies to bring American enemies weapons. This, though, is an oversimplification. The entire administration (and the United Nations), not all of whom are Muslims,  either supported, participated in, or encouraged these ill advised policies. The Liberals in West senselessly supported the Jihadi Spring because, being senseless Liberals, they thought to themselves, ‘the Jihadi Spring are us!’ They fell in love. The result was ISIS.

Liberals had no idea what they were supporting. Sadly, even now it’s not plain that they have any idea what kind of evil they’ve fostered in the Middle East. The uprising in Egypt’s Tahir Square, for instance, was produced by long-time community organizers who met secretly for weeks and deceived both the media and the Egyptian Security forces into 450herecomesthemobthinking the riot was a genuine reaction to immediate events. This is textbook Liberalism. The New York Times simply frothed in raving praise for the Egyptian rioters who “fused their secular expertise in social networks with a discipline culled from religious movements and combined the energy of soccer fans with the sophistication of surgeons.” This quote touches on the involvement of radical Islam as “a discipline culled from religious movements.” For Kirkpatick and Sanger had no idea what they were talking about To them, it was Woodstock gone wild.

All the beloved Liberal themes were on display in Tahrir square including police brutality. The Liberal American media loved it and, some at least, still cherish the memories of that moonlit night when, “The mighty police force collapsed within an hour, fleeing into the night for fear of reprisal. I saw one officer shedding his uniform as he ran (Oh boy!). ” Elitist Liberals met their true love, and even now, at least one still reflected that she (the revolution) was “too perfect” to last.tahir

How could anyone have guessed the Muslim Brotherhood would arise from the chaos? After all, isn’t civil resistance intrinsically good? After all it’s down with “the machine”! Anarchy is freedom! But someone knew, and unless it’s hidden in Hillary’s email, that some one was not President Obama. It was, instead, Osama Bin Laden who was directing his minions to engage in the insurrection with a view towards having “the countries (in revolution) abide by the Sharia’s laws.”

Chaos never brings liberty; it always brings tyranny. That is because anarchy is a state that is by definition even worse than life under a tyrant. That’s because anarchy is, by definition, a state of affairs in which justice among mankind has been completely suspended. The civil unrest in the Middle East was not the American Revolution, but appeared to the Harvard Liberals to be their one true love, the Aphrodite of the 1960’s radicals. In their purple hazed-over love affair of the Jihadi Spring, they had no idea they were being manipulated by a repressive, cynical ideology that fully understood Liberalism and knew exactly how to exploit it.  And that is exactly the danger today. Liberals still can’t call the Islamic State radical Islam.

In Arab state after Arab state the elements of radical Islam blended in with the traditional ideologues of the West’s radical Left. Is it possible that elements of radical Islam have infiltrated a very Liberal far left American “regime” that, like Islamic radicals, seeks anarchy, lawlessness, and social unrest? Certainly, but it is Harvard Liberalism that calls anarchy liberty that is the real danger. Without this madness ISIS would not have reached ascendancy nor maintained it this long. Elitist, mindless Liberalism kills. Never forget!