Saturday, January 31, 2009

CNN Hawking Tee-Shirts Extolling Obama

Conservatives and other Republicans have long been aware of the bias of CNN’s reporting. Friends who have traveled outside of the USA report that the bias of CNN International is not only pro-liberal, but is actually anti-American. The only dispute I would have with this report is that it makes it appear that CNN is the most-biased, pro-liberal network, but those honors go to MSNBC. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that CBS, NBC and ABC are without liberal bias. Anyone who watched the CBS 60 Minutes report on Israel vs. Hamas was reminded of how biased CBS is against Israel and against conservative viewpoints. Thank God for Fox News, where we get some balanced reporting of the news.

By the way, isn’t it interesting that we first learn of this CNN venture from a Canadian news source, and not from our own, drive-by media?

How the News Became Propaganda

By Judi McLeod January 30, 2009 (Excerpt)

“The never-ending campaign of President Barack Obama finds a cornerstone in 24-hour television network CNN.

CNN, home of Wolf Blitzer and Larry King Live among other talking heads, now leads the Newsfront Cult called Obamamania.

While the viewers of most television networks watch the news, CNN viewers “wear the news”:

“Apparently CNN, having abandoned any effort to appear impartial, is now selling T-shirts that commemorate Obama’s newborn presidency,” reader Fred Dardick wrote in a Canada Free Press (CFP) letter to the editor yesterday.

CNN T-shirts include slogans such as “Obama raises hand, lifts a nation” and “Obama: It’s time to remake America”.

“How is it possible for a major news organization to get away with this?” asks Dardick.

“This is anti-American to the core as far as I am concerned. CNN may as well be considered an extension of the apparently never ending Obama campaign.””


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, January 30, 2009

Obama Badly Distorts America's Stance on Muslims

Obama Badly Distorts America's Stance on Muslims. For what reason and to what end? Is he just ignorant?

Outreach, Yes. Apology, No.

We've Never Been Islam's Enemy
By Charles Krauthammer
January 30, 2009 Washington Post

Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims by saying "to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.

Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world?

Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two Balkan interventions -- as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) -- were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing

And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed "as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran's radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. Embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage.

Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his chargé d'affaires.

This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations.

Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.

As in Obama's grand admonition: "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name." Have "we" been doing that, smearing Islam because of a small minority? George W. Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, when the fires of Ground Zero were still smoldering, to declare "Islam is peace," to extend fellowship and friendship to Muslims, to insist that Americans treat them with respect and generosity of spirit.

And America listened. In these seven years since Sept. 11 -- seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of cartoons -- there's not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the massacre of 3,000 innocents. On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage.

"My job," says Obama, "is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives." That's his job? Do the American people think otherwise? Does he think he is bravely breaking new ground? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and countless other leaders offered myriad expressions of that same universalist sentiment.

Every president has the right to portray himself as ushering in a new era of this or that. Obama wants to pursue new ties with Muslim nations, drawing on his own identity and associations. Good. But when his self-inflation as redeemer of U.S.-Muslim relations leads him to suggest that pre-Obama America was disrespectful or insensitive or uncaring of Muslims, he is engaging not just in fiction but in gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead.

Iran has already responded to the Obama overture. In perfect tune with Obama's defensiveness, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that better relations might be possible -- after America apologized for 60 years of crimes against Iran. Note the 60years. The mullahs are as mystified by Obama's pre-1979 (or 1989) good old days as I am.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Yesterday Began the Rebirth of the Republican Party

Yesterday all 177 Republican members (and 11 Democrats) of the House of Representatives voted against the Obama stimulus bill, which might also be called the “black reparations bill”, or the “transfer of wealth from whites to blacks bill”, or, more politely, the “pork for Democrats bill”. Obama carried the day, but it is hoped that he won a battle and lost the war. Over the next year or two or three, the size of this bill and its contents (and eventually its failure) provides plenty of fodder for Republicans and for the few, fair-minded journalists who are left – to point out just what Obama meant with the words, “hope and change”.

See this:

January 08, 2009 Robert Reich Blog (Excerpt)

The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers

“The stimulus plan will create jobs repairing and upgrading the nation's roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewage system, public-transit systems, electricity grid, and schools. And it will kick-start alternative, non-fossil based sources of energy (wind, solar, geothermal, and so on); new health-care information systems; and universal broadband Internet access...

And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most -- women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed -- will be shut out."

Robert Reich is a prominent Obama advisor and former Sec. of Labor under Clinton.

And this:
GOP holds the line: 244-188. This crap sandwich is all yours, Dems

By Michelle Malkin January 28, 2009

Own it. Embrace it. Swallow it. The House version of the $1.1 trillion Generational Theft Act of 2009 is all the Democrats’ doing now.

Not one Republican voted for it. (1 Republican had to leave early).

177 Republicans and 11 Democrats opposed.

No bending over today.

Finally. A party of opposition worth its name.

And now… on to the squishes in the Senate.

Savor this while you can.

Kudos to the GOP leadership for showing some spine. More, please.

And this: January 28, 2009

Congratulations to the House Republicans: all 177 voted against the Democrats' pork-fest bill. Eleven Democrats joined the Republicans in rejecting Nancy Pelosi's fiscal insanity, which, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed yesterday, would actually cost $1.1 trillion.

The Republicans put together their own stimulus package; they say that, using Christina Romer's methodology--she will be the Chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers--their program will create 6.2 million jobs.

Whether that's right or not, the Republicans' plan, unlike the Democrats', was actually geared to job creation. Here are a few highlights. The Republican proposal would:

* Reduce the lowest individual tax rates from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to five percent.
* Allow small businesses a tax deduction up to 20 percent of income.
* Finance a $7,500 credit for home-buyers who put down at least 5 percent.
* Expand Net Operating Loss carryback rules to give companies that have been profitable in the past but are now losing money prompt infusions of cash.
* Provide an above-the-line tax deduction for private health insurance to equalize tax treatment between those who have employer-sponsored health plans and those who don't.

For the Republicans, this vote is an important first step toward reclaiming the mantle of small(er) government and fiscal responsibility.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh

The deer-eyed and pea-brained Senator Reid found out last year that he shouldn’t lie about Rush Limbaugh in an attempt to destroy him. If you recall, Rush turned Reid’s action into a charity event that raised millions, and Reid ended up apologizing to Rush. Now the Democrats are trying again to “get” Rush, because he disagrees with Obama’s intentions to socialize our wonderful country and destroy our healthcare system. The housing and credit crisis that the Democrats caused swept Obama into office, but most of us object to his giving away our country to people who won’t work, or who spend all their money on booze and drugs – who won’t save and won’t plan for rainy days or for their old age.

The Democrats have put up a website with a petition aimed to destroy Rush. Their petition allows for entering your own comments. I signed the petition and said, “right on, Rush – keep up the good work”. If you wish, you can go to that website located here.

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 By Melanie Hunter-Omar

( – The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for saying last week that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail.

The petition includes a 19-second sound byte of Limbaugh, saying, “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’”

Meanwhile, Obama advised Republicans last Friday to stop listening to Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” Obama said to Republican leaders who met with the president to talk about the stimulus package.

The Republican National Committee did not return calls requesting comment.

All Americans want whoever is president, including Obama, to succeed in helping to pull our country out of the nasty slump we are facing, but we don't want to be changed into a European-styled, socialist failure in the process, and we don't want the health-care rationing that is a staple of the national health-care they have in England and in Canada.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Fallout From Obama Directive on Guantanamo Starts

It’s going to be a long and difficult four years. It has only been a few days since Obama announced his unbelievably stupid Guantanamo policy, and the first terrorist attack against American facilities has already happened:

From January 27, 2009

There was a shooting attack today at a checkpoint near the US embassy in Yemen:

SAN’A, Yemen – Gunmen in a car exchanged fire Monday with police at a checkpoint near the U.S. Embassy in Yemen’s capital, an Interior Ministry official said, hours after the embassy received threats of a possible attack.

No one was injured and the two gunmen fled the scene, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not permitted to have his name made public.

He said three suspects in the area were detained.

It was not clear who was behind the shooting, but al-Qaida has for years maintained a strong presence in the country, the ancestral homeland of Osama bin Laden.

This immediately follows the news that two ex-Guantanamo inmates returned to work for Al Qaeda in Yemen.

And Yemen’s about to welcome 94 more Gitmo detainees soon—but don’t worry, the Yemeni government has “vowed” they won’t return to terrorism.

SANAA: Yemen said yesterday it expected the repatriation soon of 94 Yemenis held at the US Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and vowed it would make sure they did not rejoin the ranks of Islamic militants.

A reasoned plea for Obama to live up to his oath of office before the bastards hit us here at home again:
A 9/11 family member chides the new President for closing Guantanamo terror camp

By Michael Burke January 25th 2009 New York Daily News

With his shameful order to close Guantanamo Bay, President Obama has perfectly filled the stereotype of the classic clueless ultra-Liberal - the one who can generate great passion for the rights of the guilty defendant and none for the innocent victim.

With a single stroke of the pen, Obama has delayed justice for the victims of 9/11, and in essence granted a reprieve for Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11.

America does not honor our "rule of law and the rights of man" as he put in his inauguration speech by such an action. Instead, this nation abdicated its duty to justice.

It seems the new President is too far removed from the victims of 9/11. Victims like 11-year-old Bernard Curtis Brown, a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. Everyone onboard was killed, as well as 66 people in the Pentagon. Curtis was on a trip with several of his classmates to California sponsored by National Geographic.

Obama and the Democrats have had a blind spot for 9/11 and have yet to show they have an ounce of understanding what happened that day.

Here is why we were attacked: Muslim extremists hate Americans and want us dead. Our policies in no way influenced the vitriol perpetuated on innocent Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.

It is asinine to believe that Guantanamo Bay, even with its scandalously biased coverage, has in any way inspired a single terrorist.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has offered unapologetic confessions for 9/11 and also brags that he was the assassin of journalist Daniel Pearl ("with this blessed right hand I beheaded the Jew") sits in an air-conditioned cell, innocent until proven guilty, receiving three square meals a day, specially prepared to satisfy his religious prescriptions, free medical and dental (already meeting Obama's specifications of health care as a constitutional right) and the free services of an army of court-appointed lawyers.

Welcome to the American way of life.

Obama could grant these men full constitutional rights in an American court. And when they are exonerated, we, the U.S. taxpayers, supply a luxury cruise ship trip back home. And they will still hate us and want us dead.

The only thing Obama has accomplished is convincing these mass murderers that we are too narcissistic, too foolish and too weak to protect and defend ourselves. Just as the terrorists believed prior to 9/11.

And we do not enhance our Constitution by applying it to those it was never meant to serve. Rather, the move diminishes and threatens the foundation on which our laws are built.

It is impossible to fight the war on terrorism, like every war, under the Constitution. Consequently, we cannot convict our enemies under it. They will get off. Once free, they will, despite having enjoyed the benevolence of our constitutional rights, strike us again. The Constitution then becomes a means of our destruction. If it cannot protect us, then what is to stop somebody from trying to replace it? Obama would lead us down the road to dictatorship.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were unprecedented. Everything we did in response was made up along the way. Despite that, and contrary to the echo chamber of criticism, America has managed, by pummeling Al Qaeda and liberating the peoples of two nations, to make the world a freer and safer place. We have successfully defended ourselves against any further attacks. And we have done it with a proper respect for the "rule of law and the rights of man."

Justice delayed is justice denied. That goes for the American victims of foreign attacks, also.

With this order to close Guantanamo, the countdown to the next attack has begun.

Burke is the brother of FDNY Capt. William F. Burke Jr., who was killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Deep in Debt, and Now Deep in Worry By Ben Stein

Deep in Debt, and Now Deep in Worry

By BEN STEIN January 25, 2009 New York Times (Excerpt)

NOT long ago, a woman in California called me for advice. She is divorced, with two children, and has a series of interlocking financial problems.

She lives in a lovely home in a stylish inland enclave. It has an interest-only mortgage of about $2.2 million that requires a payment of $12,000 a month, very roughly. It was last appraised at $2.7 million, but who knows if it’s now worth anything remotely close to that price.

The woman, whom I’ve known since she was a teenager, has no job or other remunerative employment. She has a former husband, an entrepreneur whose business has suffered recently. He pays her $20,000 a month, of which roughly half is alimony and half child support. The alimony is scheduled to stop this summer.

She has a wealthy beau who pays her credit card bills and other incidentals, but she is thinking of telling him she is through with him. She has no savings and has refinanced her home repeatedly, always adding to indebtedness and then putting the money into a shop she owns that has never come close to earning a dime. Now she is up all night worrying about money. “Terrified,” as she put it. She wanted me to tell her what to do.

What could I say? I did the best I could, but I had to tell her that she was on very thin ice.

Ever since, I’ve been thinking of the troubles of this sweet woman, consumed with worry about money….

And all of this is compounded again because my handsome son, age 21, a student, has just married a lovely young woman, 20. You may have seen on television the pudgy, aging face of their sole means of support.

I have been pondering what advice to give them about money. What I keep coming up with is this: Do not act like typical Americans. Do not fail to save. Do not get yourself in debt up to your eyeballs. Work and take pride and honor from your work.

Learn a useful skill that Americans really need, like law or plumbing or medicine or nursing. Do not expect your old Ma and Pa to always be there to take care of you. I absolutely guarantee that we will not be. Learn to be self-sufficient through your own contributions, as the saying goes.

This advice has served me well. It was propounded to me by my late father, who often said, “Be prudent.”

MY work as a freelance writer in Hollywood some time ago prepared me for extreme uncertainty. This is the most insecure existence imaginable. It mandates saving, ingenuity and nonstop work and creativity. Freelancers never have a day off. Never.

They know that they can go months without a check. They absolutely have to save.

They have to have five different levels of fall-back plans and financial escape hatches.

I am well past that now. Decades past. (I hope.) But the habits of thought linger, at least a bit.

I wish I could teach that work ethic to those close to me. I wish I could teach them that money is a scarce good, worth fighting for and protecting. But I very much fear that my son, more up-to-date than I am in almost every way, is more of a modern-day American than I am. To hustle and scuffle for a deal is something he cannot even imagine. To not be able to eat at any restaurant he feels like eating at is just not on his wavelength. Of course, that’s my fault. (I have learned that everything bad that happens anywhere is my fault.) And I hope to be able to leave him well enough provided for to ease his eventual transition into some form of self-sufficiency.

But I keep thinking of my friend in California, and what a perfect specimen of what we have become that she has become. I keep lecturing my son, as Pop lectured me, to learn prudence. I keep lecturing myself to learn it; I am far from a small player in the extravagance game.

Maybe, upon second thought, I did not learn well about prudence. Then I think that maybe it’s too late for far too many of us. The age when money was a free good, available in unlimited quantities just for signing a note, may well be over. What the heck will we do when we have to start acting like mature adults? How will we cope with limits? With reality?

America, a nation of free-spending Peter Pans. Where are our moms and dads when we need them? It’s their fault."

Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, January 23, 2009

My Big Fat Patriotic Promise

With our country facing a terrible housing and credit crisis that is swelling into a severe recession (caused primarily by lending practices forced on banks by Democrats), no American wants the new President to fail in taking steps to improve the economy. But that’s as far as it goes, as the following essay says very well:

My big fat patriotic promise

By Christine M. Flowers Jan. 23, 2009 Philadelphia Daily News

AT THE risk of sounding like I've been sucking on sour grapes for the past few days, let me say something that, for me at least, needs to be said:

We non-Obama voters shouldn't be bullied into supporting our new president.

Now that I've gotten your attention, allow me to explain.

It's become common since the election to hear people say "even if you didn't vote for him, even if you don't agree with his policies, we as Americans should all support Barack Obama." The implication: If we love this country, we want its leader to succeed. You know, the old "If we don't hang together, we shall all hang separately."

We all know how well that worked with George Bush, don't we? (In fact, haven't we had eight years of hearing that the highest form of patriotism is dissent?)

So it's one thing to wish President Obama well as a human being, to acknowledge the historic magnitude of his getting elected, to admire his sweet family and his mellifluent speaking voice and his prodigious brain.

But it's quite another to endorse his social, economic and national security policies if, in fact, you think they pose a serious threat to the fabric and essence of this country we all claim to love.

And that's where the bullying comes in. On Michael Smerconish's show earlier this week, a caller named "Ken" observed that anyone who didn't support this president had lost his grip, and pretty much accused critics of Obama as being unpatriotic.

Others have echoed those sentiments, reminding me of how exercised some critics of Sen. McCain were when conservatives accused them of being unpatriotic and dishonoring the military when they objected to his references to his POW days.

But regardless of who is doing the finger-wagging, it's pretty clear you can't tell someone to just shut up and get with the program if they actually don't like the program. Or if they think it's a blueprint for disaster. This is America, after all.

Home of the Free. Land of the Critics.

So here is my promise to our new president. I will pray that he and his family continue to be happy and healthy. I'll assume that everything he does is undertaken in a good-faith effort to preserve, protect and defend these United States (even if the words got jumbled on Inauguration Day). I'll continue to honor the monumental significance of his elevation to the Oval Office, and be respectful of those who are uplifted by the words "President Barack Hussein Obama."

But I won't be pressured into being quiet when I see him straying off course, pushing this country in what I believe is the wrong direction. And if success means he'll challenge the fundamental nature of everything I believe in and cherish, I won't root for his success.

So I hope he fails in trying to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion services. If he signs the Freedom of Choice Act as anticipated, it will severely limit the ability of those who oppose abortion on moral principles to avoid performing abortions themselves, or having to make referrals for the procedure. FOCA should actually be called "The Freedom to Impose My Choice on Others Act." I know Obama is an ardent abortion-rights advocate, but I hope he has the integrity to respect the religious beliefs of those who disagree with him.

And I hope he fails in intimidating employees to unionize. If Obama has his way, the Employee Freedom of Choice Act will become law, thereby eliminating the secret ballot (how un-American) that allows employees to decide whether they want to belong to a union.

Under EFCA, employees will be forced to publicly declare their vote. To replace the allegedly intimidating tactics of employers, we'll now be giving the same tactics to the unions. It would be sad and chilling if our new president condoned them.

AND HIGHEST on my wish list is that No. 44 fails in closing Guantanamo. It's become conventional to say it's a gulag and we have committed war crimes in its corridors. But just because the American Civil Liberties Union believes it, and just because a passel of liberal lawyers believe it's an embarrassment (with no definitive answer from the courts) doesn't mean it should be shut, particularly when no one has figured out what do with the "guests

For eight years, many people insisted that they'd lost their country. They detested Bush, hated his politics and condemned his choices when they disagreed. Loudly.

Good for them. Now, it's my turn. God bless America.

Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, January 22, 2009

In 2008 We Won Some and We Lost Some

Although 2008 saw a socialist bamboozle America into voting for him for president, not all was lost in the world of rational thought: man-made global warming alarmism is on the decline, and the so-called intellectuals supporting the Darwinian theories that there is no God lost ground big time.

Gore Losing the War: 59% Don't Believe Man Is Warming the Planet

By Noel Sheppard


He won an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize, but a recent poll suggests the Global Warmingist-in-Chief Al Gore is losing his propaganda war to convince Americans carbon dioxide is destroying the planet.

In fact, the number of people who believe that long-term planetary trends are responsible for the relatively small increase in temperatures in recent decades rose ten percent since last April while those viewing it as a man-made problem has decreased by six percent.

Talk about your inconvenient truths!

This has got to be bad news for a man that has bet his reputation as well as his very fortune on people buying into his junk science. As reported by Rasmussen Reports Monday:

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. [...]

In April of last year, 47% of Americans blamed human activity versus 34% who viewed long-term planetary trends as the culprit. But the numbers have been moving in the direction of planetary trends since then.

On the eve of the inauguration of a president that has bought this nonsense hook, line, and sinker, we can only hope Congress is paying attention to how the electorate feels about this issue.

Stay tuned.

The essence of Darwinism is that there is no God – that all living beings, including humans, came into existence through a series of accidents. This theory was turned on its head when the DNA code was discovered, a code that has been unchanged for hundreds of millions of years – a code that carries the plans for all life forms that exist today and have ever existed. Darwinism is dead when Dr. Francis Collins, the leader of the team that mapped man’s genome and the recipient of the President’s Medal of Freedom, and a former atheist, can say that “he looked into the mind of God” (when studying the DNA code), and then write a book whose theme is that “evolution is God’s plan”.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Will Obama Countenance a Second Civil War?

Bill Sammon of FNC reports:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on “FOX News Sunday.”

“I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it,” the California Democrat said. “And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past.”

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an “independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities.”

President-elect Barack Obama has not closed off the possibility of prosecutions, but hinted he does not favor them.

“I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he told ABC News a week ago. “On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.””

In my opinion, the cultural war between secular-progressives and traditional Americans will become a violent, bloody war if the Democrats in Congress try to criminalize policy differences by trying to punish members of the Bush Administration for attempting (and succeeding) to protect American lives. Obama isn’t saying much, although he appointed Holder, but Pelosi, Conyers, Reid, Holder and others are mouthing some very dangerous thoughts. As a minimum, practices that were originated by Carter and Clinton and merely continued by the Bush Administration (such as rendition and warrantless wiretapping) will be given much publicity, and, beyond that, some of us will be forced to support some violent people we normally shun and despise.
Said it before; I'll say it again: Bush will be vindicated

Charles Krauthammer January 16, 2009

WASHINGTON - Except for Richard Nixon, no president since Harry Truman leaves office more unloved than George W. Bush. Truman's rehabilitation took decades. Bush's will come sooner. Indeed, it has already begun. The chief revisionist? Barack Obama.

Vindication is being expressed not in words but in deeds -- the tacit endorsement conveyed by the Obama continuity-we-can-believe-in transition.

It's not just the retention of such key figures as Secretary of Defense Bob Gates or Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, who, as president of the New York Fed, has been instrumental in guiding the Bush financial rescue over the last year. It's the continuity of policy.

It is the repeated pledge to conduct a withdrawal from Iraq that does not destabilize its new democracy and that, as Vice President-elect Joe Biden said just this week in Baghdad, adheres to the Bush-negotiated status of forces agreement that envisions a U.S. withdrawal over three years, not the 16-month timetable on which Obama campaigned.

It is the great care Obama is taking in not preemptively abandoning the antiterror infrastructure that the Bush administration leaves behind.

While still a candidate, Obama voted for the expanded presidential wiretapping (FISA) powers that Bush had fervently pursued. And while Obama opposes waterboarding (already banned, by the way, by Bush's CIA in 2006), he declined George Stephanopoulos' invitation (on ABC's "This Week") to outlaw all interrogation not permitted by the Army Field Manual. Explained Obama: "Dick Cheney's advice was good, which is let's make sure we know everything that's being done," i.e., before throwing out methods simply because Obama campaigned against them

Obama still disagrees with Cheney's view of the acceptability of some of these techniques. But citing as sage the advice offered by "the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history" (according to Joe Biden) -- advice paraphrased by Obama as "we shouldn't be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric" -- is a startlingly early sign of a newly respectful consideration of the Bush-Cheney legacy.

Not from any change of heart. But from simple reality. The beauty of democratic rotations of power is that when the opposition takes office, cheap criticism and calumny will no longer do. The Democrats now own Iraq.

They own the war on Al-Qaida. And they own the panoply of antiterror measures with which the Bush administration kept us safe these last seven years.

Which is why Obama is consciously creating a gulf between what he now dismissively calls "campaign rhetoric" and the policy choices he must now make as president. Accordingly, Newsweek -- Obama acolyte and scourge of everything Bush/Cheney -- has on the eve of the Democratic restoration miraculously discovered the arguments for warrantless wiretaps, enhanced interrogation and detention without trial. Indeed, Newsweek's neck-snapping cover declares, "Why Obama May Soon Find Virtue in Cheney's Vision of Power."

Obama will be loath to throw away the tools that have kept the homeland safe. Just as he will be loath to jeopardize the remarkable turnaround in American fortunes in Iraq.

Obama opposed the war. But the war is all but over. What remains is an Iraq turned from aggressive, hostile power in the heart of the Middle East to an emerging democracy openly allied with the United States. No president would want to be responsible for undoing that success.

In Iraq, Bush rightly took criticism for all that went wrong -- the WMD fiasco, Abu Ghraib, the descent into bloody chaos in 2005-06. Then Bush goes to Baghdad to ratify the ultimate postsurge success of that troubled campaign -- the signing of a strategic partnership between the U.S. and Iraq -- and ends up dodging two size-10 shoes for his pains.

Absorbing that insult was Bush's final service on Iraq. Whatever venom the war generated is concentrated on Bush himself. By having personalized the responsibility for the awfulness of the war, Bush has done his successor a favor. Obama enters office with a strategic success on his hands -- while Bush leaves the scene taking a shoe for his country.

Which is why I suspect Bush showed such equanimity during a private farewell interview at the White House a few weeks ago. He leaves behind the sinews of war, for the creation of which he has been so vilified but which will serve his successor -- and his country -- well over the coming years.

The very continuation by Democrats of Bush's policies will be grudging, if silent, acknowledgement of how much he got right.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Palestine, Israel and its Peoples and Borders

The recent, clumsy attempt by President Obama to meddle in the life or death border issues of Israel has sparked wide interest in the history of this area and its peoples, which has motivated me to republish an article I originally published two years ago.

The original Mandate for Palestine, agreed to unanimously by the League of Nations in 1920, designated 124,466 sq. km. for the Jewish National Homeland, to be known as Israel. Here’s the map of that area:

Two years later, that 120,466 sq. km. had been reduced to 28,166 sq. km., as requested by the British trustees and approved by the League of Nation. The remaining 77% of the land originally proposed for the Jewish homeland was to become the Arab state of Jordan.

The creation of an Arab state in eastern Palestine (today Jordan) on 77 percent of the landmass of the original Mandate intended for a Jewish National Home in no way changed the status of Jews west of the Jordan River, nor did it inhibit their right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

These documents are the last legally binding documents regarding the status of what is commonly called “the West Bank and Gaza.”

The Jewish homeland was to consist of all the land west of the Jordan River, stretching to the Mediterranean Sea - and including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The Arabs would not have it. The League of Nations dissolved into the United Nations and the problem was handed over to the U.N., including the trusteeship of the British mandate to make a Jewish state a reality. The Mandate stood.

U.N. Resolution 181, known also as the U.N. 1947 Partition Resolution, was passed by the U.N. General Assembly, and implemented but never accepted by the Arabs. The Iraq spokesman took to the podium and put on record “Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision.” From Syria: “My country will never recognize such a decision [Partition]. It will never agree to be responsible for it.” From Yemen: “…the Government of Yemen does not consider itself bound by such a decision,…”

The Partition Plan was met not only by verbal rejection on the Arab side but also by concrete, bellicose steps to block its implementation and destroy the Jewish polity by force of arms, a goal the Arabs publicly declared even before Resolution 181 was brought to a vote.

Arabs not only rejected the compromise and took action to prevent establishment of a Jewish state but also blocked establishment of an Arab state under the partition plan not just before the Israel War of Independence, but also after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967), rendering the recommendation ‘a still birth.’

The UN itself recognized that 181 had not been accepted by the Arab side, rendering it a dead issue:

The U.N. partition began. More land was taken from the Jewish homeland.

The partition plan took on a checkerboard appearance. This was largely because Jewish towns and villages were spread throughout Palestine. This did not complicate the plan as much as the fact that the high living standards in Jewish cities and towns had attracted large Arab populations. This demographic factor insured that any partition would result in a Jewish state that included a substantial Arab population. Recognizing the need to allow for additional Jewish settlement, the majority proposal allotted the Jews land in the northern part of the country, Galilee, and the large, arid Negev desert in the south. The remainder was to form the Arab state.

The map now looked like this:

These boundaries were based solely on demographics. The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state’s frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.

Israel’s land which was originally mandated at 126,000+ sq. km., was now to be a mere 14,245 sq. kms. In addition to limiting Jewish lands, the immigration of Jews was also limited so that a majority of Jews in the land would never be accomplished.

Arab immigration had no immigration restrictions.

Israel accepted the partition, but in reality, it did not change or diminish the legality of the lands mandated for Israel - which still included the West Bank and the Gaza Strip - BECAUSE, the Arabs would agree to nothing which facilitated Jews in Palestine.

Creating the Arab state of Jordan in no way affected or “changed the status of Jews west of the Jordan River, nor did it inhibit their right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.”

Nothing from the time of the Mandate until today, changes the fact that under international law, the West Bank and Gaza is open to Jewish settlement.

Under international law, neither Jordan nor the Palestinian Arab ‘people’ of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a substantial claim to the sovereign possession of the occupied territories.

The UN Charter’s Article 80 implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations. The International Court of Justice has reaffirmed the validity of Article of 80.

In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.

All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law.

The new Jewish state was to have the right to self-determination of political, civil and religious rights. “Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs).”

The Arabs accepted nothing. They wanted no Jews in Palestine, under any circumstance - there would be, to this day, no acceptable plan to which Arabs would agree to living next door to Jews.

On May 14th, 1948, a temporary legislature of the soon-to-be Israel, accepted the U.N. partition and declared statehood.

Eleven minutes after, the United States recognized the State of Israel. On May 15th, 1948 Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria invaded the sovereign nation of Israel, crossing international frontiers, and the Arab-Israeli War (Israeli War of Independence) began.

By July 24, 1949, Syria had signed an armistice agreement and Israel had increased it’s land area by almost 50% over the U.N. partition plan. The resulting armistice determined Israel’s borders for nineteen years. Egypt gained Gaza in the armistice.

By Fall 1949, Jordan had control of Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The odd and secretive 1956 War began. The short but incomplete story is that Israel took Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, and then under threat by the U.S., gave it back.

Then came the 1967 Six Day War. In the Spring, Syria conducted terrorist raids against Israel, water was diverted by Syria from Israel and from irrigation projects for south and central Israel, although approved by Arab engineers as non-detrimental to Arab lands, were not approved by the Arab governments. In May, Egypt blocked the Strait of Tiran to Israeli ships. “Lebanon, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia all activated their militaries. Iraqi troops reportedly approached the Syrian and Jordanian borders while Jordan moved tanks towards the West Bank.”

Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia formed a “defense pact.” Egyptian President Nasser said “Our basic objective will be the destruction if Israel. The Arab people want to fight….” The tiny nation of Israel was surrounded by “some 500,000 troops, more than 5,000 tanks, and almost 1,000 fighter planes.” France, Israel’s major arms supplier, issued a “complete ban on weapons sales and transfers to Israel.”

Under the leadership of Moyshe Dayan, Israel decided to go to war on June 5, 1967.

After a three days of fierce fighting, especially in and around Jerusalem, Israeli forces defeated the Jordanians and gained control of all of Jerusalem as well as the West Bank, the historical heartland of the Jewish people known to Israelis as Judea and Samaria. Following an air attack by the Syrians on the first day of the war, Israel dealt a shattering blow to the Syrian air force. …on fifth day of the war, the Israelis mustered enough forces to remove the Syrian threat from the Golan Heights. This difficult operation was completed the following day, bringing the active phase of the war to a close.

Israel now looked like this:

The areas shown in bright green (Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem) were occupied by Israel during the 6-day war. Israel has since returned all of Sinai to Egypt in return for peace. Most of Gaza is currently under the jurisdiction of the autonomous Palestinian Authority (2002). Parts of the West Bank (see Map of Israel and Palestinian territories following Oslo II) had been ceded to the Palestinian authority, but these areas are currently re-occupied by Israel.

Following the 6 day war, Israel began building settlements in these areas.

The aftermath of the war was complicated, but one fact was all too simple: Arabs rejected all diplomatic attempts.

Some of [the] displaced people were able to return to Israeli-controlled West Bank and, along with their neighbors, witnessed unprecedented economic growth over the course of the next two decades. Israeli investment into the infrastructure of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, coupled with policies that allowed Arabs to move freely increased the standard of living of Palestinians, who were now able to work both in Israel and in the oil rich countries in the Middle East.

After years of relative prosperity followed, but Palestinians and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) insisted that they would replace Israel, not co-exist with her.

With continued PLO agitation of the people, violence became common. Israel made peace with Egypt and returned the Sinai. The 1993 failed Oslo Peace Accord had Israel giving up the Gaza Strip and the West Bank - which was accomplished with Israel’s withdrawal, including the ejection of Jewish residents in the area in 2005.

Once out of Gaza, nothing changed. The terrorists of Gaza Strip became slumlords and violence against Israel has continued.

Palestinian militants—with the support of their Hamas-led government—have used the evacuated territory to launch rockets into Israel’s pre-1967 borders, shelling residents of Sderot and other neighboring communities and causing death, injuries and damage within Israel. Since Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the territory has also become the site of deadly internecine violence among Palestinian factions, kidnapping of journalists, vandalism, looting and general mayhem. Far from bringing peace to the Gaza Strip, the withdrawal has resulted in less secure borders for Israel.

In the 1973 War (Yom Kippur War), again the Arab world came against Israel, as Egypt sought to regain territories lost to Israel in 1967. After two days of trying to recover from the surprise attack, Israel’s IDF blocked Syrian, Egyptian and Iraqi assaults and once again took the Golan Heights. By the time a U.N. ceasefire was implemented, “Israel had completely surrounded the Egyptian Third Army.”

How could they succeed when Palestinian leadership remained and remains committed to the destruction of Israel? For those deluded into thinking that Palestinians will accept “peace” with Israel, and co-exist next door to her - if only Israel will remove all settlements from wherever they may be…that just doesn’t wash. The issue is not the Jews in the settlements. The issue is the Jews in Palestine.

No discussion of the Israeli-Arab conflict is complete without taking a look at the Palestinian people. Who are they? Who did they evolve from?

The area known as Palestine was and is a geographic area, not an ethnic people. In other words, Arabs living in the area are not ethnically Palestinian. To say it another way: Palestinians are not a native people. “The word Palestine is not even Arabic.”

Palestine is a name coined by the Romans around 135 CE from the name of a seagoing Aegean people who settled on the coast of Canaan in antiquity – the Philistines. The name was chosen to replace Judea, as a sign that Jewish sovereignty had been eradicated following the Jewish Revolts against Rome.

In the course of time, the Latin name Philistia was further bastardized into Palistina or Palestine. During the next 2,000 years Palestine was never an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people distinct from other Arabs appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule. During that rule, local Arabs were actually considered part of, and subject to, the authority of Greater Syria ( Suriyya al-Kubra).

Archeologists explain that the Philistines were a Mediterranean people who settled along the coast of Canaan in 1100 BCE. They have no connection to the Arab nation, a desert people who emerged from the Arabian Peninsula.

Tagging the Arabs in Palestine as Palestinian was a mission fabricated by Arabs to attempt to assert the Arab right to the Jewish holy lands at the time when Jewish statehood was becoming a reality - but history shows that Arabs were never identified as Palestinians:

This is substantiated in countless official British Mandate-vintage documents that speak of the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine – not Jews and Palestinians.
Other examples:

The Jerusalem Post, founded in 1932, was called The Palestine Post until 1948. Bank Leumi L’Israel, incorporated in 1902, was called the “Anglo-Palestine Company” until 1948.

The Jewish Agency – an arm of the Zionist movement engaged in Jewish settlement since 1929 – was initially called the Jewish Agency for Palestine.

Today’s Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1936 by German Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany, was originally called the “Palestine Symphony Orchestra,” composed of some 70 Palestinian Jews.

The United Jewish Appeal (UJA) was established in 1939 as a merger of the United Palestine Appeal and the fund-raising arm of the Joint Distribution Committee.
Fifty-one countries acknowledged that Israel had an historic connection to the land eventually known as Palestine:

Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.


The rhetoric by Arab leaders on behalf of the Palestinians rings hollow. Arabs in neighboring states, who control 99.9 percent of the Middle East land, have never recognized a Palestinian entity. They have always considered Palestine and its inhabitants part of the great “Arab nation,” historically and politically as an integral part of Greater Syria…

The Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN in 1947 recommended to partition Palestine, and to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state” (not a Palestinian state, it should be noted). Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinian Arabs clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

The population of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq did not “evolve,” but were created by “colonial powers.” No “Palestinian DNA exists!

Unlike nation-states in Europe, modern Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi nationalities did not evolve. They were arbitrarily created by colonial powers.

In 1919, in the wake of World War I, England and France as Mandatory (e.g., official administrators and mentors) carved up the former Ottoman Empire, which had collapsed a year earlier, into geographic spheres of influence. This divided the Mideast into new political entities with new names and frontiers.

The prevailing rationale behind these artificially created states was how they served the imperial and commercial needs of their colonial masters. Iraq and Jordan, for instance, were created as emirates to reward the noble Hashemite family from Saudi Arabia for its loyalty to the British against the Ottoman Turks during World War I, under the leadership of Lawrence of Arabia. Iraq was given to Faisal bin Hussein, son of the sheriff of Mecca, in 1918. To reward his younger brother Abdullah with an emirate, Britain cut away 77 percent of its mandate over Palestine earmarked for the Jews and gave it to Abdullah in 1922, creating the new country of Trans-Jordan or Jordan, as it was later named.

The conclusion: don’t waste your energy and your angst blaming Israel for stealing the homeland of the Palestinians. Don’t obsess over the dead and dying in Palestine.

The time has come to recognize that Palestinian leaders have gravely failed their own. The millions of dollars of aid to feed and clothe the poor and oppressed seldom get to the people. Philanthropy buys weapons and means to attack Israel.

Westerners supporting Palestine believe that if Israel will only turn over their settlements to Palestine, Israel and Palestine will live side-by-side in peace. This is inane and vacuous thinking. It is the willing suspension of disbelief. It is pure anti-semitism. Serious thought cannot arrive at such a conclusion.

The Fatah Constitution Articles 12 and 19: Complete liberation of Palestine and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.”Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.”

The PLO Charter Article 15 calls the liberation of Palestine a national (qawmi) duty to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the “liquidation of the Zionist presence” in Palestine.

The Hamas Charter: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees….Hamas Charter Article 15 (a portion): “The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.”

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Tom Hanks Says Opposition to Gay Marriage is Un-American

We learned in the last few days that homosexual supporters of same-sex marriage are not only harassing and physically attacking people who exercised their rights to oppose this travesty of marriage, but have now published a website that shows the addresses of everyone who contributed to groups opposing same-sex marriage.

Obviously the developers of this website hope to instigate violence against people exercising a basic right of all Americans. Now the actor, Tom Hanks, has thrown his support behind these despicable people. We hope his future movies and his income suffer because of this, and we are saddened that this actor has shown himself to be such a fool.

Tom Hanks Says Mormon Supporters of Prop-8 “Un-American”

January 16, 2009 FoxNews

Tom Hanks, Executive Producer for HBO’s controversial polygamist series “Big Love,” made his feelings toward the Mormon Church’s involvement in California's Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show’s premiere party on Wednesday night.

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

It is likely that Hanks is doing this mainly to gain some publicity for his new HBO series. This is a form of money-grubbing that loses him respect among decent people.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, January 16, 2009

Change Coming to Washington, DC

Let’s see now. We have the corrupt and inexperienced Hillary Clinton as head of the State Department. We have the envoy to Blagojevich, Rahm Emanuel, as Chief of Staff. We have the tax evader and cheater, Timothy Geithner, as head of the US Treasury and in charge of the IRS. We have a politician, Leon Panetta, with absolutely no experience in intelligence matters as head of the CIA. We have a One-Worlder, Susan Rice as our Ambassador to the United Nations, and we have Eric Holder as Attorney General, who is mostly known as the person in charge of getting a presidential pardon for Marc Rich, and for the wall built during the Clinton Presidency between the CIA and the FBI, which the 9/11 Committee concluded was a proximate cause of 9/11.

There certainly is change coming to Washington, DC.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Monday, January 12, 2009

How Much Longer Can Darwinism Be Sold? Part 4

This is the fourth post in a series of articles on the evils and errors of Darwinism. So far, we have postulated that Darwinism, - the tenets of which furnish the philosophical foundation for atheism and materialism (I do know they both preceded Darwin), and for the actions of Stalin and Hitler in exterminating millions, - is correct about some things and wrong about others.

That which Darwin got wrong, however, is crucial. We have seen how the DNA code structure argues conclusively for the tenet that we are all related in some way; but that same DNA code also argues conclusively that there had to be a designer to produce such a perfect code millions and maybe billions of years ago – a code that remains unchanged in every living thing to this day. The fossil record, however, and the absence of transitional forms (only a pitiful few have been discovered among the millions of fossils found, and those found are questionable) shows that there is no such thing as a single “tree of life”, but rather many trees and telephone poles.

Today I want to discuss random mutation and natural selection. In this I am heavily influenced by the works of the microbiologist, Dr. Michael Behe. Random mutation happens frequently when the DNA code is accidentally altered in the embryo of an offspring. If the mutation is favorable to survival and passed on to the offspring’s offspring, it will gradually spread throughout the population. Darwin was not aware in his time how this might happen, but observed that small, beneficial changes did occur in this manner in his observations in the Galapalos Islands. There is no argument that this has happened throughout history over and over again; this is called ‘microevolution’. Darwin’s next point, however, is a leap of faith that is also crucial, and has been completely disproved by Behe and others – that these random mutations can accumulate to the point where new body structures and even new life forms can be assembled – a process that is called ‘macroevolution’.

The rate at which favorable mutations can build on each other has not been possible to analyze realistically until recently because of the large number of specimens and the large number of generations that need to be followed and studied. The likelihood of a favorable, random mutation (most mutations are unfavorable) occurring and spreading is dependent on the size of the population and on the number of generations there are in the time frame available; the larger the population and the more generations, the greater the likelihood of a favorable mutation occurring and taking hold.

Behe knew, however, that there are organisms with immense populations, which reproduce rapidly and which have been studied thoroughly for many years – such as malaria, e coli and HIV bacteria. One of his contributions is to extrapolate from this knowledge relationships and probabilities that can apply in general. Malaria, for example, develops resistance to drugs fairly rapidly, through random mutations and natural selection, but multiple mutations occur infrequently, and when the time frame is compared to the population sizes and the inter-generational times of other species, like humans, it becomes evident that only minor evolutionary changes have had the time to occur in humans and in other species. The odds against major changes requiring multiple mutations are so enormous as to be impossible.

Behe found that in malaria bacteria, the odds of one mutation that gave resistance to a drug to be about one in a trillion, and the odds of multiple mutations to be about one in a hundred billion billion.

From “The Edge of Evolution”:
“If all of these huge numbers make your head spin, think of it this way. The likelihood that homo sapiens achieved any single mutation of the kind required for malaria to become resistant to chloroquine – not the easiest mutation, to be sure, but still only a shift of only two amino acids – the likelihood that such a mutation could arise just once in the entire course of human lineage is minuscule – of the same order as, say, the likelihood of you personally winning the Powerball lottery by buying a single ticket.”

Don’t lose sight of the fact that Behe is talking here of the odds of a single, complex mutation. The odds of successive mutations creating new body parts or new body forms are incalculable and impossible.

Behe had already shown in a previous work that cells contain minute machines that have several parts working together to some common purpose – and could not possibly have evolved - since the specialized parts had no other function except as a working member of the molecular machine. Those who have tried to show him wrong, like Miller, have fallen far short. Behe, then, has shown us once again that there must be a designer behind the grand scheme of life.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, January 11, 2009



January 7, 2009 By RALPH PETERS New York Post

WOULD you ask your accountant to perform brain surgery on your child? That's the closest analogy I can find to the choice of Democratic Party hack Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

Earth to President-elect Obama: Intelligence is serious. And infernally complicated. When we politicize it - as we have for 16 years - we get 9/11. Or, yes, Iraq.

The extreme left, to which Panetta's nomination panders, howled that Bush and Cheney corrupted the intelligence system. Well, I worked in the intel world in the mid 1990s and saw how the Clinton team undermined the system's integrity.

Al Qaeda a serious threat? The Clinton White House didn't want to hear it. Clinton was the pioneer in corrupting intelligence. Bush was just a follow-on homesteader.

Now we've fallen so low that left-wing cadres can applaud the nomination of a CIA chief whose sole qualification is that he's a party loyalist, untainted by experience.

The director's job at the CIA isn't a party favor. This is potentially a matter of life and death for thousands of Americans. But the choice of Panetta tells us all that Barack Obama doesn't take intelligence seriously.

Mark my words: It'll bite him in the butt.

After the military, the intel community is the most complex arm of government. You can't do on-the-job training at the top. While a CIA boss needn't be a career intelligence professional, he or she does need a deep familiarity with the purposes, capabilities, limitations and intricacies of intelligence.

Oh, and you'd better understand the intelligence bureaucracy.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), who was blindsided - and appalled - by the Obama mafia's choice, has the essential knowledge of how the system works. She, or a similar expert, should have gotten this nod. But the president-elect wanted a clean-slate yes-man, not a person of knowledge and integrity.

We're witnessing the initial costs of Obama's career-long lack of interest in foreign policy, the military and intelligence. He doesn't think the top job at the CIA's important and just wants political cover on that flank. (Guess we got Panetta because Caroline Kennedy has another engagement.)

Forget a "team of rivals." Obama's creating a campaign staff for 2012.

Of course, he's reeling from the shrill rage of the crowd over his nomination of grown-ups to be his national-security adviser, director of national intelligence, administrator of veterans' affairs and, yes, secretary of state. (By the way, how could Hillary be dumb enough to accept a job where success is impossible?)

Panetta's appointment is a sop to the hard left, a signal that intelligence will be emasculated for the next four - or eight - years.

Think morale's been bad at the CIA? Just wait.

Conservatives played into this scenario by insisting that any CIA analysis that didn't match the Bush administration's positions perfectly amounted to an attack on the White House. Well, sorry. The intelligence community's job isn't to make anybody feel good - its core mission is to provide nonpartisan analysis to our leaders.

To be a qualified D-CIA, a man or woman needs a sophisticated grasp of three things: The intel system, foreign-policy challenges and the Pentagon (which owns most of our intelligence personnel and hardware). Panetta has no background - none - in any of these areas. He was never interested.

If you handed Leon Panetta a blank map of Asia, I'd bet my life he couldn't plot Baghdad, Kabul or Beijing within 500 miles of their actual locations. (Maybe he can see China from his California think tank?)

This shameless hack appointment is the first action by the incoming administration that seriously worries me. Get intelligence wrong and you get dead Americans.

Ralph Peters was a career intelligence officer in the US Army.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, January 09, 2009

Obama Has Sentenced My Grandchildren to Death

This great and wonderful nation has survived many disasters and near-defeats. It will survive the appointment of the corrupt and inexperienced Hillary Clinton to head the State Department. It will survive the appointment of the One-Worlder, Susan Rice, to be our Ambassador to the United Nations. We may not survive, and our grandchildren and their children WILL not survive the appointments of Leon Panetta to head the CIA and Eric Holder to be the nation’s Attorney General.

One thing that President Bush got right was his recognition of the threat to our safety posed by the Islamic fundamentalists who want to kill us. His decisions to go into Afghanistan, employ intensified surveillance techniques and rough questioning, and also remove the menace of Saddam have kept us safe for seven years – years when every person with a brain expected the next disaster to be imminent.

I have tried to limit my criticism of Obama since his election, because he will be our next President and needs our support in meeting the crises we face as a nation and as a people, but these appointments show his utter lack of understanding of the seriousness of the threat militant Muslims pose to us or of his understanding of what it will take to keep this threat contained until it fades into the background – which may take a generation or two to accomplish.

In politicizing the CIA by appointing Leon Panetta, who knows nothing about intelligence matters, and in ignoring Eric Holder’s role in the disastrous decision made in the Clinton years to separate the CIA and the FBI from sharing intelligence, Obama has sentenced my grandchildren and/or their children to a fiery death from terrorist bombs. This makes me very angry. Democrats who say they are patriotic and/or conservative must join with Republicans to oppose these appointments.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

More on Darwinism: Homology and DNA

This is the third in a continuing series of posts on the evils and errors of Darwinism. My first post pointed out that the fossil record showed exactly the opposite of what Darwin had proposed – which was a single “tree of life” (Universal Common Descent) in which every living organism descended on branches from an original, single celled being (LUCA), and that we all descended from LUCA and are the product of random changes. Instead the fossil record clearly shows an orchard with many trees that have some branches and many trees that look like telephone poles because a life form often appears suddenly and then later disappears with no apparent evolutionary changes over its lifespan.

My second post dealt with the harm that Darwinism has done to mankind by providing a rationale for everything from eugenics and unlimited abortion to the starvation of Russian peasants and the slaughter of Germany’s Jews.

Today I want to discuss what the scientists call “homology” – common evolutionary origins, either major forms like arms and wings or similar eyes, or similarities at the molecular level. For years, Darwinists have liked to point out that the similarities of the bone structures and the workings of arms, wings and flippers is evidence of common descent, while skeptics replied that the structures only show that a particular design is best for a particular purpose and does not show common descent any more than an airplane is descended from an automobile because both have wheels.

Although the same can be said of similarities at the molecular level, the discovery of the DNA code and its role in the construction and assembly of the protein molecules that make up all life forms changed everything. In my opinion, the DNA code system, which is basically the same in every living being and has been found to be the same in fossils many millions of years old, is a two-edged sword. An honest skeptic of Darwinism could no longer maintain that the available evidence disproved descent with modification, it only proved that the single “tree of life” proposed by Darwin and steadfastly defended by Darwinists was in error; however the evidence that we are all somehow related, whether on a branch of trees in the orchard or connected to the telephone poles there is conclusive.

The two-edged sword situation, however, arises from the question of how evolution, which relies on the accumulation of small, random changes, can possibly explain the incredible complexity and power of the DNA code, which appears to be both universal and eternal – and which is useless except as a finished, impossibly-sophisticated, information system product. Evolution absolutely cannot account for this. The DNA code proves that there was and is a “designer” whose intelligence and goals we can never understand – but also that we are, in fact, related to the monkeys, but not necessarily through an evolutionary process.

Dr. Francis Collins, the leader of the massive project that successfully decoded the human genome, and formerly an atheist, said that in defining the human genome he had “Seen the mind of God”. He went on to write a book, "The Language of God”, in which he writes of his experience and his new faith.

We still have to examine what the subjects of embryology, natural selection and mutation, and irreducibly complex machines can tell us, but so far we have seen that Darwin was only partially correct about common descent, that similarities in anatomy seem to prove nothing, and that the DNA code (which was unknown to Darwin) has to be the product of intelligent design. More to come in future posts.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Funny Business in Minnesota

Ann Coulter had the stolen election in Minnesota correctly pegged back in December. Now the Wall St. Journal brings to light the extent of the corruption by Democrat politicians and officials going on in this state – apparently successfully throwing the election to Franken.


by Ann Coulter
December 17, 2008 (Excerpt)

"It's bad enough that the Republican Party can't prevent Democrats from voting in its primaries and saddling us with The New York Times' favorite Republican as our presidential nominee. If the Republican Party can't protect an election won by the incumbent U.S. senator in Minnesota, there is no point in donating to the Republican Party.

The day after the November election, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman had won his re-election to the U.S. Senate, beating challenger Al Franken by 725 votes.

Then one heavily Democratic town miraculously discovered 100 missing ballots. And, in another marvel, they were all for Al Franken! It was like a completely evil version of a Christmas miracle.

As strange as it was that all 100 post-election, "discovered" ballots would be for one candidate, it was even stranger that the official time stamp for the miracle ballots printed out by the voting machine on the miracle ballots showed that the votes had been cast on Nov. 2 -- two days before the election.

Democratic election officials in the miracle-ballot county simply announced that their voting machine must have been broken. Don't worry about it -- they were sure those 100 votes for Franken were legit.

Then another 400-odd statistically improbable "corrections" were made in other Democratic strongholds until -- by the end of election week -- Coleman's lead had been whittled down to a mere 215 votes.”"

In my opinion, the real question in this election is how anyone could vote for this obvious lunatic, Al Frankin.
Funny Business in Minnesota

JANUARY 5, 2009, Wall Street Journal

In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken.

Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals

In other cases, the board has been flagrantly inconsistent. Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes.

Meanwhile, a Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct. This gave Mr. Franken a net gain of 37 votes, which means he's benefited both ways from the board's inconsistency.

And then there are the absentee ballots. The Franken campaign initially howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. Many Franken-leaning counties did so, submitting 1,350 ballots to include in the results. But many Coleman-leaning counties have yet to complete a re-examination. Despite this lack of uniformity, and though the state Supreme Court has yet to rule on a Coleman request to standardize this absentee review, Mr. Ritchie's office nonetheless plowed through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees this weekend, padding Mr. Franken's edge by a further 176 votes.

Both campaigns have also suggested that Mr. Ritchie's office made mistakes in tabulating votes that had been challenged by either of the campaigns. And the Canvassing Board appears to have applied inconsistent standards in how it decided some of these challenged votes -- in ways that, again on net, have favored Mr. Franken.

The question is how the board can certify a fair and accurate election result given these multiple recount problems. Yet that is precisely what the five members seem prepared to do when they meet today. Some members seem to have concluded that because one of the candidates will challenge the result in any event, why not get on with it and leave it to the courts? Mr. Coleman will certainly have grounds to contest the result in court, but he'll be at a disadvantage given that courts are understandably reluctant to overrule a certified outcome.

Meanwhile, Minnesota's other Senator, Amy Klobuchar, is already saying her fellow Democrats should seat Mr. Franken when the 111th Congress begins this week if the Canvassing Board certifies him as the winner. This contradicts Minnesota law, which says the state cannot award a certificate of election if one party contests the results. Ms. Klobuchar is trying to create the public perception of a fait accompli, all the better to make Mr. Coleman look like a sore loser and build pressure on him to drop his legal challenge despite the funny recount business.

Minnesotans like to think that their state isn't like New Jersey or Louisiana, and typically it isn't. But we can't recall a similar recount involving optical scanning machines that has changed so many votes, and in which nearly every crucial decision worked to the advantage of the same candidate. The Coleman campaign clearly misjudged the politics here, and the apparent willingness of a partisan like Mr. Ritchie to help his preferred candidate, Mr. Franken. If the Canvassing Board certifies Mr. Franken as the winner based on the current count, it will be anointing a tainted and undeserving Senator.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Darwinism and the Dehumanization of Us All

In my last post on Darwinism and on the evils that have flowed from its tenets, I received many comments from people who disagreed with me on the merits – and also from those who felt it was foolish to blame Darwinism for some of the major evils in the world. Some had never considered the connection, and others thought that there was no connection between Darwinism and such occurrences as the deliberate starvation of millions of Russian peasants or the slaughter of six million Jews by Hitler. Some who commented were driven to absolute distraction that anyone would question Darwinism or make these connections.

I must be very lucky because the very next day, one of the most insightful websites in existence, “The American Thinker”, posted a column on this very subject. I present it below in its entirety:

The Diamond Anniversary of Dehumanization

By Bruce Walker January 05, 2009 The American Thinker

Seventy-five years ago this month, one of the most insidious laws in human history came into effect in Nazi Germany. The innocent sounding name was The Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring. It was the ghastly pinnacle of an unholy theory of human eugenics. Darwinism -- not the Theory of Evolution, per se, but the sinister notion that natural selection made God superfluous -- liberated man from his obligation to treat fellow men as special creatures in a divinely ordered universe.

In 1915, Canon McClure in his book, Germany's War Inspirers, noted how Germans slid toward eugenics as a replacement of eugenics for traditional religion. He talks of people openly calling for eugenics having "strong claims to become an orthodox religious tenet of the future" and "Eugenics becoming a religious dogma among mankind." He also noted that the nihilist Nietzsche was a "pioneer of Eugenics."

In his 1943 book, We Have Seen Evil, Rom Landau notes that Germany before the First World War showed a nation that was already close to the brink of spiritual emptiness:

"The antidote to the precariousness of the new present and the hopelessness of the future was sought by experimenting with unending sensual thrills -- from drink and drugs to every form of sexual excess....The license in sexual life revealed a sensual depravity that had always been there but had been kept disguised."

Margaret Sanger, about this time, had advocated treating humans no differently than cattle. She was a member of the Socialist Party in America. Like Hitler and other true socialists, Sanger believed in the perfectibility of man by man. Inextricably linked to this was an embrace of reproductive morality in general as simply a plastic concept of invented principles. This included support of the wholesale practice of "medical" abortions in New York decades before Roe v. Wade, as described in Suicide Bent, a 1945 book by David Goldstein.

Like Sanger, the Germans before Hitler had come to power had adopted the same sort of looseness and apathy about human reproduction and procreation. Pierre Vienot, in his 1934 book, Is Germany Finished? wrote of German society before the Nazis came to power:

"It really represents a moral transformation: the discarding of the notion of morality in sexual matters...sexual life, especially among the younger generation, is no longer regarded in itself from the standpoint of sin...the majority of girls, even in the middle class, look upon themselves as totally free."

The same German people who gave Hitler power, long before that fatal step, repudiated all those values associated with the sacredness of human life, all those Judeo-Christian morals connected to the idea of man as made in the image of God, all those divisions of man from beast. It was an easy step from the irreligious character of pre-Nazi Germany to The Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring.

Many people around the world applauded this forced sterilization of "Life unworthy of life." It was such a tantalizingly simple shift: We, humans, are both animals and gods; some of us are more animals and others of us are more gods; we, not Providence, make the future; we, the wisest and the best, will be fruitful and inhabit posterity; they, the defective and the worst, will be left behind in our manmade evolution to some manmade Heaven. Why should disease be carried from generation to generation? If we are farm animals, then there is no reason. The Nazis, along with all the other socialists and Leftists on the planet, have always thought of us as just animals.

The Nazis moved, quite logically, along the path of improving the stock of the human race. In his 1941 book, Education for Death: The Making of the Nazi, Gregor Ziemer describes the great care given to the right stock of boys and girls to breed and the forced sterilization of the wrong stock of boys and girls. This was more than simply Nazi policy: It was the almost inevitable consequence of a German people which had long since abandoned all faith in God.

Then quickly followed the most patently horrific aspects of a latently horrific viewpoint: Why not just kill the Jews? Why allow Gypsies to exist? What purpose did Slavic people have? If we are all merely farm animals, one animal must be the farmer. Why not the German people? Why not the Nazi Party? Once the sanctity of life is abandoned, there is no trajectory but free fall to ethical oblivion.

Where are we today? Abortion is so commonplace in the civilized world that only something like postnatal infanticide faintly stirs our conscience. Assisted suicide, human cloning, and every attainable gap that once separated us from the rest of Creation has been breached with delight. We are part of the earth, part of the Animal Kingdom, part of Mother Earth so worshipped by the Nazis.

Ancient Judaism has a beautiful allegory: When the dirtiest beggar walks down the darkest alley in the world, he is preceded by a herald of angels, proclaiming to everything before him: "Make way! Make way for the image of the Lord!"

Christianity believes that man was so special in the universe that God was born as man, walked as man, and died as man. This system of fidelity to human life is the only anchor which we have against the feral mask of nature. God plants, God culls, God brings forth life. When we reject that truth, we reject our own souls. After that always comes vast, numb, black evil.

Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and his recently published book, The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.

As we look around at the rapidly increasing corruption of American society, as seen in our political discourse, in abortion on demand, in our drug use, in the destruction of children and families, in the pornography and violence in our movies and television, etc., etc., we feel an obligation to do something to stop this decline. That ‘something’ always comes back to regaining the moral compass that is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and on the concept that mankind is a special creation of God. This is why the discrepancies in the Darwinian theory involving macroevolution must be exposed, and the new scientific discoveries that bear on this question brought to light. Since Darwinism provided the basis for many of the most immense and heinous evils of our time, exposing Darwinism’s falsities is a necessary first step toward a more decent society.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, January 04, 2009

How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.

Liberals, who are quite often atheists, have long been in control of our media and our educational institutions, and they fiercely punish anyone who would depart from a vigorous defense of Darwinism – the philosophy that supports and gives substance to their atheism and its “anything goes” corollary – Rousseau-lian pleasure-seeking without responsibility or consequences. Fortunately a growing group of courageous scientists are succeeding in pointing out the fallacies associated with Darwinism (or Neo-Darwinism, its more modern form).

There are several areas of interest that bear on the central tenets of Darwinism, including the fossil record, homology, embryology, biogeography, and natural selection and mutation. Today let’s examine just one area – the fossil record.

Darwin noted that different layers of the planet yielded different fossils which usually varied from the simplest, in older layers, to more-complex, in younger, higher layers. Together with other evidence he considered supportive, Darwin theorized that there was a ‘tree of life’, with all beings that ever lived developing along branches that flowed upwards from an original, simple, single-celled organism. As we all know, Darwin also believed that higher level creatures were the result of naturally occurring variations that, over geologic time, created new forms and new species.

Darwin believed that extensive studies of the fossil record would reveal this ‘tree of life’ more clearly, and that many transitional forms would be found. He went so far as to say that the absence of such discoveries would disprove his thesis. Unfortunately for Darwinists, just the opposite has exactly happened. Among the millions of fossils found, only three or four have, arguably, offered the possibility of being transitional forms. Even worse, the fossil record shows, not a ‘tree of life’ of species changing over time, but mostly the sudden appearance of new species which do NOT change over time and which suddenly disappear. Scientists have a name for this. They call it “stasis”. At best there may be many individual trees showing limited development, but also some life forms that have been discovered and identified (or still exist like turtles) show only straight line existence over the life-spans of their species.

The movie, “Expelled”, revealed the extent to which skeptics of Darwinism suffer difficulties in having their works published, of denial of tenure and even of termination. Hopefully this movie and the facts being discovered that do not fit the Darwinian model will eventually put a stop to this. There has to be a point at which the overwhelming evidence that Darwinism is an outmoded, 19th century fantasy becomes universally recognized, and the foolish political correctness ends.

Future posts will be forthcoming on other aspects of Darwinism that have also come under serious question.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button