Search This Blog

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Pre-school books with class!!! Authored by my clever friend Patti

I have a friend who is a lovely and talented woman. She wound up being a single mom, raising her boys, and found work in the IT industry as a representative for one of the biggest software firms in the world. She went fairly high up on the corporate ladder.

She briefly considered dating a good buddy of mine and that did not work for them. Naturally I hope she finds her other half someday. Being married to the right person is awesome so I hope that my single friends find that for themselves. But we all make our own way in the world and Patti will marry someday if she wishes. We have found that she has a lot on her plate right now so we are rooting for her to have great success with her new business. But some lucky guy in Texas may someday find himself a heck of a wife someday? Okay, enough, now I sound like a matchmaker and I really don't care for Barbra Streisand!

My wife and I do like Patti a lot and so, when she decided to dump corporate America and become an entrepreneur we were surprised but we encouraged her. It turns out that Patti wanted to write books for small children. Our smallest grand-daughter is just a not-so-terrible two about to turn three so we figured we would buy the Patti books for her and if they were not so good, well, we helped a friend!

But Patti's books turn out to be absolutely awesome! She really helps children learn to read and think and associate words with animals and actions. We were thrilled with the books and Angie loves them!

Therefore I am presenting to the world a fine children's book author: Patti Toler!

Patti Toler

www.CreativeBks.com

Patti@CreativeBks.com


"Welcome to Creative Entourage

Welcome to Creative EntourageCreative Entourage Literacy Series of books are inspiring beginning readers to develop strong core reading competencies. The Literacy Series promotes early literacy, creativity, and assists with beginning reading and writing skills. The books provide an approach to learning specific skills, such as letter recognition, phonics, and sight words, which are fundamental to becoming competent, independent readers and writers.

Combining the book material with other disciplines such as math, science, and language arts creates an environment to learn in a holistic, comprehensive manner. The vision is to help parents, schools, libraries, and all educators meet the needs of beginning readers.

The Literacy Series promises to become an important component to a reading program. English as a second language learners and children with special needs can benefit and enjoy mastering beginning reading skills."

~

Yes, I like to help a friend but frankly, if you have a small child these books will help them learn and grow so this is actually a matter of being of service to you and them. I do believe Patti is gifted and she is brave to give up a high-salaried job to risk everything in doing what she has always longed to do. I am impressed and the minute she puts out a fourth book we will order it!

Friday, October 23, 2009

Evolution will not fly. First five reasons why




The Jurassic Shrimp wants you to know they didn't leave us 50 million years ago. Not even Richard Dawkins can tell you this is not the same kind of shrimp commonly found in fossil rocks.


Should I say he could not say it honestly? Good, that is better.




You think the rocks above were still kind of wet and freshly laid when they were twisted like taffy?
That would be the logical and obvious conclusion.


Ripple marks on sandstone at Cliff Springs, Arizona. All rock layers show signs of water formation at some point when carefully examined. Uniformitarianism has been debunked.




Part One: Our series from





FIFTY REASONS WHY

EVOLUTION WILL NOT FLY


(RMCF content in blue)

There is ample evidence to believe that a God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis. Please read on and give each point careful thought as to which religious view sounds more reasonable -- special creation or evolution.





1. PARACONFORMITY: Evolutionary geologists contend that rocks were laid down in a uniform, predictable manner over billions of years. These scientists label and date these rock layers with familiar names such as Jurassic and Pre-Cambrian. The term Paraconformity describes those rock formations that are missing certain layers which are predicted by evolutionary geology. None of the typical gullying and weathering is visible in these examples, unlike what we see when the ground has been exposed for long periods. At several places in the Baltic region, clays of the so-called Pleistocene age rest directly on clays that contain Cambrian age fossils, creating an evolutionary gap of 400 million years. Yet in some places the break between layers can hardly be located, so similar are the two clays. Creationists say that the evidence from these anomalies indicates that the traditional, evolutionary dating methods for rocks are faulty. What do you say?

Radar - Notice the smooth layers of rocks in the Grand Canyon. The expected aging is not there, the layers are smooth and all show signs of water formation. Check out this picture of the Grand Canyon walls, below:



Radar - Dr. Sean Pitman has a great treatise on the subjects both above and below (see pic below).



2. GEOLOGY REVERSED: Around the world, we see rock layers out of normal evolutionary sequence. Naturalist geologists believe the earth’s rocks were laid down in a uniform manner over billions of years. In Glacier National Park, however, a block of Precambrian “old” rock sits on top of Cretaceous “newer” rock. Why is this important? Evolutionists have a hard time explaining this embarrassing example of 1 billion year-old rock sitting on top of 100 million year old rock. Perhaps the rocks have moved since they were laid down? Unfortunately, when geologists look for signs of movement such as scrape marks or tallis piles they find none. Additionally, the tensile strength of rock makes it highly unlikely that the older block of rock moved across the newer without shattering to dust. Looking at the evidence, creationists say that both rocks were created at the same time. What do you say?



Radar - Picture above of Hanging Lake area, Glenwood Canyon --- An unconformity occurs between the lower Ordovician Manitou Formation and the upper Devonian Chaffee Group. [The Manitou Fm extends left horizontally from the lone tree on the sloping skyline ridge in the middle of the picture. The formation is about twice as thick as the tree is high. The Chaffee Group is about the same thickness and is the next higher layer with many tree growing along the top of it on the skyline.] The "25 million year-long Silurian period" is missing between them, although no evidence is found here for major erosion in the lower layer. Missing layers, cross-bedding, switched layers, all of these are common throughout the world. The standard geological column presented to students is a fraud.



3. RADIOMETRIC DATING: This process attempts to place an accurate date on the age of rocks by measuring the decay of radioactive minerals trapped within. Scientists first examine the relative ratios of various minerals in the host rock. Three basic assumptions are made when dating a piece of rock;



A. the rock contained no ” radioactive “daughter-product” atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms.

B. since the moment of its creation no parent or daughter atoms were either added to or taken from the sample rock.

C. the rate of decay has always remained constant (uniform decay).


These assumptions cannot be proven with any degree of accuracy. To make a scientific claim, one must be able to reproduce results. What do you think? In your experience, can an algebraic equation with three unknown variables yield a predictable, verifiable result?

Radar - So I mentioned that the RATE conferences have found ways to actually date rocks. Too bad the results come back at about 6,000 years or so.

4. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science?



Radar - Oil has to have been trapped underground less than 100,000 years. Check out the picture below (There is no "impermeable" cap rock. Oil and gas are escaping from their lairs and their pressure is decreasing.













5. PERMANENCE OF KINDS: Also called stasis, this field of observation has determined that most animals have remained relatively unchanged throughout the fossil record. Despite millions of (supposed) years and billions of chances to evolve into higher life forms, no evidence exists for this theory. Many fossils from “older” rocks, when compared to their modern counterparts, are often identical in form. Worms still look like worms, not some hybrid creatures. Not one change of one life form into another has ever been recorded, yet evolution is regarded in most circles as fact.








Radar - Living fossils, we find more of them each decade. So many animals have remained basically or perhaps entirely unchanged. Not good for evolution.

The Purple Frog lives underground so escaped discovery until recently. Pretty much the same thing found in fossils.






The Mantis Shrimp, once thought extinct, was supposed to develop 400 million years ago? They have perhaps the most advanced eyes in the biosphere.




Then there is the good old Colecanth, rediscovered in the 1930's. We now know they live off the coast of Africa and also SE Asia.








A Frill Shark, one living fossil that looks like a remarkably impressive monster and now we know it is most definitely NOT extinct. In fact actual Tyrannosaurus tissue from a Western United States dig kills evolution dead. Organic tissue could not conceivably last millions of years!





The above soft tissue from the famous T-Rex found by Mary Sweitzer.


The 2005 discovery of "fresh" tissue in the femur of a fossilized T. rex in Montana was quite a surprise (except to informed creationists), reported for example March 25, 2005, by Reuter News Service, "Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue: 70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels". National Geographic News reported also in an article March 24, 2005, in which lead researcher Mary Schweitzer was quoted as saying, "Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]."




Full disclosure...I am not a staffer for the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship but I am a member in good standing.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

If the Constitution falls in the White House, does it make a sound?


Thanks, 4-Block World!!! Hey, was the idea of Barack on Letterman an inspiration in any way? I wonder if he brought Liva Snaps...or interns? (Ba-DUMP)

Woman Honor Thyself - Angel presents a must-see video. I mean you gotta see this!!! Our freedom of speech and our flat-out freedoms of all kind are under siege. Watch it and tell me what you think.

Yet another Obama Czar (manufacturing) quoting Mao? Bloom says, among other things, “We kind of agree with Mao that power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.” Ron Bloom as presented by Gateway Pundit.



What are you going to do if they take away your internet access and control the news media? What happens then? Who has a bigger gun than the President of the United States? Anyway, you will not be shocked to learn that Bloom came to the White House by way of the SEIU, right?

Did you know that It’s come to this: White House tries to bar Fox News from interviewing pay czar? This is after the White House tried to get the rest of the journalism world to take the Fox ball away and go home? The Obama Administration has no shame.



Does anybody wonder why they call them "czars?" Can we change that to Corruption Chiefs?
Way back in July Michelle Malkin exposed the czars for what they really are...then she goes on to point out a large part of the problem with this culture of corruption:

"A panel of constitutional scholars told the Senate that lawmakers can’t really do anything about Team Obama’s massive proliferation of unaccountable appointees with unlimited authority — until they get caught exceeding their assigned powers.

Which, of course, we know so little about because the White House has kept so many czar budgets and staffing out of public view."



It falls to the general public and bloggers and Fox News to keep an eye on this situation, because networks like MSNBC are in the tank for Obama. Chris Mathews, is that leg still tinglin'? For crying out loud, Dan Rather was willing to present made up evidence against George Bush but NBC and CBS and ABC and CNN just watch as this administration tries to stifle free speech and ignore the obvious crimes of ACORN unless they are intentionally lying about them!


One of Michelle's posts starred these revelations from a government employee still able to think:

A peek at a federal employee’s spam e-mail from Team Obama

By Michelle Malkin • October 8, 2009 10:44 PM

Here’s the e-mail of the day, from a beleaguered federal employee at the Commerce Department.

Thanks to the e-mailer for giving us a revealing glimpse into the bowels of the spam-happy, appointee-overrun Obama bureaucracy.

Michelle,

I work for the Department of Commerce as a federal employee…and am getting rather fed up with what I have seen since last January…

Over the past couple of weeks, we have received several emails (a couple below, two received within a minute of each other) from the Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, announcing ANOTHER new White House web site. This web site is where employees can make suggestions for how government can save money……ooooh, and win a trip to see Obama!!

What a joke after all we have seen since Obama was elected! Too bad the general public cannot submit suggestions.

I wonder how many needed items will be cut in favor of more leftist programs?

Somehow I highly doubt the following suggestions would be acceptable to them:

1. Get rid of the numerous and redundant czars.
2. Stop bailing out institutions that should probably fail like banks, car companies, unions, etc., particularly the politically connected.
3. Make Charlie Rangel pay his taxes.
4. Stop funding corrupt organizations immediately like ACORN.
5. Stop flying Air Force One (and the massive entourage) all over the world for personal reasons.
6. Stop flying in sycophantic supporters to promote your socialized health plan.

I could go on and on.

Today, another email was sent out announcing the creation of two new political appointee positions within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Just what we need. More layers of flunkies at the top taking up space.

How about saving money by not creating these positions for political cronies?

The emails follow:




ADDENDUM DE DUM DUM

The Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives

Going around Ye Olde Interwebs. I found it at Grouchy Olde Cripple:

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Americans for Prosperity is warning us that Censorship is coming

As important as all the fights are that we're in right now, perhaps the biggest of all is the fight over whether the government will take over the Internet. That's because as long as the Internet is free, we can use it to communicate, educate, and organize. Tea parties, townhalls, and AFP events would be very difficult to organize if government owned and controlled the Internet and chose to interfere with it. That's what's at stake this week as the Federal Communications Commission decides on Thursday whether to move forward with so-called "net neutrality" regulations.

The net neutrality movement is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney who seek to destroy private control of the country's communications systems.

I discussed McChesney and the so-called media reform movement last night on the Glenn Beck show, and you can watch that clip here. I'll be on with Glenn again tonight to discuss net neutrality specifically.

As the Internet Freedom Coalition shows on our Net Neutrality Scare Ticket it has now been nearly 7 years since the November 19, 2002 letter that started the net neutrality scare, without a single significant incident of the kind of egregious behavior by evil phone and cable companies we're told require government intervention. It's a solution in search of a problem.

Net neutrality sounds simple--force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way--until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn't been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work. But the government is working to do just the opposite.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty whether there will be a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, spending billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet.

That's their plan.

The push for a Washington takeover of the Internet is coming from the White House. It includes Susan Crawford, the so-called Internet Czar, who told The Wall Street Journal in April that the $7.2 billion of stimulus money for broadband she is helping spend is a "down payment on future government investments in the Internet." She went on to say: "We should do a better job as a nation of making sure fast, affordable broadband is as ubiquitous as electricity, water, snail mail or any other public utility."

It comes right from the top. President Obama himself said on the campaign trail: "I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Net Neutrality."

The FCC will vote Thursday on what it calls a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Net Neutrality. If it passes, it will start a public comment period and I'll be emailing you again with instructions on how to file comments. But for the next couple days, we need to make our case against the FCC even taking that first step down the road to a Washington takeover of the Internet.

Here's what you can do to help: The FCC created a website at www.OpenInternet.gov where you can comment on government regulating the Internet under so-called net neutrality rules. The left has been flooding it with comments. Please take a moment to head over to www.OpenInternet.gov and click on "Join the Discussion" to make your voice heard for keeping the Internet in private hands.

Thanks for all you do.

Phil Kerpen

Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity
Chairman, The Internet Freedom Coalition

P.S. Wanted to remind you again that you can see me tonight on the Glenn Beck program on FOX News at 5PM and 2AM Eastern, 2PM and 11PM Pacific. You can also contact me any time through Twitter (http://twitter.com/kerpen) or Facebook (http://facebook.com/PhilKerpen).

RADAR SEZ - It will cost you nothing to go to that link and express your opinion. If you love freedom of speech, please post a comment urging that the FCC keep hands off. No censoring our internet. No censorship!!!!

I do not censor comments. Most of my commenters disagree with me. Freedom of speech is a foundation of our nation. The Obama Administration hates freedom of speech. Wake up and fight for your rights before they are gone, please!

~~~

Fiorina: Government has to regulate “wild west” Internet

Stop The ACLU is onto the ACORN scandal...more to come!

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/21/the-medias-complicity-analysis-of-acorn-coverage/

TARP Report – “We don’t even know where the money went”

Amy Proctor points out that 49 out of 50 states (plus DC) have fewer jobs seven months after the stimulus bill!


Tuesday, October 20, 2009

World Net reveals that Obama Administration boasts of controlling the news media!!!!!



I have to just post this in it's entirety, it is too alarming to simply link. Anita Dunn may admire Mao but the White House surely is following in the footsteps of Stalin and Hitler. Will a time come when people with guns and badges come to my door at three AM to drag me away? The Obama Administration wants control over the news media, which is why they are at war with Fox News. If we lose freedom of speech then our other freedoms will follow and we will become like Russia was, a great mass of poor people and a few rich Ruling Party folks living off of the rest of us.

Communism/Socialism always fails. Red China is a disaster for most of their citizens. Hitler's Nazi Party was socialist. Barack Obama has proven by his words, actions and "czars" that he is a dedicated socialist bent on radically changing the United States. America, you were really stupid to elect him but you can still tell your congressmen to vote against his agendas or you will vote them out of office! Say no to National Health Care. Say no to Cap and Trade. Say no to UnFairness Doctrines. Say no to socialism or kiss your freedom goodbye.





WND Exclusive
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
White House boasts: We 'control' news media
Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government


Posted: October 18, 2009
7:11 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Anita Dunn

TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.

"Very rarely did we communicate

through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.

"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.

Check out the hot new best-seller -- "Muslim Mafia"

Continued Dunn: "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."

Video of Dunn's remarks at the conference can be seen below:





Dunn was speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009, event focusing on Obama's media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, which seeks to promote collaboration between the U.S. and the Dominican Republic. The event was held in Santo Domingo and was attended by the country's president.

Dunn has been facing some criticism since she led a White House campaign last week against Fox News, slamming the top-rated network as an "arm of the Republican Party" and "opinion journalism masquerading as news."

Fox hit back this past Friday, releasing a video of Dunn speaking to high school students last June in which she lists her two "favorite political philosophers," including Communist Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung, whose draconian policies are blamed for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Video of Dunn's speech, broadcast during a segment of Glenn Beck's evening show on the Fox News Channel, can be seen below:

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

Note: News media wishing to interview Aaron Klein, please contact WND.

Bookmark and Share



Meanwhile,




White House Urges Other Networks to Disregard Fox News


The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.

Top political strategists question the decision by the Obama administration to escalate its offensive against Fox News. And as of Monday, the four other major television networks had not given any indication that they intend to sever their ties with Fox News.

But several top White House officials have taken aim at Fox News since communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news" in an interview last Sunday.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

Asked Monday about another Axelrod claim that Fox News is just trying to make money, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that while all media companies fall under that description, "I would say sometimes programming can be tilted toward accentuating those profits."

But by urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month with Dunn's comments.

So far, none of the four other major networks has given any indication that they wish to disinvite Fox News from the White House pool -- the rotation through which the networks share the costs and duties of White House coverage and the most significant interaction among the news channels.

The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August.

Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do."

"She criticized 'Fox News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."

"Let's fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn's facts were just plain wrong."

Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente said: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."

Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don't always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."

David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: "I totally agree with Donna Brazile." Gergen added that White House officials have "gotten themselves into a fight they don't necessarily want to be in. I don't think it's in their best interest."

"The faster they can get this behind them, the more they can treat Fox like one other organization, the easier they can get back to governing, and then put some people out on Fox," Gergen said on CNN. "I mean, for goodness sakes, you know, you engage in the debate.

"What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, and they ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with some strong conservatives on Fox, just as there are strong conservatives on CNN like Bill Bennett."

Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Zedong, the founder of communist China, was one of "my favorite political philosophers."

"Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not...a small thing; it's a big thing," Bennett said on CNN. "When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she's deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that -- I mean, that is crazy."

Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who was the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, said: "This is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you and they're going to cut your legs off."

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do," Rove added. "That is over- the-top language. We heard that before from Richard Nixon."

Media columnist David Carr of The New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox "may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling."

"While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence," Carr wrote over the weekend. "So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year."

He added: "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."

~

Note - Fox News is the number one cable news network among viewers 25-54 for seven years in a row and counting and their viewership is growing faster than the also-rans. If Obama has a problem with Fox, it means he has a problem with Americans!

Does the Obama Administration make the Nixon guys look like statesmen, or is it just me? Talk about an enemies list! Yet this strategy is so stupid you have to wonder if anyone in the White House can actually THINK?

Yes, I am feeling better these days. Have a lot of thoughts to get off my chest after 14 months of illness...

Monday, October 19, 2009

Nobamacare...no words needed



Creationism from a non-Creationist source

One of my commenters seems to think it is a big deal he found a guy who is generally considered a scientist and a Christian and maybe even a YEC who thinks evolution is a valid theory. Eh, so he found a guy. My response? I found a guy with an organization that promotes religious tolerance between Christians and Islam and Judaism and Wicca and so on and so on who has posted a strong defense of YEC. So here you go:

Essay donated by Dr. Zvi Shkedi

"3. Torah and Science: Age of the universe:
Theory & Observations; Physics,
Functions, and Differential Equations


Theory and Observations:

Live mollusks in Hawaii had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. The tests showed that they died 2000 years ago!

A freshly killed seal was dated at 1,300 years old!

Shells from living snails dated at 27,000 years old!

Living penguins were dated at 8,000 years old!

The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. If the earth is billions of years old, why is there not a bigger and older coral reef?

The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old. If the earth is billions of years old, and life on earth started millions of years ago, why don't we find older trees?

Textbooks in astronomy state that 100,000 years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf. Cicero in year 50 BCE described Sirius as being a red star; Seneca, approximately in year 20 AD, said Sirius was redder than Mars; Ptolemy in year 150 AD said Sirius was one of 6 red stars in the sky. Yet, today, less than 2000 years later, Sirius is a white dwarf. Where did the theory of 100,000 years come from?

In 1760, Georges-Louis Leclerc, determined that the earth is 75,000 years old. In 1831 Charles Lyell said the age of the world is 240 million years. Did the earth get 240 million years older within 71 years? Obviously it didn't. The only thing that changed was the speculative model and extrapolation used to calculate the age. In 1929 Edwin Hubble calculated the solar system to be 2 billion years old. Now the earth seemed to age at a rate of 18 million years per year. The current theory is that the earth is 5 billion years old. That's an even faster aging rate of 38 million years per year. Is this how "time warp" in science fiction started?

The models used by scientists to calculate the age of the world keep changing frequently. There seems to be some kind of a competition among scientists - who can calculate an older age, or who can dream up a model or a theory which will yield an older age. The common aspect of all these models is extreme speculative extrapolation of current data back into a period of time for which we have no data - only assumptions, speculative theories, and a heavy dose of human imagination.

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" (Not just the earth, but, the entire universe). Dr. Gerald Schroeder reports (“Age of the Universe” January 2000) that two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer: "There was no beginning". Aristotle and Plato said 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Their theory was preferred by the scientists over the first word in the Bible: "In the beginning" ("Bereshit" in Hebrew).

With the discovery of the expanding universe by Edwin Hubble, and some evidence of the "big bang" found in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. Scientists have made an enormous paradigm change in their understanding of the universe. They finally discovered, after more than 3000 years of research and debate, that the universe had a beginning and that the first word in the Bible is a scientifically proven truth. Now, it is only a matter of time before scientists also discover the truth of the second and third words in the Bible: "God created".

The world population in year 1000 AD was 310 million. In year 1750 AD the world population was 791 million. To avoid the impact of modern technology and medicine, we will not count the years after 1750. The world population growth from year 1000 to year 1750 gives us an average growth rate of 0.125% per year. This is a very slow rate which takes into account all the effects of wars, plagues, natural catastrophes, and negative growth periods, before the onset of modern technology and medicine. When we extrapolate this slow growth rate backwards, we find that we have to start with 2 people in year 14100 BCE, to achieve these known world population numbers. [The mathematical equation is: population = (starting-no.-of-people) * 1.00125 ^ (total-no.-of-years).]

Living conditions in ancient times could not be much worse than in Africa before the beginning of the 20th century. The average growth rate in Africa from year 1750 to year 1900 was 0.15%. This rate is very close, yet, larger than the 0.125% world growth rate mentioned above. In ancient times, when overall population density was lower, the growth rate was much higher than 0.15%, and definitely not lower than 0.12%. By comparison, during the 210 years that the Jews were enslaved in ancient Egypt, the average growth rate was about 5% per year.

The known growth rate in Asia between the years 1750 and 1900 was 0.42% per year. This rate is very close to the 0.45% growth rate we get if we start with the 8 biblical people who survived the Great Flood in year 2104 BCE and end with 310 million people in year 1000 AD. If we extrapolate the 0.42% rate backwards, we find that we have to start with 2 people in year 3500 BCE to achieve the world population of 310 million in year 1000 AD.

The higher the growth rate - the shorter is the time required to achieve a known population. Obviously, the growth rate was not constant with time, but, the long-term average could not be less than 0.12%. Using this lower limit, it would be impossible for mankind to have appeared on earth earlier than 14100 BCE. The conclusion from these calculations is that mankind appeared on earth somewhere between 3500 BCE and 14100 BCE. This time range is three orders of magnitude shorter than the so-called "scientific" estimates of millions of years ago. According to the Bible, mankind appeared on earth in year 3760 BCE. This biblical date is well within the date range calculated based on the known population growth rates.

These growth numbers may not be exactly equal to the unknown numbers in ancient times. These calculations also include extrapolations which require caution when interpreting the results. However, they are infinitely better than the imaginative speculations by some biologists who claim that mankind appeared on earth millions of years ago. Did any of those biologists ever disclose a better, more accurate, mathematical model to get their "millions of years" estimate? Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is much easier to believe than the "millions of years" estimate. Did any of those biologists ever calculate the possible consequences of their "millions of years" estimate? Let's see what happens if we assume that mankind appeared on earth not millions of years ago but only 40,000 years ago.

At the lower-limit growth rate of 0.12% per year, if we were to start with 2 people 40,000 years ago, the current world population would grow to 1000 billion billions. That's a population density of 850,000 people per square foot of earth land area. The people on earth would have to pile up 850,000 layers high to contain all of them. Even the wildest science-fiction writers could not dream of such a large number. Even if they all perished, where are their bones, 850,000 layers high? Can anyone imagine how many more bones we would find if mankind appeared on earth millions of years ago? 150 years ago, when the imaginative theories about the beginning of mankind became popular, scientists did not have computers to calculate the consequences of these speculations. 150 years ago, scientists could also not publish their theories in the journal which is available today - "Speculations in Science and Technology".

Today, unfortunately, the speculative theories about the age of the universe and the beginning of life have turned into an anti-religious political agenda which has nothing to do with science. If not for the anti-religious motivation, these speculations would have been long forgotten, together with so many other imaginative theories gone with the wind, like the aether, the flat earth, alchemy, and spontaneous generation of life.

As we can see from the examples above, dating early history is not a very promising branch of science. Fiction - maybe, but science - no.

horizontal rule

Physics, Functions, and Differential Equations:

Now, that we have established the scientific credibility of dating early history, let's look at the subject from a different point of view, entering the world of physics, functions, and differential equations.

Let's start with a story.

When I lived in California, I used to take walks along the ocean. One day, I found a glass bottle sealed with a cork. When I opened the cork , a genie jumped out. The genie thanked me for releasing him from his captivity and offered to grant me a wish. After a few moments of pondering, I asked the genie to make me a book which is 500 years old. The genie agreed; whispered "hocus pocus"; and the book was in my hands.

I wasn't sure whether to believe it or not. Was the book really 500 years old? On my way back home I passed near a university and went to look for a chemistry professor to analyze the book. The professor took the book into his lab, and, a few hours later, came out and said: "Yes, the book is 500 years old."

When I came home, I told the whole story to my wife, not noticing that my little son was also listening attentively. The next day I wanted to impress my son with my new book. "Guess how old this book is?" I asked my son. He didn't blink an eye and said: "This book is one day old." I was shocked. " What do you mean one day old!" I screamed at him. " This book is 500 years old. Even the professor said it is 500 years old". "Sorry", responded my son, "if the genie made it yesterday, then it is one day old."

So, how old is the book?

Since the genie made it yesterday, it is really only one day old. However, to a chemist, it looks like it is 500 years old. The reason it looks so old, is that it was made in such a way that it contains its history - it contains chemical features and changes in the composition of the paper which would normally take 500 years to develop. Once the history has been embedded into the composition of the book, it is no longer possible to tell the difference between such a book and a book which is really 500 years old.

Similarly, a fake archaeological artifact can be skillfully crafted to pass all tests and to be pronounced authentically antique. Yet, antique it is not. A scientist in the lab may discover that the artifact contains all the features of a real antique. Yet, this is no evidence that it is indeed antique. The only thing we can say with certainty is that it LOOKS antique.

Every object and every event in the physical universe can be described by a set of mathematical functions. The most common parameters of the functions are the three dimensions of space, and the dimension of time. We don't always know what the functions are, but we know that the functions exist. A unique quality of every mathematical function describing a physical object or event is that it is continuous and can be calculated over an infinitely wide range of parameters, regardless of whether the range is realistic or not. So, for a car moving from Las Vegas towards Los Angeles, the function describing the movement of the car can be calculated backwards to a location far east of Las Vegas. Mathematically, the earlier presence of the car somewhere between Las Vegas and New York is correct, even though the car has never been there. When we see the car arriving in Los Angeles, it is absolutely impossible to tell from its direction and speed, when and where the car started its trip. Regardless of whether the car actually started in Las Vegas, in Kansas City, or in New York, the arrival in Los Angeles will look identical.

Pierre-Simon, Marquis De Laplace (1749 - 1827) was a brilliant French mathematician and astronomer. His work was pivotal to the development of mathematical astronomy. Through his work with differential equations, equations which are used by scientists to describe the characteristics of physical systems, he discovered that the past and the future of the universe can be calculated mathematically.

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."

Obviously, this applies only to the physical universe, to the exclusion of Godly spiritual intervention which is outside the jurisdiction of nature and mathematics. In mathematical terms, Godly spiritual interventions would be the equivalent of the boundaries and discontinuities described above. Laplace did not believe in God, so he did not add the possibility of such intervention to his mathematical discovery. Napoleon had to do it for him. When Laplace sent to Napoleon a copy of his book about the universe, Napoleon replied: "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator."

The past, present, and future of the universe (excluding spiritual effects) can be described as a solution to a large set of differential equations. Assuming we are wise enough to develop the complete set of equations, we can, using these equations, calculate the future and calculate the past, as long as we do not attempt to cross spiritually-induced boundaries and discontinuities. (Don't celebrate yet - the amount of additional scientific knowledge and computer power necessary for such calculations is millions of times greater than what is available today.)

The physical universe is so constructed, that spiritual boundaries and discontinuities are hidden. The origin of spiritual effects is outside the four dimensions of physical location and time. Sefer Yetzirah (the Book of Creation), written more than 4000 years ago, describes the universe as a five-dimensional space. It describes the physical universe as being a four-dimensional space of location and time and adds a fifth spiritual dimension. (At the end of the 19th century, physicists discovered that the physical universe is a four-dimensional space of location and time. This discovery led to the development of Einstein's theory of relativity and to the discovery of quantum mechanics.) All attempts to solve and extrapolate currently known equations to calculate the past, ignore the existence of spiritual boundaries and discontinuities and ignore the existence of the spiritual fifth dimension. In the currently available mathematical models of the four-dimensional physical universe, such boundaries and discontinuities are not represented. Therefore, the calculations of the past are not limited in range.

When we observe light rays coming from the direction of a star billions of light years away, the only scientific facts we have are the direction from which the light rays arrive, and the spectrum and intensity of the light. Everything else we try to say about this light is nothing but the result of a speculative theory - a mathematical calculation and extrapolation. The scientific data carried by this light does not include the time or the location where it started its journey. It is mathematically convenient to say that the light started its journey at a far away star billions of years ago. It looks to us as if this is when and where the light started. But, we do not know for a fact that this is indeed the case. We don't even know for a fact that the star exists. Just like the car arriving in Los Angeles from the east. It is impossible to tell from the arrival direction and speed of the car, when and where it started its journey. Similarly, it is impossible to tell from the arrival direction and speed of the car, when and where the car was manufactured.

To those who believe that God created the universe, what we learned so far leads to only one possible conclusion - God created the universe with its history. The act of creation started in the spiritual fifth dimension of the universe. Therefore, it is not visible to scientists whose science is confined to the first four dimensions. In exact mathematical terminology, what is visible to scientists is the projection of the (five-dimensional) universe into the first four dimensions. This projection is similar to the shadow of a three-dimensional object projected on a two-dimensional screen. When we look at the shadow, we get some information about the object, but most of the (three dimensional) information is invisible. It is also possible to project a shadow of a vertical pole on the ground in such a way that the shadow looks much longer than the pole itself. If we were to examine only the shadow, we would conclude that the pole is much longer than it really is. Similarly, scientific research is limited to the study of the four-dimensional projected shadow of a five-dimensional universe.

When God created the far-away stars, God also created the light rays emitted by these stars, extending all the way to infinity. When we look at a far-away star, we see the light rays exactly as they would have been if they were to start their journey at this star billions of years ago, but, this is not evidence that they actually did. Similarly, when God created the earth, God also created fossils and other ancient-looking features. The reason God created the universe with its history, is that the physical findings must match the results of calculations we might want to make by solving the equations of the universe, and extrapolating them backwards in time. If God were to create the world without its history, there would be a mismatch between the results of the calculations and the observed features. Such a mismatch would be a deficiency in God's ability to create perfection.

It is important to understand that the calculation and extrapolation backwards in time is a mathematical process. It is NOT physical evidence and it is NOT proof that anything actually existed that far back in time. All it means is that MATHEMATICALLY the world looks as if it existed that far back in time. The observed features of the universe look as if they existed that far back in time, to match the mathematical calculation. This is highlighted by the example given above, of the car arriving in Los Angeles - mathematically it looks as if the car started its journey in New York, even though it actually started in Las Vegas.


The end. That one man says something or believes something is not so important. His reputation and the associations and the titles he holds are to be considered to a small degree only. Rather the importance lies within the content of what is said. So Mr. Woods content-free rant is of no particular value, it was all opinion. This Rabbi(?)/Doctor, however, presents a few odd things we call facts and a few things we know as evidence. I would pay more attention to the evidence and the facts.

I disagree with a few of the things this doctor has stated. I would certainly enjoy having lunch with him. I love having lunch with a good friend of mine who is marginally Buddhist and somewhat agnostic. He travels the world but when he is close by he comes to visit me and my wife. We have great and fun discussions about all sorts of things. I was just imagining doing the same with this doctor. I think it would be extremely interesting. You can tell from his essay that he is a man who has an open mind even though he has strong opinions. Such a man can change your mind when he is right and have his mind changed when he is wrong.

I wonder how many of my readers would fall into the category just described? How many of you have locked minds, and how many of you can be open to change? Are you quite sure that you are someone who is willing to change your mind if the evidence demands it? Or is it possible that if you came to the door marked "change" that you would just pass it by? What if there is a door marked "truth" at the end of the hallway? Would you be afraid to open it?

All of us will come to the end of the hallway and open that door. Death is a portal to the next state of being. I believe that behind the door is theoretically a "T" intersection, with an arrow marked "Creator God" to the right and an arrow marked "Everything and everyone else" to the left. I also believe that you will have made your choice before the door opens. When I open that door, the left hallway will be blocked and I will have to turn right. If, for instance, well-known atheists and anti-Christians Richard Dawkins or P.Z. Myers open the door right this minute then the right hallway will be blocked and they will go left. They are apparently fine with that. They believe that left leads to oblivion and the cessation of being and consciousness. I believe that the left turn leads to Hell. I do not want them to go there. I wish I could convince them to book their afterlife vacation ahead of time and spend eternity with God.

You know you will die, right? People do not live forever in this state of being. No one reading this blog has a great-great-great-great grandfather still alive. Some people make it to 1oo years or more but few indeed get that far. No one lives for hundreds of years anymore. As you get older you begin to see how fleeting this life really is. My grandparents are all dead now and I am a grandparent myself! I may become a great-grandparent before I am too old but by that time I will be close to the end. That is just the way it is, you get one shot at this life and it is gone. But some of you have realized that inside yourself is an awareness that eternity awaits us. We see caterpillars cocooned and transformed into butterflies and fail to see how symbolic this is. Death is the chrysalis that will bring us forth into the next state of being. What does the caterpillar know or believe? We think he knows nothing but simply does what he was designed to do. Man, however, has the capacity to reason in the abstract and comprehend right and wrong and therefore bears some responsibility for his actions. We will all determine our future by the decisions we make in the present.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Why I love I Hate The Media? Because they are COOL...

For posts like this one! Go to I Hate The Media to keep track of the latest MSM garbage...

Snow piling up, so is anti-global warming evidence

October 16, 2009, 1:00 am · 1 comment

snowstorm Rockies game snowed out!
Source: ESPN.com via Drudge

Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era

Source: World Climate Report

What happened to global warming?
Source: BBC

How freezing temperatures are starting to shatter climate change theory
Source: Daily Mail UK

Western Montana cold breaks records
Source: KTVQ-TV

Austria: Earliest snowfall in history set to break records
Source: Austrian Times via Drudge

October Cold Snap Sets 82-Year Record
Source: CBS2Chicago.com

FORECASTS BLOWN: ‘09 Atlantic hurricane season quietest in decade
Source: Reuters

~

Once again, the evidence exposes what the inconvenient truth really is - no global warming, no need for cap and trade, no credibility for Al Gore and oh, by the way, Polar Bears are doing just fine, thanks!

~

A Five-Cent Theory

by Scott Schneider | September 28th, 2009

Excerpts:

"The sad, emotional polar bear soap opera playing out in 1 1/2 minute bits on cable TV is the driving force behind the passage of this ruinous, anti-capitalist, industry-gutting bill. But notice how temperatures into the beginning of the 21st century in Greenland are not any warmer than other warming spells have been?

There's a commercial that has been airing on certain Cable TV networks, for the past 6 months where the handsome, debonair, touchy-feely, stubble-faced Hollywood actor stands in front the footage of innocent-looking polar bears frolicking on the Arctic ice sheet while dark and sinister music plays in the background, harbingering the extinction of the entire species of mammal in a habitat it has thrived in for literally hundreds of thousand of years. The dire problem facing these 1,500 pound brutes that physically dominate every other species at the North Pole, including humans, the actor informs us, is Global Warming. More evidence and footage is aired showing the dire consequences of unchecked Global Warming, including the usual ice shelves crashing into the sea, icebergs floating across the North Atlantic, and scientists standing over what looks like poor, miserable, collapsed polar bears lying helplessly under an oppressively warm Arctic sun. Meanwhile, thousands of miles south, in the midst of one of the coolest summers in the Midwest in 15 years, The US House of Representatives rammed through a Cap&Trade bill that passed with only 7 votes.

The sad, emotional polar bear soap opera playing out in 1 1/2 minute bits on cable TV is the driving force behind the passage of this ruinous, anti-capitalist, industry-gutting bill. To the Global-Warming crowd and those who are particularly vulnerable to its pied-piper message, it is as if the polar ice caps and the extent of the Arctic and Antarctic ice fields have always been the same size, same shape, and same thickness. But recent history, going back into the late 1800s suggests otherwise. This NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) compilation of temperature at Gothard Nuuk Greenland over the past 100+ years shows the exact variation in temperature naturally occurs over decades of time."

If you do go to the link you will see several graphs and charts supporting the overall lack of evidence for global warming and, in fact, a trend towards cooling. What do you know?


"There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998, and global cooling for the past few years," former U.S. Senate Environment Committee spokesman Marc Morano writes at ClimateDepot.com. Citing metrics gathered by University of Alabama, Huntsville's Dr. Roy Spencer, Morano adds: "The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveal yet another drop in Earth's temperature." Despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled 0.74 degrees F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006." 1 And the same measurements show that this cooling trend has ensued despite the continued uptick in CO2."
Near the end of the article, the author mentions those pesky bears again...

"As for the polar bears, once an endangered species, the World Wildlife federation itself says that today's polar bear population numbers 20- to 25,000. As far as population thriving or declining, in 2002, the US Geological Survey in the Arctic Refuge Coastal plain reported the polar bear population was, naturally, near historic highs. Biologist Mitchell Taylor of the Arctic community of Nunavit who tracks 13 colonies, says 11 are stable or thriving with populations that have increased 25%. Taylor was banned recently from a meeting with the Polar Bear Specialist Group. He had obtained funding to participate in the group's meeting at the end of June, to discuss his findings on the polar bear population but was voted down by the PBSG board. The PBSG group leader, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, said that the reason he was excluded was not because of his expertise on polar bears but because his views of warming in the Arctic not being due to manmade causes being "extremely unhelpful" and "inconsistent" with the position taken by the PBSG. Now if were a group that specialized in polar bears and I had a true expert in the field and was interested in learning about his expertise and studies on polar bear populations, wouldn't I want him at a meeting about polar bear populations? But he was pushed aside because he doesn't agree with man-made climate change? What? Oh, yes, and there's this little thing about polar bears. They don't drown in the arctic sea. Ice has been melting in the summertime in the Arctic for millenniums and the polar bears have survived just fine. Polar bears swim! They've been clocked to swim 60 miles! They prey on seals in under the water! They are in no danger."

Just in case you all thought I forgot about the ludicrous idea of global warming...There is no global warming! Rinse and repeat.

Now just because you have been so good to read all the way to the end - Rush Hudson Limbaugh MMM MMM MMM

Obama going Socialist, America going Galt?



Mr. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon Professor of Free Enterprise at Robert Morris University and a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Atlas Shrugs: Doctors ‘Going Galt’
by Ralph R. Reiland


10/13/2009


The headline in Investor’s Business Daily, Sept. 16, 2009: “45% of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul.”

The headline in the Boston Globe, Sept. 28, 2009: “States risk it, raise tax on rich.”

The problem with four of nine U.S. doctors saying they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” is that “the number of doctors is already lagging population growth,” reports IBD.


Add millions of new patients to a shrinking supply of doctors and the obvious result is an English-style queue, longer waits in pain, and a centrally directed rationing of service.

That Boston Globe article on soaking the rich explains that New York’s increased confiscation of income from the “deep-pocketed rich” through higher taxes is producing a “millionaires’ exit.”

Said New York’s lieutenant governor, Richard Ravitch, regarding the flight of the state’s millionaires and the decline in government revenues that has already occurred as a result of the higher tax rates: “People aren’t wedded to a geographic place as they once were.”

In Atlas Shrugged, a novel by Ayn Rand, the most productive and creative citizens in the United States -- the innovators, risk-takers, artists, entrepreneurs, capitalists, intellectuals, industrialists -- overturn the conventional concept of victimhood and go on strike, refusing any longer to be exploited by society, refusing to be demonized as too successful, too rich, too individualistic, too free.

Led by John Galt, the novel’s hero, the industrious organize a strike against the ever-expanding yoke of government coercion. They strike to halt the murder of man’s spirit, to halt the confiscation of man’s work, to defend individualism, reason, liberty, human achievement and the market economy.

They strike by mysteriously disappearing, by withdrawing their productivity from society, by withdrawing their minds and ingenuity, in a walkout that Galt describes as “stopping the motor of the world.”

Near the climax of the novel, Galt takes over a radio broadcast to reveal the strike and its rationale, explain why society has collapsed into an ever-growing crisis of scarcity and misery, and deliver a manifesto for liberty to a corrupt society:

I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world...

All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one’s happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt …

You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty ...

Your ideal had an implacable enemy, which your code of morality was designed to destroy. I have withdrawn that enemy. I have taken it out of your way and out of your reach. I have removed the source of all those evils you were sacrificing one by one. I have ended your battle. I have stopped your motor. I have deprived your world of man’s mind ...

While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem, I beat you to it -- I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp ...

There is a difference between our strike and all those you’ve practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer.

The inauguration of Barack Obama took place on Jan. 20, 2009. The Economist magazine reported that week that Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, had moved up to 33rd place among Amazon’s top-selling books.

~

Jill Stanek puts it this way-

"MI Right to Life's Brian Cusack made the point at a banquet I recently attended that there is a schism between believing what 53% of Americans responded to a December 2005 Zogby poll, that "abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter," and putting it into practice.

Cusack called it "the great disconnect" that people would willingly stand by and even condone what they consider "manslaughter."

A clear example of the great disconnect came Oct. 9 when the Nobel Peace Prize committee chose Barack Obama as its 2009 recipient.



Obama had only been in office 12 days when nominations closed and had furthermore done "jack and squat" in the nine months following, as a Saturday Night Live skit recently put it.

But the committee awarded Obama because he gave the world "hope for a better future," according its statement.

The disconnect, of course, is Obama is the most pro-abortion president in US history, to the point of advocating postborn baby killing if it would interfere with preborn baby killing.

Actually, from a pro-abortion perspective, Obama has done "jack and pot" since becoming president...." Click the link to read the entire article.

The Nobel Prize ain't what it used to be, what with famous terrorist and homosexual predator Yasser Arafat and lying windbag Al Gore listed among the recipients. Not that I have an opinion or anything...


Obama Brainwashing

Obama promises to give ACORN and similar groups a part of shaping his agenda


McCain tied Barack to ACORN back when they were just in the voter fraud and bank-scamming business and before they branched out (as far as we know) into child prostitution and fraud.

Barack refuses to agree he will sign the ACORN cut-off legislation. Want to guess why?

Investigative journalist Michelle Malkin was all over this three months ago.

ACORN - Soros - SEIU - Obama - Chicago Machine. All connected. Wake up!!! Barack Obama told the world that he was a socialist years ago but he put on the cloak of secrecy as he took the Democratic nomination and then the election.

"One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."


Barack Obama discussing the Supreme Court and Constitutional issues on PBS radio interview in 2001.

Barack Obama's mentors have been communists and terrorists. His "church" was a racist and communist pretense. Barack Obama has always wanted to bring about a socialist society and now he is the chief executive of the USA. This is why Tea Parties are springing up all over the country. This is why the 2010 election is critical. We must elect legislators who actually believe in America and the Constitution and do not want to change the nation into something else. We do not want to be Sweden or Canada or Commmunist China or the USSR! This is a land of equal opportunity and free enterprise and Barack Obama and his cronies want to change that. They are stupid. Communism/socialism never works. Millionaires run away to another country, workers lose their reason to work hard, good become scarce and over-priced and eventually the entire nation becomes impoverished. How is it that the lessons of the countries behind the Iron Curtain have not been learned?

Remember when the Berlin Wall fell? Remember the joy of the people freed from communist rule? The explosion of the economies of Eastern Europe once freed from the communists? Again I say, Wake UP!!!!!!! Because if you sit there doing nothing, your rights as an American will be stolen from you. Write a letter or an email to your legislators. Send them a fax. Go to a Tea Party. Tell them all that those who vote for socialist agendas will lose your vote, so they will get tossed out of Washington if they go along with the Obamites.

Or, do nothing. One day you will be waiting in a long line to get your weekly toilet paper ration and you will remember the days when America was a land of free enterprise and opportunity.


The Perspective of a Russian Immigrant, by Svetlana Kunin



In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I was taught to believe individual pursuits are selfish and sacrificing for the collective good is noble.


In kindergarten we sang songs about Lenin, the leader of the Socialist Revolution. In school we learned about the beautiful socialist system, where everybody is equal and everything is fair; about ugly capitalism, where people are exploited and treat each other like wolves in the wilderness.


Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures.


The government-assigned salary of the proletariat (blue-collar worker) was 30%-50% higher then any professional. Without incentive to improve their life, professionals drank themselves to oblivion. They — engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers — earned a government-determined salary that barely covered the necessities, mainly food.


Raising children was a hardship. It took four to six adults (parents and grandparents) to support a child. The usual size of the postwar family was one or two children. Every woman had the right to have an abortion and most of them did, often without anesthesia.


There is a comparative historical reality that plays out the consequences of two competing ideologies: life in the USSR and in America. When the march to the worker's paradise — the Socialist Revolution — began in 1917, many people emigrated from Russia to the U.S.


In the USSR, economic equality was achieved by redistributing wealth, ensuring that everyone remained poor, with the exception of those doing the redistributing. Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West.


The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care. The egalitarian utopia of equality, achieved by the sacrifice of individual self-interest for the collective good, led to corruption, black markets, anger and envy.


Government-controlled health care destroyed human dignity.


Chairman Nikita Khrushchev released facts about Stalin and his purges. People learned of the horrific purge of more than 20 million citizens, murdered as enemies of the state.


Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise. The majority of those immigrants achieved a better life for themselves and their children in this capitalist land.


These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party. The freedom to pursue personal self-interest led to prosperity. Prosperity generated charity, benefiting the collective good.


The descendants of those immigrants are now supporting policies that move America away from the values that gave so many immigrants the chance of a better life. Policies such as nationalized medicine, high tax rates and government intrusion into free enterprise are being sold to us under the socialistic motto of collective salvation.


Socialism has bankrupted and failed every society, while capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.


There is no perfect society. There are no perfect people. Critics say that greed is the driving force of capitalism. My answer is that envy is the driving force of socialism. Change to socialism is not an improvement on the imperfections of the current system.


The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.


Today we can define the better system not by slogans, but by looking at the accumulated facts. We can compare which ideology leads to the most oppression and which brings the most opportunity.


When I came to America in 1980 and experienced life in this country, I thought it was fortunate that those living in the USSR did not know how unfortunate they were.


Now in 2009, I realize how unfortunate it is that many Americans do not understand how fortunate they are. They vote to give government more and more power without understanding the consequences.


Svetlana Kunin, Stamford, Conn.


Editor's note: Mrs. Kunin, an IBD subscriber, is a retired software developer. In the Soviet Union, she was a civil engineer.






Belatedly, Egypt Spots Flaws in Wiping Out Pigs

This just in - Obama Adminstration boasts that they CONTROL THE MEDIA!!!