Friday, April 25, 2008

Nancy Pelosi and her genuine imitation Bible verses.

On Earth Day, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave a speech, invoking scripture, to help us all understand the parts of the Bible it's alright to cling to.

Pelosi said:
"The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.' On this Earth Day, and every day, let us honor the earth and our future generations with a commitment to fight climate change."
And, it's not the first time Nancy Pelosi has 'quoted' this Bible verse. In fact, she seems to use it quite a bit.

She used, for example, it in a Christmas message to the U.S. House in 2005. And, in 2007, she used it in a speech to the U.S. House Science and Technology Committee, her 2007 Earth Day message, in remarks to Congress before Easter recess, in an interview with PBS, and in a speech to the League of Conservation Voters.

The problem is, it doesn't appear Nancy bothered to even open the Bible before she began quoting it. You see, that quote that Nancy Pelosi gave is not something in the Bible. Anywhere. In whole or in part.

She fabricated it.

Now, of course, liberals are trying to spin this into a fabrication by FoxNews, but what I just quoted came directly from Nancy Pelosi's blog at Speaker.gov. I haven't changed her quotes, as certain liberals claim FoxNews did.

Frank J. at imao.us has a few more of Nancy's favorite verses:
"And God said to Adam and Eve, 'Be fruitful and multiply... but if you don't feel like having another child and get pregnant, do what you need to. I won't judge.'"

"And God said to Abraham, 'I shall destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, for they are wicked and don't allow gay marriage.'"

"And Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, because he's the government and he knows how to spend your money better. Seriously, give your money to him and not to me or my followers; religious charities are no match for the benevolence of the government.' Jesus then mocked everyone who believed in Him for being stupid and closed-minded."

Thursday, April 24, 2008

What has Global Warming Wrought?

You still think Global Warming folks aren't alarmists?

Here is the list of things that supposedly have been (or will be) caused by Global Warming (compiled by NumberWatch.co.uk):

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty ...

We're free at last!

That's right! Today is Tax Freedom Day!

If you're unfamiliar with Tax Freedom Day, let me explain it to you. If you're an 'average' American, you've worked every day so far this year simply to pay the government what they take out of your paycheck each year. You worked the first 113 days of the year this year just to pay the government what they demand from you.

That's more days worked simply to pay the government than what the average American works to pay for housing and household operations (60 days), food (35 days), and clothing (13 days) COMBINED, according to MSN Money.

But, as of today, you're free! The money you make from this day until January 1st of next year is yours! Take it and do with it what you want!

Now, keep in mind, that there are 43% of Americans that don't pay taxes and actually get money from the government -- they had their 'Tax Freedom Day' for this year on December 31st, 2007. And, depending on your state, your Tax Freedom Day may come slightly earlier or later -- Alaska gets theirs March 29th while those in Connecticut have to wait until May 8th.

And, of course, there are those in the 'Wealthiest 1%' who don't get to celebrate Tax Freedom Day for a while yet because of our progressive 'tax the rich' system.

Today is, after all, just the 'average' day when we all get together and celebrate our freedom from enslavement to the government tax system.

But, even our worst off still have it better than some. In the United Kingdom, for example,Tax Freedom Day isn't celebrated until around June 1st. For Canadians, it's not until around June 28th -- meaning that the unlucky folks north of the border work nearly half of the year simply to pay their taxes.

So, now that you're done paying your debt to the government, go! Spend your money!
  • Buy things for yourself -- that you'll likely pay sales taxes on.
  • Put gas in your car -- which is taxed at an even higher rate.
  • Enjoy what you've already got -- that you're probably paying property taxes on.
  • Invest your money -- and pay capital gains taxes.
  • Or, you can go for the other half of Ben Franklin's 'death and taxes' truism and just curl up and die -- and then your family can pay estate taxes on the money you had.
Enjoy your freedom!

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Barack on the run.

Last week, in Philadelphia, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton debated. And, since there is no substantial difference between the two on policy matters, ABC's moderators decided to ask Obama two of the three questions I said that he wouldn't be able to answer way back in February.

And Barack imploded.

Around the web, the opinions were nearly unanimous:
"This was not a good debate for Obama, period. But it wasn’t a great debate for Clinton either. Of course, that may not matter to Team Clinton. In a two-way debate, it’s not about which candidate narrowly wins — but which candidate gets pummeled in the post-debate reviews. And Obama will get pummeled because, well he did get pummeled, a little bit by Clinton and a little bit by the moderators ...

"In the first 40 minutes of the debate, most of the questioning was on Obama's negatives ... and that's what helped create what was a near disastrous performance by Obama in those first 40 minutes. He was weak in a lot of his answers on his personal negatives. (Did he really compare Tom Coburn to a one-time '60s radical/terrorist?) Clinton, meanwhile, piled on, particularly (and surprisingly, actually) on Ayers. While I'm not sure if Clinton's piling on ever is good for her in the long run -- see her current poll standing -- it created some post-debate issues for Obama."
- MSNBC's Chuck Todd
"Much of the hardest sledding for Obama came during the period where the questioners and Sen. Clinton asked him to account for his associations with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and former Weatherman, William Ayers. His answers seemed defensive and not very solid."
- Slate's John Dickerson
"For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright and on the 'bitter' comments."
The New York Times' David Brooks
Those in the Obama ranks, of course, chose to attack the questions rather than answer them, with those on the Huffington Post making outlandish accusations that the moderators were simply tools of the right-wing and that George Stephanopoulos was still just a shill for the Clinton campaign.

The Obama campaign fundraiser e-mail the next day echoed the sentiment, asking:
Did you see the debate last night?

If you did, you saw more gotcha politics and distractions than questions about the pressing issues affecting our country.
But, as David Brooks wrote in his NY Times commentary on the debate, it's the job of the moderators 'to make the politicians uncomfortable, explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilites.' They're not there to shill for either candidate, they're there to poke and prod and make the candidates deal with the things that the candidates would rather not have to deal with and answer the questions they'd rather not even have asked.

For Obama, those questions were about his pastor, his relationship with an unrepentant terrorist, his refusal to wear an American flag pin, and his stereotyping the average American as a bitter hick who clings to guns and religion.

After the debate, there were rumors that Obama's performance was so bad that his campaign handlers weren't even going to let him participate in any other debates so long as they controlled the debate schedule. It turns out that's exactly what's happening.

Since then, Obama has stopped holding press conferences. He wouldn't talk to reporters in a diner asking what he thought of Jimmy Carter's visit with Hamas, complaining that he couldn't even enjoy his waffle without them asking him questions.

And, his hasty retreat from the harsh spotlight and any venue where he might have to explain himself continued when his campaign refused to commit to the North Carolina Debate originally scheduled for April 27th, afraid that hard-nosed journalist Katie Couric would follow up on George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson's line of questioning.
Among those who reached out to the state Democratic Party, "the consensus was they felt the ABC debate didn't touch on the most important issues and they were concerned that might happen again," Mr. Meek said. An ABC News spokesperson declined to comment.
The media is waking up. Hillary is on the offensive. Obama is on the run.

Ben Stein rattles Richard Dawkins.

If you've enetered very far into the fray of the Intelligent Design debate, you've no doubt encountered Richard Dawkins -- or, at a minimum, one of his arguments. He is one of the world's foremost atheists and Darwinists, and he is invariably highly critical of religion, God, Intelligent Design or Creationist theories or, really, anything that might lead to having some level of accountability coming in the great beyond.

So, needless to say, seeing that he was going to be appearing in Ben Stein's documentary 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' intrigued me.

However, what they managed to extract from Dawkins -- what they have him on film saying -- is only slightly more entertaining to me than his response to being 'duped' into playing a part in the film in the first place.

On his website, Dawkins writes:
In the course of this film, Mathis tricked a number of scientists, including PZ Myers and me, into taking prominent parts in the film, and both of us are handsomely thanked in the closing credits.
Tricked? Really?

The basis of this assertion is that, according to the Darwinists that were 'tricked' into participating, that the film was supposed to be called 'Crossroads' instead of 'Expelled' and that the debate was going to be about Creationism vs. Darwinism rather than Intelligent Design vs. Evolution.

The Guardian writes:
Professor Dawkins, who is speaking at the Atheist Alliance convention in Crystal City, Virginia, said in an email that had he known the film's premise he would not have agreed to take part. "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," he said. Other atheists said they were uneasy about the way they felt they had been duped.

Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota and a leading critic of creationism, reproduced on Prof Dawkins' website a letter from Mark Mathis, a producer for Rampant Films. It says: "We are in production of the documentary film Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion ... we are interested in asking you questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between evolution, creationism and the intelligent design movement."

In other words, the end film is exactly what Dawkins and Myers thought they were going to be participating in but, clearly, renaming the movie after they shot their scenes is 'smarmy' -- and, thus, supposedly discredits the entire film.

Dawkins rambling tirade then goes on, of course, to trash the film, the filmmakers, Ben Stein, and pretty much anyone who might've ever even thought of somehow participating in or seeing this film in an effort to keep people from seeing it and -- just as Ben Stein points out in the film -- stifle debate.

And, to combat the films premise that there is a clear prejudice against anyone who disagrees with Darwinism or even suggests that the two theories should be presented side-by-side, Dawkins responds with more clear prejudice against those who would disagree with Darwinism.

So, why are the Darwinsists so upset?

Well, for one thing, Dawkins himself admits that one possible explanation for the origins of life on Earth is that it was the result of intelligent creation, but that it was more likely that it was an advanced, space-faring, alien species that did it than God.

In other words, Dawkins argument essentially boils down to this:

  • People who believe that God created life on Earth? Idiots.
  • People who believe that an ancient, advanced race of alien beings landed here in their spaceship and did an experiment on some mud that, after a lightning strike or two, resulted in that mud becoming man? Brilliant.
One of the other major 'sticking points' that Darwinists have is the film linking Darwinism with Eugenics in Nazi Germany.

(Eugenics also has a shocking history right here in the United States.)

However, even a cursory understanding of the two processes and practices can lead to the films' links. Consider, for example, the following two quotes:
"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man."
- Charles Darwin
If we are to believe that Darwin was right, it is easy to, then, to say that we shouldn't help those in need -- ie: with Welfare, socialized medicine, etc. which (perhaps ironically) those who support Darwin's theories in the public classroom are also in favor of -- see a clear path towards the 'management' of our populations by those with 'higher authority' within the society itself (unless, of course, people are all indeed 'endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.')
"The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable ...

"In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak or sickly or less determined succumb. Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
- Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf
Hitler himself echoed Darwin and his stated theories with rather shocking precision, using it as an argument for the extermination of the Jews and, given that Darwin himself was a racist, it's easy to see how he and Hitler might find common cause.

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm able to see how Ben Stein made the leap he did in the movie.

If you're interested in finding out more about the movie, you can watch the extended trailer on YouTube or visit Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed to find a theater near you that's showing the film.