Two Arguments

 I was reading a book entitled, In Six Days, a series of short articles by scientists, mostly PhD, who accept the literal Biblical account of creation and origins.  It's fascinating reading, but not an easy read.  I read it through three times and profited just as much from the third reading as from the first.

I came away with two breathtaking (to me) arguments for the existence of an intelligent Creator which seem unanswerable:

Irreducible complexity--a single-celled organism is probably more complex that a city.  It's certainly more complex than a passenger jetliner.  But here's the "Boom" that struck me as I was contemplating this: It doesn't get any lower.  Life doesn't get any lower than this fantastically complex cell.  There's nothing below the cellular level in self-replicating life.  "Primordial ooze" and "warm pond" stories all imply that there is "proto-life" below the cell level, but that just isn't true.  Evolutionary theory operates on the assumption that it is the reproduction side of things that enables the selection, the rising up from simple to complex.  How're you going to do that with something that doesn't reproduce, i.e., non-life?  Amino acids are not living.  Enzymes are not living.  Sugars are not living.  None of these organic compounds are living.  They do not reproduce.  Natural selection can't operate on them.  This seems obvious, but we're bamboozled by the warm pond stories, and I think I know why.  It's because we've all seen a situation where nutrient-rich water inevitably grows things.  Life seems to spring out of such situations of its own accord.  But that's not the case.  In every case, the life we see, the mold, the yeast, the scum, the goo--they all came from elsewhere, from previous mold, yeast, scum and goo.  They didn't originate in that pond (or petri dish).

And think about this:  Picture a bolt lying next to a threaded hole just the right size for the bolt, with a washer of the correct size lying nearby.  What are the odds that bolt could thread itself into the hole by chance, with the washer between, and torque itself down to the right spec?  What I'm saying is, even if you were to gather all the components of a cell together in one place, there's Some Assembly Required.  And the assembly is way more complex than just putting the bolt into the hole and torquing it down, which, by the way, is a never-happen-by-chance event (in case you haven't guessed).  Multiply that by thousands of equally impossible-by-chance events, and you would arrive at an assembled cell.  Congratulations! But now you've got another problem: Where are you going to get the life? You've just assembled a carcass, one which started decaying long before you finished putting it together.  Remember, these compounds are subject, like everything else, to the second law of thermodynamics, and they are busily breaking down into simpler substances while you're working.  

You might say, But a completed cell would automatically begin functioning--life begins!  I beg to differ.  All of us have seen animal carcasses which are complete but non-functioning.  The life is gone from them.  How did the life get there in the first place?  From another animal like it.  Like begets like.  We know of no other way.  The implications are huge.

The next point I'll cover in a future post.

Three Questions

 I just read a guest post on Bari Weis' blog from a woman born in Iran commenting on the freedoms we enjoy (and often overlook) here in America.  It's a great view through the eyes of someone raised in totalitarianism.  We would do well to take what she says to heart and do all that we can to preserve what is now under ferocious attack.

But her wonderment at a society that could provide such freedom to its fortunate and blessed members begs some questions, it seems to me.

How did such a state of affairs come about?  What worldview and cultural factors gave rise to this historic anomaly known as the United States of America?

How was such an exceptional situation sustained over 240+ years?

Why is the stability of this edifice now, as it seems to me, gravely threatened?

Those who love this country should think long, hard, and clearly on these three points.  They may by no means be exhaustive, by the way.  But I think they're a start.

Those who hate this country have already analyzed the situation, it seems to me, and are working feverishly to reverse the conditions that provided for #1 and #2, and to optimize the conditions for #3.

An Appeal to Flat Earthers and Other Debunkers

When I travel around, I pay attention to the angle of the sun. The published figures for the angle of the sun at a given date and time on any point on the earth's surface are correct, just from my personal experience. This leads to some important conclusions:
 --these observations could only be true on a spherical earth;
 --the size of the earth must be what "they" say it is.

 Follow me: When I travel from Cleveland, OH to Spokane, WA, I notice that the height of the sun at any given day at what I call "sun noon" (sun directly in the south) is about six degrees lower in Spokane than in Cleveland. That's from my own personal observation. Spokane is at 47 1/2 degrees north latitude, and Cleveland is at 41 1/2. Six degrees. I've traveled the distance between the two cities by automobile many times. The maps are accurate.

 The distances published coincide with the mileage on my odometer. I travel through 3 time zones of 15 degrees longitude each. 15 degrees times 24 hours equals 360 degrees, or one circumference. The lines of latitude and longitude are published accurately on maps. Each degree of latitude is 69 miles. 69 times 360 equals 24,840. Checks out. The lines of longitude grow closer together as we get farther from the equator, and they're the distance apart at any given latitude they should be if the earth were a sphere 25k miles in circumference. Checks out. Furthermore, Spokane is east in its time zone, and Cleveland west in its time zone. Therefore the sun rises and sets in Cleveland later relative to clock noon than it does in Spokane. I've checked this out, and it's accurate.

 The published figures for sunrise and sunset are accurate. Go to suncalc.org if you want to see these things for yourself. Pay close attention to how long shadows are where you are and do the trig math. It checks out. This is only one example. I've been all over the world, and I pay close attention to the coordinates of every place I go to. Everything so far has checked out.

The earth has to be a sphere, and it has to be the size "they" say it is. As far a seeing lighthouses at greater distances than calculated, that could be atmospheric refraction, enabling us to see a light that is below the horizon. Just a guess. I'll have to look at that.

Civil War in the US?

I just watched a video speculating as to the outcome of a civil war between the right and the left in the United States: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0ep-u1_0T8  (copy and paste in address bar)

I was going to post the below in the comments section, then thought better of it.  But I didn't want to waste my effort, so here it is:



The Dems would never enter into a civil war with things as they stand now. They aren't stupid, just crazy. As Inspector Dreyfus said, "Insanity does not preclude genius."

Not that the left wouldn't hop at the chance to destroy the right if they thought they could win. So here's what needs to happen before the left would consider joining battle with the forces of evil:

--They need to disarm the citizenry (they're working on it)

--They need to get rid of all the loyal officer corps and replace them with yes-men loyal to a leftist government. Obama started this process, which is now stalled since Trump took office. Maybe the next occupant of the Oval Office?

--They need to win the presidency and both houses--This is a near-certainty within a decade or so because of the next item:

--They need an overwhelming majority Democrat constituency. Immigration plus high birth rates for minorities, coupled with low birth rates for people on the right is making this almost a certainty in 10-15 years.

--They need to neutralize by whatever means possible all the trained war vets living among the general population. Perhaps list them as unstable, PTSD, threats to national security, etc? They tried this in the last administration. They'll try it again.

--They need to institute an invasive bureaucracy so controlling that opponents aren't able to communicate, coordinate, or resist. The idea would be to isolate individuals. Current surveillance technology, assisted by drones, will be a big help. The IRS and the NSA working together can keep the populace in a constant state of fear.

--They need to allow the current indoctrination process of the youngest generation, which has been going on for 50 years in public schools as well as in media and entertainment, time to bear the fruit of a near-total leftist world view among those of military age. They're close now, but need to wait a while longer.

IMHO, it'll take 10-15 years for all these to be in place. When this all comes together, I'd give them, oh, around 1.6 seconds or so to issue an ultimatum to the right.

Whose Will?

The President and the Republicans are trying to make the case, to justify their opposition to letting the caravan come across our border, that among the 7000 or so there may be ISIS, there may be drug dealers, there may be criminals of all stripes whom we don't want to let into our country.  This may be true, but it totally misses the point.  Perhaps the reason it misses the point is because they don't think Americans can, or will, either get or appreciate the real point.

The real point is this:  This caravan can't be allowed to just barge across our border because of the precedent it will set and because of the example it will become.  If we are a nation-state, with citizenship, laws, and territory over which we are sovereign, we can't allow non-citizens to just enter at will.  There must be some gate-keeping.  Otherwise, the above three, citizenship, laws, and territory, not to mention sovereignty, are completely moot.

Now is not the time or place to discuss the validity of the concept of nation-state as opposed to nation (ethne in Greek), which is an ethnic group, a nation of blood and soil.  Ours is a nation founded on an idea.  This was a very new thing in the late 18th century. 

Lincoln's question in the Gettysburg Address, "whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure" is becoming more and more relevant.  If we lose the idea, does the nation really exist any longer?  France, for example, is composed of Frenchmen, at least until very recently.  (We'll see whether it can survive the influx of non-Frenchmen currently imposing its will on the native population.  I wouldn't bet on it.)  But the fact remains that France, as long as it is composed of Frenchmen, will remain France even if the government and its founding principles are radically altered.  The French Revolution demonstrated this.

However, the United States of America is not like France.  If the original idea is lost or repudiated, and the form of government altered, can it be said that the United States still exists? 

If the United States is to remain a sovereign entity, it must control its borders, that is, the territory within its jurisdiction.  It must reserve to itself the power and prerogative of choosing who may enter and who may not.  This is the issue at stake.  A mob of 7000 people must not be allowed to impose its will on the nation.  If it succeeds, we have lost our sovereignty and our real existence. 

There are those on the political left who probably think that is a good thing.  In fact, this is precisely what they've been working toward for decades, and it's nearly become a reality.  The question is, will they prevail?  Whose vision of our country will prevail?  Nearly 50% of the electorate is of the opinion that the United States should become a very different entity from what it has historically been since its founding.  Will they succeed in transforming it into their image, or will they be thwarted in their attempt?  This upcoming election will, in large measure, provide the answer.

More Honest Reportage by the MSM

My dad and I were watching TV coverage of this "event". The people were well-dressed, clean (not "ragged"), well-fed, and obviously in very good shape after already coming 300-400 miles. Q: Where are they getting all the food? How are they staying clean? What about shelter? Where are they sleeping? What about water and toilet facilities? This is a massive logistical undertaking. If you've been in the army you know what I'm talking about. Another thing--among the "hikers", mostly young men, were some women and children. including a very overweight woman. This is some hundreds of miles out from the start. And the next question is.....

Back to my point: Someone, or "someones", provided massive funding, organization, and logistical support. Further in the news clip they showed a number of large cargo vans. I assume the people are being transported by truck, only to be let out for a mile or two for the cameras. Nowhere in the MSM reportage do I hear anything about the logistics. No one's even asking the question, it seems. This is so obviously a setup. This isn't Lord of the Rings or some fantasy adventure. Large groups of people don't just trek across several countries. I checked the distance from Teguicigalpa, Honduras, to El Paso, TX. It's over 2300 miles. That's farther than the distance from Mexico to Canada by a fair margin. How'd you like to walk that? And the "press" is keeping a straight face while reporting this fairy tale.

Yes, the Lord is doing this to us. But the deed has mostly been done inside our country. If it weren't the refugees, the treacherous quislings would find something else.

You know, in order to run for political office in one of our parties, you just about have to sign your name in blood to a statement saying you'll support the murder of unborn children. That's their most important issue.

Woe to us.

Insanity

I'm reading in Acts chapter 4 today about the Jewish rulers examining Peter and John regarding their healing the lame man in the temple.  Peter nails them between the eyes with his pointed remarks:

"...let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone."

So what's their response?  They discuss the matter and decide that even though Peter and John have performed a tremendous miracle in the name of Jesus, they still need to suppress talk of Him being the Messiah or any silly thing like that.  Like the miracle in no way validates Peter and John's testimony.  Or even has anything to do with the matter.  Right.

Q:  How could they possibly be so blind and unthinking?  How could they possibly NOT be filled with fear and awe at the possibility that they just killed the long-awaited Messiah?  How could they not have been stopped in their tracks by the stupendous implications of this?   I'm reading this, amazed at the depravity of human nature, and at the same time, convinced at the accuracy of the account by the sheer perversity of this bunch.  In what work of fiction would you find such a reaction to an utterly convincing event?  Only in real life would such a thing happen.  It's stuff like this that convinces me even further that the Bible is a true account of history and of the reality of evil.

This reminds me of the reaction of the religious leaders to the story of the guards they placed at Jesus' tomb to keep the body from being stolen.  The guards witnessed a supernatural being rolling away the stone from the door of the tomb:

^"And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.  His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men."

These rough, tough men were utterly terrified.  There were four of them (at least), and they could have overpowered just about any natural being who tried such a thing.  Their testimony to the Jewish leaders had to be shocking.  So what was the Jewish leaders' reaction?  

...they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”

This is insanity.  The testimony of these guards (four of them!) HAD to be amazing.  Shocking.  Ominous.  TERRIFYING, to those responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.  I mean, what were they thinking?  You'd think that at least some of them would immediately fall on their faces and ask God for forgiveness.  But there's no record of that.  Instead, they bribed the guards to spread what they knew was a lie, and promised to bribe the governor also to keep him from executing the guards (death was the penalty for falling asleep on a watch).

But this is so true-to-life.  People hardened to the truth seldom are convinced by any evidence.  And they will go on telling lies that they know to be lies if the alternative is acknowledgement, repentance, humble acceptance, and a change of direction.

May God deliver us from ourselves. 

Power Games

I'm amazed at the seeming naivete of so many journalists and bloggers covering the current developments regarding corruption in the high places of DC.  So many of them act so amazed, so dumbfounded, so...shocked, just shocked!! at what's come out.  I'm amazed and dumbfounded too (but not shocked).  My amazement is for a different reason, though.  I'm amazed that all this is actually coming out in public view!  If it hadn't been for the election of Donald Trump which, politically, was a black swan event, NONE of this would have surfaced.  It was that political miracle which enabled this one.  Before the election I had resigned myself--for several years, actually--to the election of Hillary Clinton as our next POTUS and to business as usual in DC.  But the election of Donald was truly earth-shattering, and made so many previously unthinkable things thinkable.  Donald Trump is like a chlorine molecule inserted into an oxygen slot in an organism--fits right in and totally disrupts the chemistry.

NOW--what we see playing out in DC and around the nation is a raw game of power.  To be sure, there's still subterfuge involved, but so much more of the raw power is exposed for those who observe.  The left is in full-attack mode.  They seem to be operating on the assumption that rhetoric, not truth, will ultimately carry the day, and they have a nuclear arsenal of rhetoric at their disposal.  The right seems to have some very powerful evidence of official wrongdoing, but they don't have the left's powers of persuasion.  Who will win?  It remains to be seen.

But here's the deal: This battle is being fought strictly along partisan lines.  This greatly favors the Democrats.  They have the luxury of being intensely partisan while accusing the Republicans of being partisan.  It's a double standard which they've enjoyed for decades.  This also weakens the arguments of the Republicans.  After all, if they really had truth on their side, you'd think that at least SOME democrats would join them in their battle, wouldn't they?  But the Dems' not breaking ranks focuses attention not on THEIR partisanship, but on the Republicans'.  It's a weird phenomenon.  And the Republicans aren't helping matters by being so overtly joyful, gleeful even, at having discovered such incriminating evidence on the part of Clinton supporters.  They really make this look like a partisan battle, don't they?  And the sad part is, in light of their recent vote to give the government even greater surveillance powers, it may very well be for many in the GOP.

So--let's see how this plays out.  Like I said, this is a power game now.  The sides have been drawn up, the battle lines are formed.  There are only a few neutrals out there.  Most Americans are in one camp or the other.  Whose will shall prevail?  Most commenters, left and right, speak of "the will of the American people" as though it were a monolithic thing aligned, naturally, with the party the speaker endorses.  But it seems to me that the electorate is pretty much divided 50/50.  People in one camp are very, very unlikely to even listen to any argument put forth by the other.

The LORD God help us, especially His chosen ones.

DC Revelations

I'm watching this Wash. DC show utterly dumbfounded.  Not so much at the revelations.  Knowing human nature (my own heart), the depth of the evil doesn't surprise me.  What is amazing is that it's all coming out.  I'm driven to prayer (a good thing!) by the knowledge that this can mean that our nation is in very great peril.  I'm also driven to searching my own heart and confessing the stuff in dark corners.  I don't want His wrath myself, I'd MUCH rather have His protection. I very much hope that the awfulness of the revealed evil causes many to reflect on the nature of man and their own status with the Creator, and drives them to Him in prayer.  I don't have any great expectation that'll happen, but it would be wonderful.  Here's what amazes me:  Hillary is now 70.  Many of those who control her are older, some much older.  How long do they expect to live?  The pre-diluvians might have had a little reason to think they were independent of God, living as they did for 900+ years, some of them, but us??  What are we thinking?  I'm 68.  I know my time is short.  I realize it's time for a proper humility.  What are the power-brokers thinking?  Just wondering.

Cult of Mary

This was my reply in response to DRG's question about the Roman Catholic cult of Mary--"when it became incorporated into Catholic doctrine, what were the circumstances, and why would they want to do that?"

DRG-
I suspect it was shortly after the Edict of Constantine, which made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was a very key happening in the history of the Church, and NOT for good. What it did was make Christianity fashionable and appealing to all sorts of heart-not-right types, who then saw in being a churchman an opportunity for social advancement and financial gain. It opened up a new career path for the ambitious.
Now these teachings of the Queen of Heaven had been around from time immemorial. Remember, when the Israelites were fleeing from the wrath of the Babylonians after one of them had assassinated the Babylon-installed governor? They went to Egypt, which God had forbidden them to do. They took Jeremiah with them, and he took them to task for their unfaithfulness. They were still not convinced that following the LORD was the wise thing to do, and decided to cover their bases by baking cakes to the Queen of Heaven. This was around 585 BC. So we can surmise that this practice had been going on for a long time before that.
By the time of Constantine, this Queen of Heaven idea was part of the cultural narrative, and the Church, in order to make Christianity “culturally relevant”, just incorporated the idea. We can see this tendency toward syncretism everywhere Catholicism holds sway. Instead of impacting the culture with truth, Catholicism accommodates.
I say these things as a former Catholic who came to Christ at age 27. You might be interested to know that one of the first works I read as a new believer was Martin Luther. At the time, I was starting university, and happened across a copy of his writings in the university bookstore. I stayed up nights until 3am reading it–amazed at Luther’s insight and his critique of the Catholic church. When I compared what he wrote with the Catholic condemnations of him I had been hearing in my growing-up years, I decided that Luther was a man of God who had been slandered by Rome.

Homeschooling

I for one have known how superior homeschooling is from first hand observation of friends’ home-schooled kids who grew up to be well-rounded, confident adults. The objection is always, always, always, They need to be socialized! The fact of the matter is that home-schooled kids are much better socialized than their antisocial, standoffish-with-adults and scornful-of-younger-kids peers. Home-schooled kids live in the real world. That’s the main advantage they have. Everything they learn is learned in the real world. They learn reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic in the real world. They learn social studies, science, and shop in the real world. They gain a real (that is, adult) perspective on everything they learn, as they go. There’s no transition between schoolboy- and -girlhood and adulthood. THAT can be a very traumatic transition, and homeschoolers completely sidestep it. Under our current system, it takes some time for the products of our educational system to become real people. That’s what their ’20s are for, to make real adults out of schoolkids. Homeschoolers arrive at that point at around age 15 or 16.
But the real objection to homeschooling is and always will be: How can we possibly mold these kids into the kind of reflexively- unquestioning-our-premises droids we want without compulsory formal education?

Oh, I thought of another objection to homeschooling that will be advanced: How can we possibly have powerhouse interscholastic athletics without primary and secondary feeder systems to select and train the best athletic entertainment? The whole American way of life would come crashing down. Bummer.

Evidence for the Resurrection

In an earlier post (Feb. 1, 2017), I made reference to Steve, who wrote in response to an article in The Daily Bell entitled, "Increasingly, Evolution Has No Proof":

"The authors of this piece need to not only read about the theory of punctuated equilibrium that addresses the main issues raised but also be aware that 'proof' is only relevant in mathematics and jurisprudence, not science."

I should have jumped on the last part of that statement sooner, maybe in my original reply.  My original reply camped on the theory of punctuated equilibrium and neglected the other point.  So proof is relevant in jurisprudence, he says?  I say, Good point!

Such an expert in the law as Simon Greenleaf, the "Father of American Jurisprudence", investigated the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and came to the conclusion that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead:

"As a legal scholar, Greenleaf wondered if Jesus’ resurrection would meet his stringent tests for evidence.  He wondered whether or not the evidence for it would hold up in a court of law. Focusing his brilliant legal mind on the facts of history, Greenleaf began applying his rules of evidence to the case of Jesus’ resurrection.

"Contrary to what skeptics might have expected, the more Greenleaf investigated the record of history, the more evidence he discovered supporting the claim that Jesus had indeed risen from the tomb.

"After evaluating all the evidence, Greenleaf accepted Jesus’ resurrection as the best explanation for the events that took place immediately after his crucifixion.

"To this legal expert, the case for Jesus’ resurrection was so compelling that he had no doubt it would hold up in a court of law. In his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists, Greenleaf documents the evidence supporting his conclusion. He challenges those who seek the truth about the resurrection to fairly examine the evidence."  ("Harvard Law Professor Puts Jesus' Resurrection on Trial",  http://y-jesus.com/simon-greenleaf-resurrection/)

I wonder if Steve would be so quick to assert that "proof is relevant in jurisprudence", knowing that?
I wonder.

Taxman

I think the Beatles' epiphany about the nature of government came just before they released the single, "Taxman":
"Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me,
'Cause I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me"
This was written around 1964 protesting the confiscatory tax rate of 95% on those in the highest tax bracket, which the Beatles were in. The lefties would dearly like a 95% rate on the wealthy to this very day.
The antiwar left of the '60s and '70s had a lot of good things to say, but they were unable to awaken the majority of the American people, IMHO, because of their advocacy of socialism as the fix. Wrong solution. This was the spawning ground for the leftist establishment we have today. The establishment is still evil.
The lefties are delusional in thinking that if THEY can be the ones in control, everything will be fine. Well, they've succeeded in getting control, and everything's not fine. Now they think that if they can just completely stamp out and snuff out their opposition, everything will be fine. I have a prediction...

Peace Be Upon Jerusalem

“On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a blazing pot in the midst of wood, like a flaming torch among sheaves. And they shall devour to the right and to the left all the surrounding peoples, while Jerusalem shall again be inhabited in its place, in Jerusalem.

And the Lord will give salvation to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not surpass that of Judah. On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, going before them. And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."  Zech. 2:6-9

There's a lot in Zechariah that is very cryptic and which I don't understand, but what I DO understand is that the LORD is going to preserve and defend Jerusalem and Israel, and those who oppose them (and Him) will be destroyed.  That's a no-brainer.

Let me tell a little story.  When I was a very new believer, in the late '70s, I was reading Zechariah for the first time, and was blown away by it.  I was at church one day and encountered people from a cult who were visiting, who called themselves "Children of God" or some such.  I got into a conversation with one of them and told him excitedly about what I was reading in Zechariah (new believers are like that).  This led to my being invited to their house where they attempted to indoctrinate me.  One of their tenets was that Paul's writings were not Scripture.  Afterward I was in my room praying about it, and opened my Bible.  Which verse do you think popped up almost immediately?  Right on, 2 Pet. 3:15,16: 

"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."

Whoa!  Peter is saying right here that Paul's writings are Scripture!  Now WHAT ARE THE ODDS, that I would go straight to that verse, not knowing it, out of all the verses in the Bible?  You do the calculation if you want, but I'm convinced it was God's leading.

Blessings to you, and to all who love the LORD in truth.  Peace be upon Jerusalem.

Progress of the Progressives

Today I read an exchange between HadItWithThem and donna in the comments section of Michael Snyder's The Most Important News blog, titled, "Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are Right--America is on the Verge of Widespread Chaos and Civil Unrest".  Donna contended that these times were like the violent, chaotic '60s and '70s, and HadIt disagreed.  The dialogue became rather abusive and ugly, as it can get on the web.  I offered my take on the difference in a reply to donna:

Sorry to see the level to which your exchange with HadIt has gone to. I'm also 67 years old, and remember those days quite well, although I was not politically very aware. My recollection of those times was that, yes, they were very chaotic and often violent, but there's a difference today. An ominous difference. The lunatic left was fringe then. They hadn't come to the positions of power they have now, and were not able to direct public policy the way they can now. Yes, the Black Panthers and the Weathermen openly advocated violence, but the populace as a whole didn't feel threatened by them. The establishment was much more in control of the situation.
Speaking of the establishment, it has now become the instigator of much of what we see and hear, and it is now establishment figures who are putting forth much of the inflammatory rhetoric. That was not the case then. Yes, the average man/woman in the street decried what was going on, but in those days, the opinion of Mr./Mrs Average was RESPECTED, not maligned. This is a huge difference. The general tone of what we read/hear in the MSM outlets is one of thinly-disguised contempt for the troglodytes in "flyover country". There is a push to RE-EDUCATE the people to accept the premises of the hard left, such as climate change, gay marriage, the necessity of one-world government, etc. Those themes were playing back then, but not as openly and blatantly as now. Outlets such as the NYT and WaPo were run by the equivalent of RINOs then, rather than the Neolibs and leftists of today (although they voted majority Democrat then).
Yes, you could hear the same sort of leftist rhetoric back then as you hear now, but it was coming from people in patched coveralls driving VW microbuses, not people in three-piece suits and $6,000 dresses, and not from members of Congress either! Several years ago I read an editorial by the editor-in-chief of our local medium-sized newspaper, which was basically a hit piece on Christianity and Christians. I couldn't believe what I was reading. This, coming from a 50- or 60-something pillar of the community! It sounded like some screed written by a solitary misanthrope of the '70s. The left has been so successful, and have become so emboldened by their success, that they've become very arrogant and overt. They speak and write as though they expect a majority to agree with them. And in many cases, they're right! Scary. THAT'S the difference between what I see today and what I remember of then.

One to save

Ann Coulter's take on the media's coverage of the shooting of Republican congressmen playing baseball:

"In the media’s strategic reporting of the attempted slaughter, we were quickly told that the mass shooter was white, male and had used a gun. We were even told his name. (Because it was not “Mohammed.”)
But the fact that Hodgkinson’s Facebook page featured a banner of Sanders and the words “Democratic Socialism explained in 3 words: ‘We the People’ Since 1776” apparently called for hours of meticulous fact-checking by our media."

Perfect.

Could the Left actually be Right?

The left is screaming, crying, foaming-at-the-mouth crazy in their opposition to Donald Trump.  It's kind of fun to watch, but there's a misgiving forming in my mind.  A misgiving not about the left, but about Trump.  First of all, what does it take to reduce the left to the dysfunctional disarray we're witnessing?  Never in my 67 years have I seen pervasive evil really ousted by good.  It just doesn't happen here in this vale of tears.  So why is Trump succeeding so astoundingly?  Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

And NO, our defeat of Hitler and Tojo in WWII doesn't count.  Remember, we had FDR and his thuggery on our side.  And remember,we were some of the biggest admirers of the eugenic idea before its logical outworking was thrown in our faces.  And remember, as Smedley Butler said, "war is a racket".  There was a lot of money made.  And remember, we succeeded in getting the world's wealth to flow our way through the Bretton Woods agreement.  And remember, it was that murderous thug Joe Stalin who did a lot of our dirty work for us.  So we weren't exactly pure as the driven snow. 

Now, with that as preface, how's Trump doing it?  And is it possible the left might be right about Trump?  A pastor named Nathan Leal is publishing a series on Trump which gives some really convincing evidence that The Donald may have entered into some kind of pact with supernatural powers to get where he is today.  I highly recommend your checking Leal's work out.

So, as I suspected even before reading what Pastor Nathan had to say, it's possible that Donald Trump may not be the man he appears to be.  He may be something very dark, very sinister, and very lawless. So--how is it that a lawless bunch like the left all have their panties in a wad about him?  Something's not right here.  Some possibilities come to mind:

A.  It's all theatre.  They're all playing parts in a good-cop bad-cop scam to deceive us schmucks in flyover country.  Their idea is to create such chaos that we eventually experience some sort of societal breakdown which leads to martial law, which leads to the imposition of an international order, which is the endgame of the "elites", whoever they are.  OR,
B.  The left is mistaken about Trump.  They think he's something he's not.   They hate him because they think he sincerely holds the values of the people who elected him.  Their real enemy is the people in flyover country, whom they hate with a passion.  And the thought that Mr. Trump might actually do the will of those troglodyes has them in fits.  OR,
C.  The left is really righteous in their condemnation of Mr. Trump; they really see that he's evil and want to rescue us all from his evil plans.
Haha...just kidding!  Choose A or B.

  

The State of Evolutionary Theory

In response to Steve, who wrote in response to an article in The Daily Bell entitled, "Increasingly, Evolution Has No Proof":

"The authors of this piece need to not only read about the theory of punctuated equilibrium that addresses the main issues raised but also be aware that 'proof' is only relevant in mathematics and jurisprudence, not science."

I wrote:
"Punctuated equilibrium" theorizes that evolution took place in the "gaps", that is, the gaps in the fossil record.  According to the theory, that's why we don't see all the intermediate forms that Darwin predicted we'd find if his theory was correct.  All that macro-evolution took place in between depositional episodes!
This is pretty pat, I think.  It also turns the idea of slow, gradual uniformitarianism on its head for the sake of saving evolutionary theory.  In other words, they used to say, "evolution happens so slowly you can't see it", now they're saying, "it happened so fast we missed it".
Combine this with Stephen Jay Gould's "hopeful monster" idea--which postulates that every once in a while something really outlandish is bred, with a very very small, vanishingly small, percentage of these aberrations proving viable and granting evolutionary advantage to the next generation--and you have a theory that's grasping at straws.  Gould's theory was constructed to overcome the problem of irreducible complexity; that is, in living systems, everything has to be fully formed and functional for the organism to be viable.  Intermediate forms just won't cut it.
When I consider just how much of the scientific edifice is built upon the idea of evolution, and how much that idea has been extrapolated out of the scientific realm and into the realms of sociology, politics, economics, et al, I'm simply amazed.  It appears that the idea is so attractive to many that they're willing to overlook its many flaws simply because they're enamored with it.

Gold Price Rigging

This is in response to an editorial by Money Metals Exchange entitled "Gold Prices Are Being Hacked!" (Jan. 9, 2017):

 "The civil courts appear to be metals investors' best shot at recovery of some of what has been stolen from them in these rigged markets"

Perhaps. IF they get a fair hearing by a completely oblivious and ignorant judiciary. Then there are some questions that come to mind:

Q: Whatever happened to the criminal courts? Q: What if the outcome is the same as it was for MF Global and John Corzine? Q: What if the courts just basically tell litigants to go pound salt, like they did when Blanchard sued Barrick Gold (proxy for the FedGov)? Q: What if, the government being the real defendant, litigants actually win a claim? Wouldn't they just be paid in infinitely-producible fiat? And Q: If that's the case, how much skin would it be off any of the real perps' noses?

If the markets are rigged, it's GOT to be the case that the primary beneficiary is the government. This is just the logical conclusion. Otherwise, would--COULD--these banks possibly be have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with? And if that's the case, what possible recourse could investors have? There's not enough public awareness to really give the government a hard time in this matter.

Having said all that, I'm not one of the defrauded ones, since for years now I've seen what was going on and decided to be a beneficiary rather than an injured party by buying physical cheap rather than documents dear. I urge others to do the same.

Thoughts on Orlando

The left's response to the horrific shootings in Orlando is perverse, but predictable.

Here we have:
--A Muslim man, Omar Mateen
--With ties to ISIS
--Who has in the past made comments on Facebook pledging himself to ISIS
--shooting around 100 people in a gay nightclub
--whose widow apparently knew of his plans but said nothing
--etc. (need I dig any further?)

So what's the left's response to date?

--Of course, there were calls by the President on down for disarming Americans
--Hardly any mention of the fact the shooter was Muslim
--emphasis on the fact he was born in America, so he was "American" (read, white)
--A Catholic bishop blames "religion"(code for Christianity), especially Catholicism for the shootings
--Protesters gathered outside a gay bar here in Sodom where I live with shirts saying "Stop Killing Us"
in order to indict heterosexual America for the crime

So, a follower of Mohammed (CBOH) decides to slaughter people in a public venue and succeeds beyond his wildest dreams.  The response by the left is to use the occasion as an opportunity to demonize and pound on gun owners, heterosexuals, white people and Christians.  Makes perfect sense.

BTW, re his wife keeping quiet--this is something Muslims do very well when they want to.  My wife and I had a friend who was assassinated in a women's clinic in Lebanon by what was probably a hired hit man, probably for the crime of giving her Christian testimony to women who came in.  My guess is that the entire community knew who the culprit was, but--Surprise, surprise!--the police were seemingly unable to obtain any clues as to his identity.  (The police also probably knew who the hit man was.  It's possible it was one of them.  After all, they're the professionals.)  This, despite an outward outpouring of sympathy from said community for the bereaved husband, who afterward wrote a book about the experience and his need to forgive the killer. Muslim killers disappear into their communities like sugar disappears into coffee.