Thursday, March 31, 2005

Terri Schiavo, Rest in Peace

Today is a historical day, my friends. Ms. Schiavo passed away this morning. I hope she's resting comfortably in the arms of our Lord. I hope she heard "Well done, my good and faithful servant," when she met Him for judgment.

This case has affected me like few others. I've followed it for a long time, perplexed and horrified at its ramifications.

There is a reason for the importance of this story. Our government no longer recognizes an unalienable right to life bestowed by God, as propounded by our Founders. A state court has shown great disdain for truth or justice, mocking both in a series of kangaroo court hearings presided over by a man linked to the right-to-kill-you movement. The chief medical testimony he relied upon in his decision-making process was that of one of the most vocal pro-death advocates in the nation. The whole case dangled from the rusty hinges of hearsay evidence provided by that paragon of marital fidelity and compassion, Michael Schiavo. Since when is the unsubstantiated word of one man given such weight?

In the eyes of our entire nation, this court rubber-stamped the premeditated murder of an irrefutably innocent woman, neither accused nor guilty of any crime.

Equally disturbing was the behavior of representatives elected to fight for the public's interests and serve as a restraint on unlawful actions of the other branches of government. They responded by doing nothing, or very little, in thwarting the rulings of an activist judge. When the chips were down and a quick decision was needed, Jeb Bush borrowed Pontius Pilate's basin and washed his hands of the whole affair. As if shirking his sworn obligations wasn't bad enough, he added insult to injury by lying, saying his "hands were tied." We should give him credit in one regard, perhaps: when he shovels it, he uses both hands.

This case is not about states' rights, as some have suggested. I'm a very strong proponent of federalism. Ask anyone who knows me. But we're dealing with human rights, in this instance--a human being's right to live, hindered and ended by her "husband" with the government's consent and aid.

Noting what differentiates this case from others is important: 1. It was a very public story, played out on our tv screens, the internet, radio, and in print media. Information was obtained easily, and from a wide assortment of venues. 2. Almost every aspect of the case was in dispute, as I've stated here, and elsewhere. No clear and convincing evidence existed as to Ms. Schiavo's wishes. The Michael Schiavo creature held one version of events; the Schindler family offered another version diametrically opposed to his.

One of the things that has struck me about Ms. Schiavo's ordeal is the colossal stupidity, ignorance, or just plain evil of many commenters on the subject. I could wax eloquent on this topic alone all night, so I'll limit myself to one example. How many people have you heard say this?: "Terri's gone. She died long ago, leaving only a husk behind. We should extract the feeding tube, and let nature take its course."

The first two sentences constitute pure speculation, the likes of which would make the most imaginative fantasist proud. Since no proper testing has been done, no one has any conclusive idea about her state of mind.

As for the last, we should "let nature take its course?" Are they serious? What does proactive starvation and dehydration have to do with letting nature take its course? It's akin to shooting someone in the chest, watching them slump to the floor, then when someone runs up and asks what's going on, the shooter shrugs and says: "Aw, just letting nature take its course." The thought process, alone, behind this statement deserves an award for logical absurdity of the worst sort. Lest it be lost in the mirage of lies shimmering over our heads, this woman was not terminally ill. She was not being kept alive through extraordinary efforts. It took the direct action of those who sought her life to bring it to an end.

I think our Founding Fathers would be disgusted and mortified over what was done to this poor lady.

I keep hearing that we'll have forgotten all about this case in a few weeks. That may be true for some, but not for me. Here's one person who will never forget Terri Schiavo, or what her death means to the future of this nation.

Speaking of the future, I wonder what's in store for us in ours? If this case is any indication, it won't be pretty, when it comes.

Congratulations, Nate!

Well, I'll be dern-tootin'! It seems that Nate & his wife have just ushered a new bouncing baby Southron boy into the world, on wednesday night. He was 7 pounds, 3 ounces, so that sounds pert near ripe enough.

God bless all of you, my friend. Hold that young'un high!

I wonder if he was born with a Confederate flag in his hand?

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Creation Scientists of the Past

I've engaged in numerous discourses with evolutionists, most of whom claim that a belief in God's act of creation is "stupidity." Anyone who isn't a rabid evolutionist is a superstitious, ignorant, imbecilic, knuckle-dragging, drooling, cross-eyed moron. Anyone who doesn't kiss Darwin's gnarled simian feet is anti-scientific. They would have the rest of the world believe that we're proud charter members of the Flat-Earth Society, we believe the sun goes 'round the earth, and a good bleeding will cure the common cold.

Of course, not only is this wrong, but it's also consciously deceitful, as even a cursory examination of history reveals. Below is a partial list of some creation scientists of the past. For a much more extensive listing, go here.

1. Francis Bacon--generally credited with establishing the scientific method, 16th &17th centuries

2. Johann Kepler--astronomer, 16th & 17th centuries

3. Blaise Pascal--mathematician, 17th century

4. Robert Boyle--chemist, 17th century

5. Increase Mather--astronomer, 17th & 18th centuries

6. Isaac Newton--mathematician, astronomer, a man for all seasons, 17th & 18th centuries

7. Cotton Mather--physician, 17th & 18th centuries

8. Johnathan Edwards--physicist, meteorologist, 18th century

9. Carolus Linneaus--taxonomist, established biological classification system, 18th century

10. William Herschel--astronomer, 18th & 19th centuries

11. Jedidiah Morse--geographer, 18th & 19th centuries

12. Samuel F. B. Morse--inventor of the telegraph, 18th & 19th century

13. James Joule--one of the first to study thermodynamics, 19th century

14. Louis Pasteur--bacteriologist, biochemist, established pasteurization process, microbiology, immunization and sterilization techniques, disproved spontaneous generation, 19th century

15. Joseph Lister--antiseptic surgical techniques, 19th & 20th centuries

16. George Washington Carver--inventor, 19th & 20th centuries

Kooks extraordinaire, every one!

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Pretzel Logic

I found this letter in the "Muddled Thoughts" section on World Net Daily:

You folks amaze me with your pretzel logic. Kudos to Bush for flying back to D.C. to grandstand on the Schaivo case when he couldn't be bothered to disturb his vacation when over 130,000 people died (most women and children) in the tsunami. Oh, that's right, they weren't white, Christian and didn't have oil.

Ah, the typical left-loon baseless charge of racism. How strikingly original. Apparently, our dear author is incapable of distinguishing between American citizens, and citizens of foreign countries. I don't mean to sound callous, but is the president somehow responsible to people in India? Ms. Schiavo is a U.S. citizen, which means Mr. Bush has obligations to her, as her elected representative in the executive branch.

Do any of you know or care about the law that Bush signed as governor of Texas that allows a care facility to refuse or stop care to a patient (such as Schaivo) regardless of the families wishes? The only factor in their right to live or die is the families' ability to pay. This subjugates the patients' lives to the corporate bottom line. In the past month, a baby was pulled from life support despite his mother's wishes as a result of this law.

Assuming this information is correct, I'm thoroughly against such a law. But so what? This case doesn't involve G.W. Bush's capacity as governor, but as president. Nor are we talking about Texas, but Florida.

This is the America that you want? This is the compassionate Christian conservatism that you signed up for? To me this is the height of hypocrisy and shows how morally bankrupt these supposed Christian leaders truly are.

Now I agree with this part. These leaders are, indeed, morally bankrupt, for the most part. Furthermore, it's obvious that most are neither Christian nor conservative. So what is this guy saying? That we shouldn't get involved in Ms. Schiavo's murder by the state? If he has an actual point or counter solution, I don't see it.

"Compassionate conservative" is a nonsensical term, anyway, since it implies conservatives are cold-hearted monsters, without the qualifying adjective.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Jeb Bush: Chief Coward of Florida

Jeb Bush is whining like a little girl:

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the man said to be the last hope for Terri Schiavo, says he's powerless to help the brain-injured woman who has been without nourishment for more than nine full days.

"I cannot violate a court order," Bush told CNN following Easter church services. "I don't have powers from the United States Constitution or – for that matter from the Florida Constitution – that would allow me to intervene after a decision has been made."

To Terri's parents, Bush said, "I can't. I'd love to, but I can't."

Mr. Bush, not only are you a coward, but you're also a filthy liar. You have taken an oath of office, in which you have sworn to carry out your duties as an elected offical. As chief executive in the state of Florida, you have a moral, constitutional, and legal obligation to protect the innocent from murder. If this makes you feel queasy, and gives you a bad case of the wonky britches, you should resign, immediately. I refer you to the Florida Constitution, which states in Article 1, Section 2: that "all natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law, and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life ... ." & "no person shall be deprived of any right because of ... physical disability."

So you are in violation of your oath as governor, the Florida Constitution, and the United States Constitution. You are not bound by the unconstitutional, indecent decision of an activist court. When a judge makes a ruling, you are bound to adhere to it, if it is in harmony with the Constitution. If it conflicts with said document, the Constitution trumps the judicial decision, every time. So all your sniveling about how your hands are tied is a crock, and you know it.

I long for a real man in a position such as that of Jeb Bush. I look wistfully back upon the time when a few people took a stand, making political expediency subservient to goodness and justice. How refreshing it would be for a politican to step forward and say: "I don't care if my actions entail political suicide. I don't care if I'm summarily voted out of office, in the next election cycle. I am more interested in what is right than I am in political calculation. I am more interested in justice than I am in not being controversial. " How refreshing, and how rare.

Why concern yourself with not rocking the boat, when it already has sunk?

Mr. Bush, you make me sick. You exemplify the worst sort of politician: the kind who fears for his own hide above all else. If you have no control over something as onerous as state-sanctioned murder, then you are worthless to the good people of Florida.

Oh, and as for your future aspirations of running for the B.S. Artist-in-Chief, you can forget about my vote.

Our Lord Lives!

I know some folks dispute which days of the week Christ's crucifixion and resurrection took place. I respect those arguments, but I'm not entirely sure what I think about the whole discussion. I admit that I'm not well-informed enough--on this particular issue--to make a concrete decision in the matter.

But what I do know is this: My Saviour lives, and his resurrection should be remembered and celebrated. On that, I think we all can agree.

He's not in a sepulchre or a hole in the ground. He's not a myth or a phantasm of the human mind.

He's alive, He's watching, He's involved--and someday, He will return, physically, and set up his kingdom on earth.

Something amazing happened on that long ago day in the city of Jerusalem. Something transformed a ragtag group of eleven men--considered malcontents and troublemakers by the local rulers--into lions of God who fearlessly gave their lives to the task of evangelizing His people. What changed this gaggle of cowards and misfits? What molded their shame from abandoning Christ when He needed them most into a tool for His glory?

The resurrection. And it is His resurrection that resurrects us all.

Jesus said: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.--John 11:25

Friday, March 25, 2005

Dying with "Dignity"

I keep hearing this mantra: "We should all just step out of the way, and let Terri die with dignity."

Besides the requirement of ignoring many of the questions in the Schiavo case, this comment is nonsensical for another very simple reason.

Let me pose this as a challenge:

Raise your hand if you think starvation and dehydration is a dignified way to go.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

"Give Me Your Tired, Your Filthy Stinking Rich. . ."

From The Federalist Patriot:

. . .this month's "Legal Lotto" Award is bestowed upon a Bronx day laborer who was injured on the job in 2001. The Bronx Superior Court recently awarded $4 million to the worker. Problem is, he's an illegal immigrant, living in the Bronx with his wife and three kids. Apparently, the man worked for 15 years, most recently making $18/hour off the books, before sustaining severe injuries by falling from a scaffold.

Wow, so that's what they mean by a "legal windfall."

Just file this under the "Stupid Is As Stupid Does" category.

Branded a Big Spender

"The first destroyer of the liberties of a people is he who first gave them bounties and largess." --Plutarch

I think we should have this tatooed--nay, branded--on the buttocks of every member of Congress.

Build a fire and heat the irons!

Quotes For the Times

"There are those who believe that a new modernity demands a new morality. What they fail to consider is the harsh reality that there is no such thing as a new morality. There is only one morality. All else is immorality." --Theodore Roosevelt

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity." --Daniel Webster

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

You Can't Pull the Plug On Justice

I know I've posted on the Terri Schiavo case several times, now. For those of you tiring of my rants, I'm sorry. I have no desire to bore anyone. I do ask you to bear with me, though. I see this as an important, pivotal time in our nation's history. Never has such a case been so widely publicized, with such emotion, vitriol, and facts interwoven with fantasies. Here are two quotes that I think pertain to the subject at hand.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever. . ."--Thomas Jefferson

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson

Ms. Schiavo has an unalienable right to life. Unfortunately, our court system doesn't comprehend the Constitution or the intent of our Founders. Just as our government puts squabbling parents' rights above their children's welfare, so have they put Michael Schiavo's "rights" as a husband above Terri's welfare, and her rights as a human being are subordinate to his, apparently.

We live in a time of rampant "no-fault divorce" for vague "irreconcilable differences." Obtaining a divorce for any reason at all is a snap. If I don't like the way my wife chews her food, I can draw up divorce papers. If I don't like the way she looks at me when I belch in public, I can draw up divorce papers. If she turns the channel during the premere episode of Desperately Stupid Housewives, I can draw up divorce papers. I can divorce my wife for legitimate reasons, or for no reason at all. The terms of marriage form the most dissoluble contract in existence. Spouses are an easily traded commodity.

And yet Michael Schiavo should be the arbiter of life and death over his spouse--a woman with whom he no longer lives--while indulging in a relationship with another woman, which includes children? That is the height of absurdity. This "man" has shirked his responsibilities as a husband. He has violated and spat upon his marital vows. He has disowned any entitlement to a voice in the matter, whatsoever.

The measure of a society is how it treats the least of its citizens. By "least," I mean the least in ability, or prospects, or tangible usefulness to the aforementioned society. I speak of the poor, the infirm, the crippled, the mentally impaired, the unwanted. The United States' citizens have a history of compassion for such people. Are they not as human as the rest of us? Are they not just as much children of God?

"And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink'." --Matthew 25:40-42

A nation that kills the innocent--or stands by and washes its hands of their deaths--is a nation not long for this world. If God is, indeed, just--and I believe that He is--then we're heading into dire straits, full-speed.

Monday, March 21, 2005

Don't Be Grillin' Our Chillun'

"In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision [last week], the United States removed itself from the axis of evil nations that execute juveniles. ... Until [this] majority opinion...the U.S. was part of an exclusive club -- the others are China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia -- that are known to have formally executed kids since 1990." --The Village Voice

Yes, because it's for the children.


First off, I think it's debatable whether someone who murders another person in cold blood should be viewed as a child in a court of law. Then there's the whole appeals process, which frequently ends with the killer gumming his food, wearing Depends, and going for a ride in Ol' Sparky after hobbling down the long hall with the aid of a walker. How many of these people still can be classified as "kids," by the time sentencing is carried out?

As for the moral equivalency argument, let's execute that in its tracks. China is a communist country. I know we've been led to believe that China's our big ol' cuddly trading partner, and that the American economy will sink like a gangster with a new pair of concrete boots without their porcelain knicknacks and other trinkets; but economic considerations aside, the rulers of China are monsters. People are executed for fraud, political dissent, drug abuse, and other non-violent crimes. Organs are harvested from the slain. The Congo is a backward, chaotic place. Iran is an Islamic theocratic dystopia. Pakistan has large areas that are out of control. Yemen is a place that persecutes Christians and tortures people for adultery--sometimes to the death. Nigeria's a failed state, where corruption is an art form. Saudi Arabia is a Sharia wonderland, where people are snuffed out for apostasy from the "religion of peace." In addition, it is one of the worst terrorist spawning grounds in the world.

Lumping the U.S. in with cesspools like these is disingenuous and idiotic. In fact, it's evil, because it shows no clarity of thought on what terms like "good" and "evil" even mean.

I realize some are concerned about any government having the power to execute criminals, since opportunities for corruption abound, and the human systems are inherently flawed. We can have a respectful debate on that. But notice that most of the outrage and horror directed at capital punishment ignores such reasoning. Rather, it oozes from a morally relativistic mentality, in which no one should be put to death for any reason, anywhere, anytime. I also think it's worth pointing out that most people whom I've run into who "think" like this have no problem with the wanton murder of unborn children, or the termination of patients with brain injuries; but I suppose that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

One final open question: If it really is "for the children," how many children will we save by ending these vicious killers' death sprees with a nice lethal injection, a necktie party, or by sending them on a magic lightning ride?

In the Beginning

How do theistic evolutionists explain these verses?:

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female--Matthew 19:4

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world--Matthew 25:34

Biblically speaking, it seems pretty obvious that God made humans at the beginning of the creation, when he made everything else.

Saturday, March 19, 2005



I didn't want to spring it on anyone.

The Process:

Day One:

The percutaneous endoscopic gastrotomy tube, which is placed through the skin and into the stomach, is removed in a simple surgical procedure. Patients who do not have mental cognition to have a sense of thirst or hunger will not be uncomfortable.

Days Three to Four:

Urine output decreases and patients begin to lose normal body secretions. The mouth begins to look dry and the eyes appear sunken. Patients will look thinner because the body tissues have lost fluid. Their heart rate gradually goes up and their blood pressure goes down. In some patients, dehydration releases endorphins in the brain that create a state of euphoria.

Days Five to Ten:

People who are alert have a marked decrease in their alertness. Respiration becomes irregular with periods of very fast and then very slow breathing. Some patients will become restless, while others will be less active. For patients in a persistent vegetative state, there may be no discernible change in their movements.

Days Ten to Death:

Patients do not appear to respond to their environment at all and may appear to be in a coma. Length of death process is determined by how well-nourished patient was and how much body fat and fluid they had when procedure began. May be outward signs of dehydration, such as extremely dry skin. Kidney function declines and toxins begin accumulating in the body. Toxins cause respiratory muscles to fail. Multiple organ systems begin to fail from lack of nutrition.

Source: LifePath Hospice.

Even this rather clinical description cannot mask the horror of such a fate. Please keep Terri Schiavo in your prayers. God can do anything, and it's not over, yet.

Friday, March 18, 2005

A Little Political Humor

"As long as greed, stupidity and cowardice remain a part of the human condition, there will be a constituency for Democrats." --Jack Kelly

"Jackie Robinson was honored in the U.S. Capitol Wednesday. What a ceremony. It doubled the number of statues in the rotunda because when it was mentioned that he was a lifelong Republican and Richard Nixon supporter, the Democrats turned to stone." --Argus Hamilton

"[T]he [Supreme] Court lives by a commandment of its own: 'Thou shalt make no sense.' Long ago it rejected any clean standard for interpreting the establishment clause, opting for a confusing morass instead." --Rich Lowry

Those elicited a snicker or two. Especially the first one.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005


A Cuban representative to the U.N. human rights panel (a contradiction in terms, I know) condemns the U.S.:

"Cuba," he said, "comes to promote the noblest causes, and also to throw lies out the window, combat the impunity of the powerful and expose the hypocrisy of their lackeys."

He pointed the finger directly at the U.S. government.

Speaking of windows, somebody throw this guy through one--preferably from the top floor, if you please. Cuba blasting the U.S. on the Human Rights Commision is like Hitler chiding Margaret Sanger over eugenics.

The Separation of People from Their History

"Let the pulpit resound with the doctrine and sentiments of religious liberty. Let us hear of the dignity of man's nature, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God. ... Let it be known that...liberties are not the grants of princes and parliaments." --John Adams

Whew! It's a good thing our Founders didn't let religious whack-jobs like this one interfere with the separation of Church & State.

Ur. . .um. . .I mean. . .

Monday, March 14, 2005

Legislating from the Little Pink Bench

A judge in Californy has ruled that limiting marriage to a man and woman is unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists in limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Judge Kramer wrote. "The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."

Judge, please show me the "Rainbow Clause" in the Constitution. I've read the document numerous times, and I don't remember it.

This is why we need to get the gummint out of the marriage business.

Those Evil Americans

"Cuba recognizes that there are violations of human rights in our country, but they are at the Guantanamo Naval Base, in territory occupied against Cuba's will." --Cuba's Communist Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque de las fullacrapos

Uh-huh. And Che Guevara worked with Mother Teresa in the streets of Calcutta, before he got out of the habit.

Saturday, March 12, 2005

The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Again

A Muslim convert to Christianity is threatened with violent death (online) for his change:

The target of the threat, Ahmed Mohamed, a convert to the Coptic Christian Church, uses the moniker "Ahmed_love_Jesus" on PalTalk.

The message sent March 6 reads:

Know this, Ahmed_love_Jesus, we tracked you and being in America will not help you. Your blood is lawful and we will kill you soon.

If you were with me I would have killed you.

I will know where you are and kill you someday.

Ahmed_Love_Jesus, by the life of your mother's [obscenity deleted], your blood is lawful. We know where you are in America and we will slaughter you like the lamb that you worship.

This message brought to you by the Anti-PCBS Network.

The Ten Commandments: A Firm Foundation

A judge is hearing arguments over the placement of a Ten Commandments monument in Fargo, North Dakota.

"My clients should not have to avert their eyes" when walking past the monument, said Tiffany Johnson, a third-year University of North Dakota law student who represents five Fargo men seeking to remove the monument.

This played paddywhack on my funny-bone. "Avert their eyes?" Please. Which one of these commandments offends you, oh masters of melodrama?

Here's a difinitive list, from Exodus 20: 2-17:

1. "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the water under the Earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My Commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His Name in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.

Man, that is some obnoxious stuff--especially number 1 & 6-8. How can one be a murderous, lecherous, thieving divinity, with such restrictions around!

I submit that folks who feel the need to hide their eyes are the ones with the problem, not those who wish to see the Commandments--the basis for American law--honored.

Dose Wascally Wabbits

I received this in a weekly newsletter from Answers in Genesis. I thought it might interest some of you:

Q: Do rabbits chew their cud?

A: For many years, scientists used the rabbit or “hare” to prove the Bible supposedly wrong because in Leviticus 11:6 we read, “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.” They claimed that the rabbit didn’t chew its cud or have the same stomach system as other cud chewers like cows, and therefore the Bible was wrong.

Then about 20 years ago, it was discovered that rabbits do indeed—in a sense—chew their cud. When a rabbit first eats something, the food passes through its digestive system rapidly, undergoing very little digestion. These are the green pellets one finds when raising rabbits! The rabbit will then eat these green pellets, which are actually their cud, and finish chewing and digesting them. They then pass on out as brown waste pellets. So rabbits really do chew their cud. (For a more thorough answer, see Do rabbits chew their cud? by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.)

This is just one of many examples of how the Bible has been proven to be right and so-called science wrong. We must remember to start all of our learning and understanding of science with the Bible, and of course, the foundational book of Genesis.

Pretty neat, huh, Doc?

Friday, March 11, 2005

Democrat + Republican = Big Government

From Michael Peroutka's website:

The Senate recently voted down two proposals to raise the minimum wage. One proposal was by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) who wanted to raise it to $7.25-an-hour. The other proposal was by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), supposedly a conservative, who wanted to raise it to $6.25-an-hour.

The Santorum minimum wage increase proposal was supported by an overwhelming majority of GOP Senators (37) --- though there was a time not that long ago when the Republican Party opposed a Federal minimum wage. The 1988 Republican Party Platform called increasing the minimum wage "inflationary" and "job-destroying."

The 1984 GOP Platform said: "There are still Federal statutes that keep Americans out of the work-force. Arbitrary minimum wage rates, for example, have eliminated hundreds of thousands of jobs and, with them, the opportunity for young people to get productive skills, good work habits, and a weekly paycheck."

A major problem with the Republican Party is that for the GOP, and the Democrats, the Constitution is a dead letter. The Preamble of the 1992 Republican Party Platform said, in part:

"Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican President, expressed the philosophy that inspires Republicans to this day: 'The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere.’"

But, this view is a prescription for unlimited, un-Constitutional, tyrannical Government, precisely the kind of Government we have today under the control of the Republicans.

In the debate about his amendment to increase the Federal minimum wage, Sen. Santorum said, according to the "Associated Press" (3/8/05): "I have not had any ideological problem with the minimum wage." He added that he voted for the last increase to clear Congress, in 1996.

But, Sen. Santorum, and all the GOP Senators who voted for his measure to hike the Federal minimum wage, SHOULD have had a problem with the minimum wage because it is un-Constitutional! Instead of voting to raise the minimum wage, they should have been voting to repeal it. As I say, please forgive me, but I can’t help pointing out that the Republicans are actually a more dangerous threat to Constitutional government than are the Democrats.

I don't agree with that last line, but I do see eye-to-eye with the general sentiment of Mr. Peroutka's words. Keep in mind, too, that Mr. Santorum is considered by many as one of our most conservative senators. And the question is, why does he have no ideological problem with the minimum wage?

Founding Quotes of Note XXV

"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused." --John Jay

I guess this just further proves the revisionist notion that our Founders were all racist slave-owners, doesn't it?

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Kicking Evolution to the Curb

This is a follow-up to yesterday's post, in which I barely touched upon evolution. There are many reasons for rejecting this religion of origins--contradictory or inconclusive evidence, its speculative quality, etc. And though I agree with lots of different arguments against it, there is one primary reason that I reject evolution as an origins explanation.

Evolution conflicts with the biblical account of the Creation. After God had finished with His masterpiece, Genesis 1:31 tells us: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Later, God laid down one restriction for Adam and Eve to follow. Genesis 2:16-17: 16--And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; 17--But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Pretty straightforward, huh? He apprised them of the restriction, and He explained the consequence of disobedience.

But that's not the end of the story. Adam and Eve ignored God's command, thus committing the first sin of humanity. Being a just and truthful God, the Lord had no choice but to carry through with their punishment.

He cursed the creation and all of its parts--including mankind. This is known as the Fall. Among other things, a major element of the Curse was death. Genesis 3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

This is a classic case of cause and effect. The key to understanding this event is twofold: 1. God made His pronouncement as a response to Adam and Eve's sin. 2. Death entered the world as a direct result of Adam and Eve's disobedience. I cannot over-stress this point.

In summary:

1. God created.

2. The creation was good.

3. Humans disobeyed God's command.

4. Death resulted from their disobedience.

Since we're not in Sunday School, you may be asking yourself "So, what's your point?" right about now. Fair enough.

My point is that this is in direct, irreconcilable opposition to evolutionary theory as currently propagated and understood in the scientific realm. Evolutionists believe that the cycle of life (or circle of life, for The Lion King fans) had been in motion for hundreds of millions of years, before the first near-human creature clambered down out of its tree and began contemplating itself and the universe. Birth, infancy, adolescence, adulthood, dotage, and death had played itself out on the world scene over and over ad nauseum before the first human evolved. A brief chronology of evolution looks something like this:

1. The world coalesced out of the solar system's particles.

2. Millions of years later, life spontaneously erupted on the earth. Inanimate matter became animate.

3. Life arose in the seas and eventually emigrated to land, evolving into higher forms of life as it did so. This took millions of years.

4. Life, death, and the survival of the fittest finally produced mankind, after countless millennia.

Death was an active part of this process, from the beginning. It was death itself that filled the geological record to overflowing. This is the selfsame record of which evolutionists claim an unfettered understanding. And it is the backdrop they use for making the evolutionary case.

Now come the questions: If death was a by-product of Adam and Eve's sin, then how does this fit the evolutionist's notion of a continuous line of pain, suffering, death, and decay reaching all the way back to the beginning of this planet's existence? Would God dub such a state of being "good?" Giving evolutionists the benefit of the doubt for argument's sake, two logical possibilities come to mind: Either there is no God, or God exists, but He's evil. For the atheistic evolutionist, the answer is elementary, Dear Watson: "I know there is no God," he proclaims, quite comfortable in his own demigodhood. But for the theistic evolutionist, this poses a conundrum for the ages; how to reconcile evolution and Genesis? I would not wish such cognitive dissonance on anyone.

The good news is that death has not been with us always. It is not a natural part of God's good creation. And someday, this malignant intruder will be expelled.


Wednesday, March 9, 2005

Defining Origins Beliefs

Many of you are familiar with my views on this topic; but it dawned on me that I've never actually set down an unambiguous definition of what I believe, regarding the world's origins. So for newer visitors, or for those who think I've been muddled in explaining myself, in the past, here's the simple version:

I consider myself a creationist. One humorous note: I've used this term over at Vox's, before, only to have people distance themselves by saying: "Well, I'm not a creationist," then proceeding to describe their beliefs as almost a mirror-image of my own. This brings me no end of amusement, and a little frustration. Why fear the term? I don't. I think it accurately describes me.

1. I belief in God Almighty. He is real, not a figment of my imagination, or a "crutch" for the weak-minded.

2. I believe He created the universe and everything in it--including humans. Nothing exists without his efforts. He sustains everything.

3. I believe the biblical account of creation is inerrant. Literally. So yes, I accept that there really was a serpent--which was Satan--in the Garden of Eden. I believe that God spoke the creation into existence. I do not think the Genesis story is a fairy-tale, or a metaphorical account.

Those are the three big ones. Elucidating further, I reject the Theory of Evolution as described by secular scientists. In fact, I believe this pseudo-science is one of the worst evils ever foisted upon humanity. Embracing this atheistic religion often leads to a devil-may-care attitude about one's life--or the lives of others. It even foreshadows mass murder and racism.

I think acceptance of Genesis as literally true is crucial. If one fails to do so, isn't this opening a doorway into questioning the veracity or accuracy of the rest of the Bible? And if not, why not?
Or in other words, if the book is open to interpretation, how can we agree on its meaning?

So that's where I stand, in a nutshell--and I think it's a pretty darned firm foundation.

Where do you stand?

Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Modern "Art"

Whatever happened to the great artists? What became of the Rembrandts, the Michaelangelos, the da Vincis? Even as recently as the 19th century, we had masterful artists at their canvasses, such as Winslow Homer, who painted some of the most dramatic seascapes and idealized pictures of contemporary life that I've ever seen.

Where are their successors?

Now, we have the privilege of looking upon the mighty works of the modern. . .and despairing. Pictures of Mary the mother of Jesus spattered in dung; crucifixes in jars of urine; framed ink blots the likes of which would make a two-year-old snicker in derision--these are the examples of the bilge passing for the elevated and enlightening, today.

Don't get me wrong. I know artists of great merit exist, painting their masterpieces, composing their concertos and operettas, sculpting their supple statues. But unless the works in discussion are profane, blasphemous, or just downright vomit-inducing, don't expect their accolades on the nightly news or in well-known museums.

It's time to bring back standards. It's time for art to elevate, not denigrate; time for enlightenment, not besmirchment.

It's time to discard the politically correct NEA--the National Endowment for Abomination.

Art once freed the mind and stoked the imagination. It may do so, again, if we glorify that which is beautiful, not that which is ugly.

And the first and best step is ending the government's involvement, period.

Friday, March 4, 2005

Pro-Death To Pro-Life

A euthanasian has second thoughts in the Terri Schiavo case:

John Grogan said in a column published today, "I no longer so blithely believe Schiavo's feeding tubes should be pulled and her life allowed to end. I'm no longer so sure her parents do not deserve a say in their daughter's future. I no longer am totally comfortable assuming her husband, Michael, who now has two children by another woman, is acting unselfishly."

But Grogan points out Terri Schiavo's heart and lungs function on their own, and she requires only a feeding tube that might not be necessary if she were given physical therapy.

The columnist notes Michael Schiavo, as her legal guardian, has forbidden any therapy.

What more needs be said about the doting "husband?"

Terri Schiavo cannot eat without help. This is the foundation upon which the case for her termination has been built. Since this is the apparent criterion for killing the helpless, why not kill all quadraplegics? And if not, why not?

When it comes to who is best to decide, Grogan wrote, it's clear that Terri Schiavo's parents "have proved themselves nothing if not fiercely loyal, utterly committed parents. They might be misguided. They might be in denial. But no one can argue their devotion. They have not given up. They have not stopped caring. They have not stopped loving. Who are we, as a society, to tell them they must?

Grogan concluded:

Clearly, Schiavo's husband has moved on to a new life, and who can blame him? It's been 15 long years. But parents cannot move on. Parents cannot give up. Their child will always be the precious gift they brought into the world.

If the Schindlers want to dedicate the rest of their lives and resources to caring for their brain-damaged daughter, if they want to shower her with attention and affection she likely will never recognize, who among us will tell them they cannot

It won't be me.

God bless you, Mr. Grogan. I think Michael Schiavo is a monster with ulterior motives. His singleminded determination to see his wife's death sentence carried out, alone, makes me question his actions and words. The Scriptures speak of a man and woman coming together as husband and wife, and becoming "one flesh." Biblically speaking, then, isn't this a case of self-mutilation? Of course, this "man" is a husband in name only. What astounds me most about the case is the lengths to which the court system will go to grant his death-wish.

Let me share a personal story. My cousin, Michael, was born a seemingly normal child. He ran and played and dreamed, just as normal children do. But at about age eight, he began exhibiting symptoms of the dreaded genetic disorder, Muscular Dystrophy. His control of his body rapidly degenerated, and in just a few short years, he was wheelchair-bound. The doctors' prognosis was not good: he would live only into his late teen years.

My cousin lived into his late thirties. He lived the last two decades of his life as a quadraplegic. He was forced to utilize an artificial device in stimulating his vocal cords for speech.

In spite of his infirmities, Michael loved life. He had a brilliant, razor-sharp mind and was a master at chess. He worked toward and received a college education through corresspondence courses from a Bible college. He had a great sense of humor and brought a lot of joy to everyone who knew and loved him. Best of all, he loved God with all his heart, mind, and soul.

In a broken world, sometimes people are born with broken bodies. But unlike a toy soldier with a missing limb, or a Tonka truck with no wheels, we do not discard people. That's part of what makes us in God's image. That's what differentiates us from mere animals.

We Just Wanna Be loved, Is That So Wroooooong?

Here's an eye-opening account of the metamorphosis of the homosexual rights movement, from a mental disorder to a civil rights cause.

What you're left with are human beings, no different than you or me, who are, of course, sexual beings. Like you and me, their sexuality is broken in a broken world. The notion that "homosexuals" are in effect a "different species" (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.

Of course as one grows and changes, one "grooves" a pathway that becomes embedded and increasingly difficult to alter. Of course a different innate disposition places one at a different "risk profile" for all sorts of different paths in life. So what else is new? It is also true that people do sometimes want to change, and some do and some don't. This is true of everything. It's also true that few good things in life are easy, and no achievement is ever perfect.

Thursday, March 3, 2005

Good For a Laugh. . .and Not Much Else

From The Federalist Patriot:

"To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it's bigoted, it is not the right thing to say. ... We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries. ... When we had the Ku Klux Klan we didn't call them Baptist terrorists. When Hitler was killing Jews, we didn't call it Christian terrorists." --Rep. Charlie Rangel when asked why France refuses to designate Hezbollah as an Islamic terror group

This is perhaps the most ignorant, mentally arrested quote I've read in a long time; and that's saying a lot, coming from this daffy snob.

Ok, utterly justifiable ad hominem attacks aside, I have some questions for Chuckles: Is it discriminating? Sure it is. So what? There's nothing wrong with that. I discriminate every day, over all sorts of things. This isn't a four-letter word, folks. Bigoted? Nonsense. It is the religion of Islam that motivates Hezbollah and other charity groups to behave like animals, commiting terrorist acts, linking the Jews with subhuman beasts, and denouncing the West as the devil incarnate, while finding no troubles in the day-to-day, typical monstrosities of Islamic culture. In short, Islam motivates such actions. Hezbollah's worldview is not in discord with Islamic teaching. It is Muslims who denounce all forms of violence and religious coercion who stray from "The Straight Path." And as I've asked before, are we to believe it is pure coincidence that the only terrorism affecting the United States in a serious way is Islamic in nature?

His remark about the Klan is just stupid. All Klansmen are not Baptists; and the ones who are harbor a distorted view of God's word that would be the envy of most contortionists.

But Chuckles' cognitive dissolution shines for all to see, when he mentions Hitler in the same breath as Christians. Hitler was not a Christian. He loathed Christianity, seeing it as his worst enemy. The Nazis were not Christians, but neo-pagan butchers, having more in common with the New Age movement than Christianity. In fact, Naziism is about as far from following the teachings of Christ as one can get, in this world.

Isn't it frightening that we have such historically blind people in high public office?

Hey, Chuck, given your defensive pronouncement about France's motives, who's the real bigot, here?

Wednesday, March 2, 2005

Southern by the Grace of God

Just how much of a Southron are you? If mashed taters, cawnbread, peas an' corn, a mess o' greens, fried okry an' squash are whut you call delicacies--well, join the club!

Take the Yankee or Dixie? quiz. I scored 78%. (I gallantly stole this link from Let's Try Freedom. )


Dahmer's Worldview

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’

Jeffrey Dahmer, culinarian, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.