---

"The Cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us—there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries." ~Carl Sagan—Cosmos, 1980~

---

Believe it or not, I intend to question Sagan's ideas here, and actually debunk the Cosmos. Contrary to public belief, not everything you hear from a "scientist" is actually science, as this quote is actually a philosophical statement. Sagan has absolutely no proof to back up his claims, and thus it falls not into the realm of "religion" as most profs will label it, but rather philosophy, which is still a noble art in and of itself. The problem is, in their minds, that religion has turned into the "enemy"of "science"; however, what they don't realize is that their "science" is really a religion in and of itself. However, that's a completely different topic... This is about the Cosmos.

First, I'd like you to watch this introduction from the TV series The Cosmos:



What does he say in here? It's pretty packed, but I want you to retain two important things: 1.) he makes the claim that the "Cosmos" is eternal. 2.) He claims that he will follow the truth no matter where it leads. Now, I'm going to look at the first question.

Is the universe eternal? There are only two possible answers. Yes, No. There is no middle ground on this question according to the law of non-contradiction. You cannot have it be both at the same time. I'm going to use an inverse proof to show that it is not eternal.

Let us suppose that the Universe has indeed been around for infinity number of years. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (1), however, this would have to mean that the universe started out with an infinite amount of energy in order that there would still be some left. The problem with this, however, that you cannot get down to regular numbers by subtracting numbers from infinity. Thus, the idea that the universe (Cosmos) is infinite is illogical in nature (sortof like saying, "I can't speak a word in English", or "What's your name, David?"). It's a self-defeating statement, along the lines of a man who says that he is a poached egg.

The second reason is a bit more in depth. If the universe is indeed infinite, that would mean that there are an infinite number of years that have taken place before this moment. So, placing the present time as 0, the total time span of the cosmos would look like this:

<--------infinity--------------------------0-------------------infinity-------------------->

The arrows mean that this line continues infinitely in both directions. Now, I want you to do something. Count by 1s and get to infinity. Can't do it? Ok, count by 10s. Still can't do it? Count faster. hah. No, try counting by 1,000,000,000s (1 billion). Still can't get there? How about if you keep squaring google (1 x10¹⁰⁰)^x? I think you see my point by now... You cannot get to infinity by using the number system. Basically, this means that the present time would not exist, because the infinite number of years before this one have still not added up to this. Or, another way of saying this would be to say: When infinity number of years exist, the individual years become meaningless, and thus time itself is meaningless. For those math junkies out there, this is essentially what Einstein said in his theory of relativity.

So, if universe isn't eternal, that means it must have had a beginning. However, the problem then arises: What caused the creation of something from nothing? Or rather, why is there something rather than nothing? Again, we are left with only two options (I like to keep it simple). Either the universe created itself, or it was created. Now, it is logically impossible that the universe created itself. It is not possible for something to come out of nothing. Thus, something must have caused the universe to exist. What caused this? We'll look at this question in the next article.

Before I end, however, I want to make a point. Many people, when they hear a topic such as this coming up in conversation will shy away from it. It looks really intimidating and it annoys people to have to think on such a large scale. The reality is, we cannot understand fully the nature of the universe, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The question of origins is one of the most important questions that everybody will have to answer at some point. Those who don't think about it are like the ostrich with its head in the sand. We cannot hide from the awesome nature of the world we live it. Let it inspire you. It truly is amazing.

-Cheers

(Postscript: I know this is rather deep, but here's the kicker: if you can understand this, at least in part, you're doing better than most people out there who don't even think about this in the first place. At least you feel like you got your money's worth.)

Read more!

---

Ladies and gentlemen, on the occasion of my election I received many letters from people representing all segments of the population and all professions, especially from the younger generation, linking my inauguration with great - far too great - expectations. -Gustav Heinemann-

---

Yes, that does mean what you think it means... Maybe... Read on.

You know, after this election season, the inauguration almost felt anti-climactic. Almost as if we expected Heaven to open up during the ceremony and a white dove to descend and land on Barack's shoulder. I think both sides need to stick a pin in their highly overstated views of the new president and really get down to working on the problems facing us. The fact is, folks, Barack Obama is only human. He's not the messiah, contrary to anything he might think, and he isn't the savior of the United States. I know this wasn't your average inauguration ceremony, people crying(1),politically correct prayers(2), and Justice Roberts muffing the oath (3). However, despite all the hubbub and emotion, somehow I still summon the audacity to question the humanity of the new president. Trust me on this one...

However, then the question arises, how far do we go to support this man? Recently, Sean Hannity interviewed Rush Limbaugh on whether the famous radio host wants the newly elected president to "succeed". Here's his answer:



I think he's dead on here. Personally, I'm just as put out by the presidency as the next conservative, but to just sit here and whine about why we got beat in the election or how bad of a man Obama is, isn't going to help us. A lot of talk and no action coming out of conservatives is like having a Bugatti Veyron sitting in the garage, but never taking it for a drive.

This is what I mean by Partisan Bi-Partisanism. To echo Limbaugh, I want Obama to succeed... if he's going to truly help the country. However, if he wants to close Gitmo; sign up the FOCA;, shut down the war in Iraq; and bailout every man,woman, and child in US and any surrounding countries, I'm going to oppose him. This is the beauty of the system of government that is employed in America. In as much as he wants to help America, I'm behind him all the way. However, when he starts leaving that path and abusing the powers of the government, I will oppose him. I am Bi-Partisan in as much as I want to help America, but I'm not going to sell out my convictions in order to support a president I didn't vote for.

• Reaching out without Selling Out
  

The fact is, we're conservatives, and we don't usually enjoy working with liberals. However, the time has come to maybe suck up our pride, quit whining about the lost election, and move on in hopes of 2012. All is not lost, but we have to be purposeful in the next four years to get somebody worth voting-for into office.

What is my "Hope" for the Obama presidency? My Hope is that he radically changes his views.

-Cheers

• Limbaugh: I hope Obama Fails
  
  
• WH press says that closing Gitmo will make America "safer"
  

Oh yeah, one more thing... I don't know how many people know this, but today's the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I think that it might actually be appropriate for you to actually read the court decision on this landmark day... You'd be amazed how they ever got to the idea of the "right to an abortion" from the Constitution.

Full text of the Court's decision:

• here
  

Read more!

---

"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

---

Estimated number of Abortions in the World since 2000A.D.


Abortion Counter

Back in the day, when Obama was still running for president, he made a lot of promises. Some of them were very wise political moves, some of them were very stupid ideas that he will most likely never accomplish. However, I don't think any of them are nearly as scary as this... The FOCA...



At a convention for Planned Parenthood in July of 2007, Barack Obama said this, “Well, the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act..."

• Here...
  
• ...Here...
  
• ...and Here
  

Now, why does this even matter? Why should we care? Well, without even bringing morality and the fact that he's murdering human lives, there are a couple reason that society shouldn't kill its babies.

• First, it benefits society to actually have children, because that means that society will continue to increase in numbers rather than poop out because the next generation is being killed even before they leave the womb. In an article in the Space Review, this was quoted, "The biggest problem, and one that Clinton’s campaign document touches on, is a declining workforce". I find it ironic that liberals champion the "freedom of choice" for women, which is basically like promoting the mass-murder of the next generation; yet, they then turn around and ask silly questions like, "Why is social security not working?" and "Why is the workforce declining?" You'd think they'd understand.
  
  
• According to the National Right to Life website, there have been 49,551,703 abortions since 1973 (1). Let's think about this. We'll round it to 25 years since R v. W, That means that there's on average roughly 2 million abortions every year. Taking the 365 days in a year, this rounds to about 5480 abortions a day... 228 every hour... 3.8 every minute... roughly speaking, this is about 1 abortion every 16 seconds. Abortion is actually the leading cause of death in America.(2) Libs are so fast to ask for money for medicare/medicaid, but in reality, this is the cause that should take up all the money. PREVENTING IT.
  
  
• This is especially pertinent for Obama who likes to promote the idea of race. 1/3 of all abortions in the United States are on Black children. This means that roughly 16.5 million black children have died since 1973. 3 out of 5 black women will abort their children. With this number of murders, the abortion industry has received over $4,000,000,000 from the black community alone (3). The abortion industry, (yes, it is an Industry) is basically performing racial genocide of the black community and Obama doesn't even realize it. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said this about the abortion movement, "It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them." What people don't realize is that Sanger was actually a EUGENICIST, not an abortionist. She actually didn't promote the killing of white babies. This is why you see most Planned Parenthood clinics in the inner city instead of in the suburbs. They are basically the equivalent of Auschwitz in modern America. The only difference being that people walk into it willingly, and sacrifice the lives of others upon the golden altars, not their own.
  

Friends, this isn't an issue we can afford to lose. This isn't an issue that is debatable in any sense of the word. People complain about how Bush murdered thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, but then overlook the fact that MILLIONS of American children have been murdered under their very noses. Is this the legacy we want America to leave? We murder our children? Put that in your pipe and chew it.

-Cheers


(As an aside, I wanted to mention one more thing. It is often said that there is no scientific evidence that the fetuses inside the womb are actually 'human'. However, this is not the point of this post. On that note, however, I love Ronald Reagan's wry look at the idea, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.")

More Links to Consider

• http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
  
• http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/abortion.html
  

Draft Copy of the 2008 Democratic Party Platform, pg 50: "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."


WARNING: THE FOLLOWING LINKS CONTAIN DISTURBING IMAGES THAT WILL BE ETCHED INTO YOUR MEMORY. DO NOT CONTINUE UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO BEAR THESE IMAGES WITH YOU FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

• Image 1
  
• Image 2
  
• Image 3
  
• Image 4
  
• Image 5
  

Read more!

I noticed today that during inaugural address, Obama said something along the lines that it was the government's duty to help all everybody have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A defining line suddenly appears from this idea. The founding fathers set this government up so that people would have the freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; but it was never in any way a task that was entrusted to the government... The founding fathers gave their lives to the pursuit of an ideal:

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Nowhere in there is the phrase, "it is the right of the government; indeed, its duty to perform these actions for the individual citizen". Never did the founding fathers create a large and overpowering government that would be able to help out all of its citizens. Actually, if you read the personal writings of many of the fathers, you will find that they were actually hesitant to create such a powerful government. State sovereignty was a really big deal at the time, and was one of the reasons that the Constitution took so long to write.

I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but indeed, it is. This way of reading the Declaration of Independence stems from the idea that the meanings of the DI and the Constitution are relative to the time period and circumstances in which they are read. It is the idea that these two foundations for our government are actually evolving over time. This is the view that has raped the 1st amendment to insert the "separation of church and state" and the 14th amendment to insert "the woman's right to choose". Indeed friends, this is a big issue, and one that needs to be dealt with.

If you read on in the Declaration:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In America, we have a different way of throwing off government and providing new guards for ourselves. Indeed, it is not the government itself, but rather the men who are running it that is causing such harm to the freedoms of this nation. Many will claim that the system is inherently flawed, and that no good can come of it; however, Winston Churchill, being the genius that he was, said this about democracy:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

I think he's dead on. We can either choose to complain about the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States. Or, we can look forward to the future and provide for ourselves the guards that are needed for our security. Assuredly, it is not the government's job to create the lives of its citizens; it is all those who created the government in the first place, namely the people of this nation. It is we who need to straighten ourselves out to live another day. Freedom still rings, friends. Let us not forget the sacrifices that have been made to allow it to be so. Rather, let us build upon those who came before us so that we might take this country to new heights. Let it be said of this nation,

"One Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

-Cheers

Read more!

On a day that is celebrated by all of America, I think that it is so important to recognize how far we have come since then. I find it ironic that it's the day after MLK day that all the freedom that MLK fought for will begin to die. Read more!

The other night on the Huckabee Show, (def watch it sometime), Mario Cuomo came on. Asked how Obama should handle issues of faith and religion in the office, he started going into stem cell research and how it was a "sacred" issue and not a "scientific" issue to Bush. He claimed to be a devout Roman Catholic, (how he justifies this I'll never know), and then he basically said that there is no scientific evidence that the embryo is actually a human. Huckabee responded brilliantly with something to the effect of, "well, what else is it, broccoli?" Cuomo falls into the trap that the Liberals set up in 1947 with the Everson case. They believe that any religious ideas should be left out of the public sector altogether, and people have to be basically moral-less when they are writing up laws. It's the idea that we need to check our religions at the door when we enter the public arena. However, there is something that the libs forget. You cannot separate your worldview from your actions. The two are inextricably combined, for better or worse. When you try and remove your moral-system, it's definitely going for the "worse" option.

C.S. Lewis, in his book, The Abolition of Man, defines the moral code in a rather obtuse way, but since America does have freedom of religion and whatnot, we'll use his rather over-arching definition. Lewis bunches the moral codes of all religions into one big bubble, and then calls the bubble the "Tao". He debunks the idea that you can actually step outside of the Tao and still be a rational being, but the point I really want to dwell on here is this:

If we attempt to separate our code of beliefs/moral law from our actions as human beings, we cease to be human.

Part of the reason that we as humans are separate from the rest of the animals out there is the fact that we have the ability to decipher a situation and make a moral judgment. Animals rely on instinct, we rely on a moral-code of some sort. If we try to reject it, we will fail and we will suffer the consequences. To use the words of Lewis himself when considering men like Cuomo,

"It is not that they are bad men. They are not men at all. Stepping outside the Tao, they have stepped into the void. Nor are their subjects necessarily unhappy men. They are not men at all: they are artefacts. man's final conquest has proved to be the abolition of man."

Lewis is completely correct in his assumption. We can't separate our judgement from our morality. If we try, we will cease to be men. Not only will we still make moral value judgments, we will believe that we are free from morality and that is a very dangerous situation because our foundation for value will be warped by our selfish desires or even our patriotism.

Not only that, but these "men" who try to make judgments on those of us who aren't wimpish enough to drop our morality at the door, are basically using logic to disprove the existence of logic. They are judging the morals of people who bring their morals into the social sector of America, yet they are only able to do it because their value system allows them the vantage point to draw the line in the sand. If this doesn't make sense, e-mail me or IM me and we can discuss it further.

Aiight, so I know this post was rather convoluted, but I thought it needed to be said. I'm gonna have more later on Cuomo's ideas on Stem Cell research... That's originally what this post was going to be on, but it evolved to this point... oops. Never let your ideas have thought-sex with other thoughts; the outcome could be a tangent.

-Cheers

(Oh yeah, if you want an interesting research project, look in the Constitution to see how many times the phrase "separation of church and state" appears... I think you'll be surprised.)


Read more!

A question has reverberated throughout history shaking the fiber of society and molding it to its answer: what is good character? There are mainly two views on this: divine command and social decision. Divine command would state that a divine power made a set of morals for humans to abide by: a good character follows these morals. Social decision would argue that morality is simply a set of socially convenient behaviors that can be changed, i.e. there is no absolute truth in this world: everyone has good character in his own way.

Before answering this question one must first understand what 'good' is. If good is bad, bad is good, then we must conclude that 'good' is simply a point of view; I think that it is good that we are getting an early rain because my lawn was drying. The hiker believes that it is bad that the rain has started because he can no longer summit a peak until the rain has ceased. Therefore 'good' is a word that can be compromised. However this argument assumes one thing: good opportunities and good morals are the same entities.

This brings us to another obstacle: what is morality and is it different than any other good thing? If morality is relative, then to be consistent one could argue that different societies in the world can have different inconsequential morals. A good example is Zimbabwe. For the past few decades, AIDS has been a disease that has claimed the lives of thousands (which is a bad thing). At the moment in Zimbabwe, the adult prevalence rate of AIDS is 25%. Approximately 1.8 billion people are living with it which also means they will die from it.

Lately 'safe sex' has been practiced to prevent the spread of this disease. 'Safe sex' is frowned upon and rejected by conservative individuals of Judeo-Christian backgrounds. The Judeo-Christian ethics preach the complete abstinence from sex until marriage. According to moral relativity, neither practice is right nor wrong. Either practice can benefit a culture or not, it simply depends on what the society decides. Now as we can see, the society has decided that abstinence is not necessary and they can partake in whatever 'safe' sexual activity they want. Yet despite this, the percentage of HIV/AIDS is very high - even rising. Obviously a moral perceived as 'bad' by one party and 'good' by another does not negate the fact that there is a consequence for breaking this moral. In fact, the statistics state that the Judeo-Christian ethic would be more logical since it commands individuals to abstain for just one mate therefore lessening the likelihood of contracting the disease altogether. It seems as if morals are morals because there are definite consequences for breaking them.

I believe morals are absolute and definitive. Even those who claim no moral code have them. They use language that condemns or condones others' behaviors such as 'He wronged me when he tripped me' or 'She is a very honest person.' No sane person would admit that killing children can be acceptable. A sane person would not even agree to the mass killings of animals for sport. C.S. Lewis illustrated this point beautifully in his book Mere Christianity:

"A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line."

Whether we like it or not, morals are absolute. This is an extreme statement because of the implications it makes: we are bound to a code of conduct which is closer to a universal law than the traditional view on morals as a list of do's and dont's. One does not get very far in life by ignoring the law of gravity. Likewise we will not get far by ignoring the law of morals. Read more!