Critical Advantage

Unleashing the Fury of Fate

2009-03-09T19:56:00.002-04:00

Today, Obama reversed Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (surprise surprise). What's such a big deal here? Well, the biggest problem is that they are dealing with human lives as if they are worthless cattle. Secondly, we're in the middle of a recession, and government funding should not be going to fund unnecessary scientific pursuits. Before you get out the tar and feathers, let me explain...

It's no surprise that Obama finally decided to open the sluice of government funding back into this arena; yet, I still am of the firm mind that this was not a wise move.

First and foremost, he is playing "god" with human lives. Don't get me wrong, I'm not "anti-science"; however, I am anti-murder. I firmly believe that life begins at conception, and to be chucking embryos into the trashcan is to be committing mass murder. Furthermore, where is this going to end? Obama has said that he will forbid human cloning, but how the hell is he going to regulate this? (anyone seen The Island?) Now that the morality is completely blurred, who is to say what is right and wrong? How long will it be before we turn into Huxley's Brave New World? On top of all this, the scientists are going to need embryos. Where are they going to get them? Willing donors are going to be few and far between without sufficient monetary incentive, so what's to stop the scientists to just set up embryo farms? (anybody seen The Matrix?) Seriously folks, this sounds so great, but it's only the beginning. Once you open pandora's box the world changes for the worse.

Secondly, we're in the middle of a recession, and the government wants to throw money into another black hole! I've heard of college students being offered $50,000 to donate their eggs to the lab (I don't know the validity of this, so we'll tone it down to the national average of around $5,000). If it's $5,000 for each egg donated, we'll make an estimate of 20,000 donors; this totals out to $100 million. However, this doesn't include medical costs and/or insurance costs. On top of this, to the best of my knowledge, the helpful cures that scientists have discovered from embryonic stem cell research number a grand total of zero. That's right, a big fat 0. Basically, all the money spent on embryonic stem cells so far haven't produced any results. Again, I'm not anti-science. I completely and fully support adult stem cell research. Scientists have discovered numerous cures from adult stem cells and it doesn't kill the patient. However, for the government to be introducing another offshoot for funds during a recession is complete lunacy.

As I said before, it's not surprising that Obama would do this. We are beginning to see the true face under the mask of "hope" and "change". Yet at the same time, I'm finding his ignorance of government affairs to be rather scary. His "on the job training" isn't helping this country at all, no matter how brave of a face he attempts. Oh what a brave America!

-Cheers

The Limbaugh Lowdown

2009-03-04T14:31:00.003-05:00

Well folks, if you haven't been watching the news since last Saturday, (or, again, if you're Amish), then you probably have no idea where this is coming from, and I would suggest going to check out the news. This story from Politico gives a pretty good idea about what is up, even if it is a bit biased...

Basically the idea is that the Dems are trying to paint Rush Limbaugh as the head of the Republican party. However, to say the least, this is completely false on a number of levels. First, Rush has never claimed to belong to Washington's party politics; he has always shown himself to be a conservative first and last. Last year, Rush spoke out many times against the policies of McCain, choosing to stick to his conservatism instead of bowing to political favors. In case you haven't heard me so far, let me put this to you even more clearly: RUSH LIMBAUGH ISN'T A REPUBLICAN, HE IS A CONSERVATIVE. Rush would probably view the republican label with disgust, especially in the wake of the recent Specter vote for the "Stimulus"...

Ok, so now I know what you're thinking: Why does this matter? Well, in one sense, you're probably right; the media is blowing this way out of proportion. However, on another front, it matters a great deal. Why? Well, I'm going to tell you.

Emboldened by their recent victories in the oval office and the legislature, Liberals are starting to come out of the woodwork to show their true positions. The Democrats know that Rush paints everything very black and white, and so they want to play to the moderate sides of the American public. If they can smear the name of "Rush Limbaugh" all over the Republican party, they will be able to depict the GOP as a party full of "hate-mongers" and "intolerant bigots". Basically, when all the fluff boils down, the only thing left is another smear campaign from the liberal left.

The irony is that despite all their jabbering about tolerance and diversity, Liberals are really some of the most bigoted people out there. In their world of relative truth where they don't believe in such mundane concepts as "right" and "wrong", they believe everybody else is "wrong" and only their idea that there is no "right" is the right view. Confusing? Sure is. This is why they can tout their slogans for "hope" and "change" and "freedom", and at the same time be placing economic shackles around the US. Back in the day before we had "hate speech" this would be considering having a forked-tongue. No, I'm not a racist... At least, not when compared to Barack Obama.

Thus, I challenge the Democratic Party. Give up your post-modernistic niceties and actually talk like men. I'm sure that if you asked the American people, they would all chip in so that you people could go buy a spine. I am not in any way condoning the practices of the Republican party or Rush Limbaugh, but if you seriously desire a "change" in American politics, how about you start it? Just pushing the same big-government liberalism we've seen in the past isn't going to help you at all. Please, take off your masks, and look the American public in the eye.

Demographics of the Economy

2009-03-03T10:50:00.000-05:00

What is the world is happening to the economy? Production is down in many sectors, and with the recession it is going to be very difficult for these businesses to recover back to their original output. President Obama has about as much idea of what he's doing as a two-year-old in a supercomputer. Nobody is holding their breath for real stimulus from the government end. Obama continues to blame Bush for the entire mess, and conservatives then blame Clinton, who blames Bush Sr, etc. It seems the only thing that we as Americans have learned from this economic orgy is the ability to blame others for our mistakes. However, when this nation begins to pull out of the recessional hole, there is a major problem that will be staring us right in the face.

An interesting study to consider is the demographics behind the economy. Many economists will grant that the economic sector is heavily influenced by the social realm. In fact, if we consider that society is just a large section of people, we can say that economics are completely influenced by society. Without people, the dismal science wouldn't exist.

So, what does this have to do with anything? Well, let's look at what was going on in the demographics before this "recession" hit us. Looking strictly from a productive standpoint, the best years of a human's life are roughly between 40 and 55 years old. This is the time when workers are old enough to have enough experience to be knowledgeable about their jobs, but not too old that their backs and knees are blowing out. If we take the median of this age range, we get a number roughly around 48 years old.

Right now, much of the work force is still from the baby boom era. The acknowledged peak of the fertility rates of the boomers, at least from what I could find, was 1961. Now, here's the interesting stuff. If you add those 48 years onto the peak year of the boomer generation, you get the year 2009. This means that roughly around 2009 will be the most productive year for the boomer generation.

Since 1950, fertility rates have been cut in half. This means that there are half as many children per woman today as there were in 1950. The rise of contraceptives has helped to further this end along with the 50 million US children that have been killed through abortion. Along with the social image that children are unwanted nuisances, society has successfully burdened its older generation by not providing a younger one. China also has this problem due to their one-child rule. The irony is they are laughing as they fund our stimulus, completely unaware that they suffer from the same disease.
So, economically, how does this affect us? Well, the disaster we call social security is probably the greatest problem that is born out of the demographic degradation. However, apart from the SS monster, we also have the problem of the production sector of America gathering dust after the boomer generation checks out to hop on the welfare train before it de-rails. If a business has to let 10 boomers go, yet it can only hire 5 more workers, the output of that company will decrease unless labor-reducing technology is found. Thus, for many small-businesses in America, this demographic shift is a major problem that needs to be addressed.

Now, I know that the fertility rates did not cause the recession. This came about because the blindness of our own legislature in dealing with the housing market (the often stupidity of our lawmakers never ceases to surprise). However, within 50 years our population is expected to begin decreasing instead of growing. This is a problem. No wonder Social Security is expected to exceed the entire current federal budget within 50-75 years. When you don't have enough youngsters to pay for the geezers, problems happen. Within 20-50 years, things are going to get mighty interesting in the economic world. Malthus wasn't correct, but, ironically, his conclusions had the same effect-- even if indirectly.

-Cheers

Nation Weighs In

2009-02-25T11:08:00.003-05:00

Well folks, it's been a month and 5 days since Obama got in office. After a brutal two years on the campaign trail, he finally got his dream to become president. However, I would love to know what's going through his mind right now. The irony is that his platform slogans were "hope" and "change", and yet whenever he makes a speech the markets fall through the floor. If you've been watching the numbers at all, the economy is actually very consistent in how it shakes and rolls. After every economic speech of Obama, the drop rapidly. Bernacke came out yesterday to say that he highly doubted that the banks would be nationalized and the markets inched back up with a bit of real hope. Then, Obama came out last night and completely killed that momentum with his speech to congress. What is going on?

Was it something he said? I mean, come on! The guy basically surfed into the office on the tidal wave of "hope" and "change", and yet now all he does is bring the economy crashing down every time he makes a speech. Soon, he's gonna start up a blog so he doesn't have to make nationally televised speeches anymore. It's getting a bit ridiculous.

So far, what has the Obama administration done for us? They have passed the biggest "stimulation" bill in the history of this country, and blamed the entire mess on the Bush administration. Obama has no plan for reducing the debt outside of raising taxes on the wealthy and "cutting the budget" (whatever that means to a liberal). Many people will say, "It's only been a month! Give him time..." Guess what?!? That's my point! IT'S ONLY BEEN A MONTH. Imagine what this guy could do if given four years. I dread the thought.

From many different polls, the nation is weighing in. The majority thinks that Obama is the gloom-and-doom prophet on the issue of the economy. In a recent Rasmussen Poll, 55% said that the media makes the economy look worse than it is. While this isn't completely true (the economy is going downhill faster than we think), it shows that the majority of the American people don't believe everything the media chucks at them. This includes Obama's speeches.

If you saw the rant by Rick Santelli on CNBC the other day, you know what I'm talking about. The stockbrokers trust our new president about as far as they could throw the White House.

Next time, the solution to the economic problems we're facing.

-Cheers

Oh the Hope of a New Era !

2009-02-22T11:12:00.005-05:00

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I please have your attention? Scientists have recently discovered a new type of human. Yes, you heard me correctly, I said that scientists have discovered a new type of human. This human is actually superhuman in the fact that he can spot a disaster from a distance and rush in to save the day. The strength of Superman, the intelligence of Albert Einstein, the good looks of uh... a really good looking person, and of course the foreknowledge of Spiderman. This guy is truly the greatest superhero of our age. However, most people don't recognize him due to the fact that he hides in the most unlikely of places -- the limelight. Preferring to remain anonymous by becoming a household name in America, this man has actually risen to the highest echelon of government where he can completely wreak havoc on the bad guys and give hope to the good guys. This man, of course, is our new president Barack Obama!

The President's administration has finally released Obama's amazing plan of action. Apparently, Obama is going to deliver on all of his promises of cutting the federal deficit! It was reported that when the news was sent out over the wires, hospitals started calling in saying that they were having a higher incidence of heart attack patients who had just seen the headlines. Officials were unable to pinpoint whether the influx of heart problems was due to uncontainable joy or a massive laughing spasm.

To be sure, the nation is in shock over this momentousness announcement; yet, there are those few nay-sayers who dare to question the President's plan. Instead of just going along with the great tidal wave of "hope" and "change", these idiotic morons continue to annoy our great leader with their annoying questions of "how?" and "really?". These are obviously the same twits that Obama dismissed during the campaign as being "bitter" and clinging to their "guns" and "religion". However, now that tempers have somewhat abated, we can finally get to the bottom of what is obviously the greatest idea since sliced bread smothered in jam.

Apparently, Obama's idea is to reduce spending and raise taxes; since it's coming from the only man who knew the secret fact that there are actually 57 states, it must be true, right? Well, those bitter conservatives continue to raise a ruckus over the idea.

They say that Obama's plan will actually decrease the level of output in the economy and just send this nation into more of a recession. Consider their stupidity: they actually believe that taxing the wealthy and the businesses will lower production! Obviously the conservatives are wrong! I mean, when I am taxed, I just want to go throw myself headlong into the production sphere and generate more income so that I can send more money away to my friendly neighborhood government!

(at this moment, please take time to go read The Audacity of Hope and refresh yourself in the teachings of our amazing leader)

The president has been in the oval office just over a month now, and he's already stimulated the economy in leaps and bounds. $787 Billion in a one-time stimulus package! Just imagine the good that this bill will have on our families; we will soon have tons of money so that we can give more to the government! I don't know about you, but that thought gives me Hope. It's so good to know that Uncle Sam is watching out for the little guy. Sure, the federal government is behind by $2 Trillion for this fiscal year, but so what? With the higher taxes, we will easily be able to make up that deficit; we might even have some left over to host a parade for the people who work hardest in this country to gain freedom for their beliefs (abortionists and homosexuals). Or, as the Prsident himself said, "We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control" (1 Liberal 2:17). With a guy like that in charge, how can we go wrong? President Obama is truly turning this nation into an inspiration of hope for the rest of the world.

Yet, once again, the conservatives continue to whine. They dare to question the idea that raising taxes during a recession is a good idea! Imagine, the nerve! Thankfully, our president knows how to handle such "cable chatter", and he dismissed them with the nod, "I won, I'm the president". Oh! Just thinking about that phrase gives me the chills.

Thus, from what I have shown you, we can easily see that the president is obviously a great leader and basketball player, and the conservatives are just bitter and angry that they lost. It fills me with hope that we have an executive branch that is not afraid to stand up to the corporations that power the economic sector and tell them that they need to pay more taxes! What a wonderful guy! I never thought I'd see the day when we could receive an African-American man as the President of the United States; this truly is a new age for Americans. The irony is that it is an African-American who leads this country out of our economic shackles and into the new freedom of economic stimulus, higher taxes, and balanced budgets. Oh, the Hope that proceeds from the heart of all who hear!

Now, let us join hands together, and sing praises to the man who brought us out of the horrid age of Bush and Cheney, and into the time of peace and prosperity for all Mankind!

Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!

Stimulation / Damnation

2009-02-17T22:22:00.006-05:00

Ok, so this is going to be short, but I wanted to make this point before it slipped my mind. Obama spent much time in the past couple of weeks trying to push this stimulus package through the legislature. However, it was passed last Friday by the Senate, and Obama waited until today to sign it. Why the delay, you ask? Well, here's my take...

Obama is trying to make a point to the nation. Actually, two points.

First and foremost, he is again trying to prove that he is the one and only...President. As he told GOP leaders in late January, "I won, I'm the president". Since his election, Obama has been caught in between a rock and a hard place; namely, the democratic party and the people of this nation. The Democrats want Obama bow to the party platform, and forgo the "bi partisan" mask. The citizens of the nation want the new president to deliver on all of the numerous promises made throughout the campaign trail. Yet, Obama is attempting to try and rise above the party lines and the wishes of the citizens as if to prove that he is the president and he now "has the power". Unfortunately, whatever his intentions are, so far he is failing. Geithner, Daschle, Gregg, and the new "stimulus" bill have all cast poor shadows on the newly elected leader. Hopefully, he will realize the fact that he isn't completely matching up to demands and attempt to change his direction for the future. Only time will tell for Barack Obama. History has vindicated less.

The second point he is trying to make is a little less obvious. Coming into the oval office at such a difficult time economically and socially, Obama has taken the reigns of government and is slowly turning its head in a new direction. He promised "hope" and "change", which, ironically, were two words that ushered in the Communist revolution in Russia. Despite being in office only a short time, Obama has already succeeded in passing the largest spending bill in the history of this nation. "Hope and "change" are words with good connotations, but as my worthy colleague has pointed out in his article, they have very abstract meanings. These are hardly words by which to run a presidency. Obama knows this, and so while he keeps the slogans running, he is slowly unmasking his real agenda for America.

Thus, I make a challenge. I know the President will most likely never read this article, but I challenge him anyway.

President Obama, I challenge you to lay out in simple layman's terms what your plan and direction is for this country. I challenge you to not use any abstract words or phrases in your speech, and I challenge you to then act on your promise and bring about the "change" we can "believe in".

Until then, I'm not gonna hold my breath.

-Cheers

Social Insecurity

2009-02-16T13:50:00.007-05:00

“Social Security is truly a test of our values as Americans. Social Security is a fundamental promise that lifts half of our seniors out of poverty and helps millions of disabled Americans, widows and orphans. We owe Americans a better debate than we're having today. It's about time we do everything we can to keep the promise of Social Security.” ~John Kerry~

Everybody knows what Social Security is right? Instituted by FDR and shortly thereafter blown completely out of proportions.... It's the idea that people should be able to retire earlier because their cost of living will be paid by the government... Actually, scratch that. It's paid by the tax-payer, not by the government. And thus, the government went on its merry way with this socialistic program, completely ignoring the disasters looming on the horizon. "What disasters?" you innocently ask... Well, what you are about to see is highly explosive. I am not responsible for any and all heart-attacks that may be sustained when reading this blog...

Alright, so when most people look at social security, they just see the pay-out side, ie. they only see the side of the SS machine that is spitting out the dough. The side that is consuming tax-payer money is hidden for the most part. What most officials in Washington are trying to ignore at the moment is the fact that there is not enough money entering the machine to supply the needs of those on the other side.

One way to process it is to look at the demographics. The average worker is expected to be most productive in their 48th year of living. The largest year of the baby boom generation was 1961. If you add those 48 years onto 1961, you get 2009, which is the year we are currently experiencing. Thus, you can see that whatever the problem is, it's only going to get worse. Birth rates have been steadily declining since 1961, so at least in terms of demographics, there are less workers now than there were "back in the day". On top of this, the retirement age is decreasing from 74 years old in 1910 to 62 years old in 2002. This is a problem for the SS machine, because there is less money being paid in social security taxes.

Now, this is where it gets scary. The problem is that more and more people are retiring. Combined with Medicare/Medicaid, Social security presents the greatest black hole of money in this economy. You have heard of the national debt, correct? It's estimated at around 11 trillion (yes, Trillion... with a "T") at the moment. However, this is not even close to the real story. If you throw in the unfunded liabilities the government owns in terms of Social Security and Medicare, you end up with different numbers.

The numbers I want you to look at are those along the far right: the Total Federal Obligations column. What's that number at the top? $65.5 TRILLION ($65,500,000,000,000). Divided among every person in the United States (including those under the age of 18), this comes out to a staggering $218,000 per person. This $65.5 Trillion is actually more than the entire WORLD GDP.

Folks, this is a huge problem, and one that needs to be addressed. Policy makers in Washington need to open their eyes to the truck that is racing towards them. Debt can only live so long... After that, it begins to collapse like a hot-air balloon with a gaping hole. This funnel of funds needs to be closed off from the national budget before it consumes the entire American monetary system. Enact the FairTax, balance the trade deficit, and destroy Social Security and nationalized healthcare before it becomes so cheap that nobody can afford it.

It seems as if policy makers in Washington indeed are only looking out for number 1, and forgetting the true reason that they ever got elected in the first place. This needs to be stopped, and it needs to be stopped now.

Friends, Americans, Countrymen, lend me your ears.
I have come to bury the monster of social security, not to praise it.
The evil that men in Washington do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones.
So let it be with this program! The noble senator
Hath told you this monster was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously will the monster answer for it!

~Let not Debt overtake those with a voice.~

-Cheers

The Problem of Socialism

2009-02-13T23:24:00.003-05:00

In this politically correct age, it is wrong to denounce any idea (that is, any idea besides Christianity, capitalism, or Judeo-Christian ethics). But with President Obama in office, and his (shall we call it as it is?) socialistic policies manifesting, questions rise up faster than even the left would like. I enjoy being honest, and the honest truth is: socialism contains major flaws. It is popular to say that there is nothing wrong with socialism, just as there is 'nothing wrong' with capitalism, or 'nothing wrong' with Communism for that matter, but I will say something extreme: there is.

The first problem with socialism is its appeal to helping people when all it does is essentially make them dependent. FDR's new deal simply made Americans dependent on the government which lead to dependence instead of independence; welfare instead of hard work. Why in the world do people feel like they can sue a restaurant because they spilled their own coffee on themselves? Answer: because they believe they deserve better. The new deal did this to Americans and the effect has been subliminal; we all have traces of it. President Obama's plan is to reinstate this new deal and only make America more dependent. As good as his intentions may be, he misunderstands this: when people are given enough favors without having to work for them, they eventually expect them as rights.

The second problem with socialism is that it ignores human nature. Humans are naturally dark. To say we aren't is to ignore the greatest evils in this world. It cannot be ignored even on the most basic level. Why do we teach children to be good, and why is there no need to teach them to do bad? And why is it necessary to lock our doors, or have a police force?

I lived in Fiji for over a year and learned of the Fijian's socialistic tribal past. It was, as most would agree, socialism in its purest form. Everyone worked together to benefit the tribe. But beyond the work the tribe did, the structure was not socialistic - rather a totalitarian caste system. The Chief ruled the tribe, the priest conducted ceremonies, the warriors fought, and the farmers farmed (as a side note, the women were considered among the lowest of the caste). The structure of their tribes is no coincidence either; the only way to force a group of people to work together is to either present a common goal or to intimidate with fear. Here they had both summed in one word: survival. Does this sound like an ideal place to live?

When listening to the news and hearing about the stimulus package, ask yourself if dependence sounds good. When hearing about giving up a 'piece of your pie' for someone else who doesn't work, look up the definition of indentured servant.

Stimulation of the Wallet

2009-02-11T15:49:00.003-05:00

Pray a little more, work a little harder, save, wait, be patient and, most of all, live within our means. That's the American way. It's not spending ourselves into prosperity or taxing ourselves into prosperity. ~Mike Huckabee~

Unless you're Amish, or you haven't been reading the news lately, you probably have heard of the new "stimulus" package. Trouble is, not many people know exactly what they think about it; or, if they do have a faint inkling on what their opinion is, they probably don't know why. However, if you are one of those few privileged individuals who actually know what's going on and what the effects are gonna be... you should run for president in 2012, cause you're probably the only one with the inside information. As for the rest of us, why should this matter to us? It's just another partisan gridlock in D.C. right? Well, to be honest, I just wish you were right...

So why should we care about what the government does? I mean, governments have been spending the money of the citizens ever since our ancestors figured out the whole idea of currency. ("My name Gog. I find nice rock. I like." "My name Ug. I like rock too." *sounds of scuffle, Gog screams* "My name Ug. I have nice rock.") However, what separates this from the rest of the wasteful spending we've seen in the past?

Well, the biggest thing that separates it is the sheer size of this sucker. Most of us can't even imagine $1 million, just forget a billion. So, let's put this into some easy numbers. The size of this "stimulus" package ($827 B) is equal to:

Spending $1 Billion a DAY for 827 days (2.26 years).

Spending $1 million a DAY for roughly 2,300 years.

Spending $1,000 a DAY for 2.6 MILLION years.

So, you can see that this isn't milk money the government is throwing away, this is the real deal.

So, why should we care? Well, the problem most likely isn't going to land on the people who are now in office, which is why they can get away with it and not have to worry too much about repercussions. So, it's gonna be on our shoulders ("generation x"), to fulfill this debt. The fact is, we don't have the money to pay for this bill. It's not like the government can shuffle around in its pockets and pull out $827 Billion, it's just not gonna happen. Thus, we have to borrow it from foreign countries.

Psalm 37:21: "The wicked borrows but does not pay back, but the righteous is generous and gives;".
Proverbs 22:7: "The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender."

Is it any wonder then, that the Lord told the people of Israel not to borrow from foreign countries? (Deut 15:6, Deut 28:12) God saw what our government doesn't see: choices have consequences. This stimulus bill is a choice, and it is a bad one: Thus, it will have bad consequences.

Even if you're not a Christian, you can see the wisdom in the scriptures of old. The quote from Mike Huckabee is a great way to live life, folks. It's called fiscal responsibility, love it or leave it.

The argument eventually comes up going something like this: "Well, we got ourselves into this mess, we need to get ourselves out". I agree, actually. However, I just don't think that attempting to spend our way out is a great idea. It's hardly the lesson taught by history. The government apparently thinks that they can spend the way out of this hole, however that's never really done the trick in the long-run. It's short-term Keynesian policy in action. However, the point of this post isn't to discuss monetary and fiscal policy.

America, it's not spending that will help us here, it's saving and living inside of our means. Going into debt isn't a good way to get out of debt. (duh!)

Since when has the American way turned into a spendulous extravaganza thrown by the government? That's called Socialism. Welcome to the World of Barack Obama.

-Cheers

We're Back!

2009-02-10T15:21:00.002-05:00

“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn't learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn't learn a little, at least we didn't get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn't die; so, let us all be thankful.” ~Buddha~

After a 17-day respite, Blogger has finally decided to place us back on the web, and so you can again surf the Critical Advantage Wave. Hopefully you missed us, but then again, maybe you didn't... If you are of the latter type, I pity you. Anyway, I think I'm gonna try to do some modifications to the site once I think of how to program it. Anyway, Enjoy!

-Cheers

The Hope of 2008

2009-01-30T18:09:00.000-05:00

The CEOs of the Increasingly Small Three auto makers return to Washington to resume pleading for a bailout, this time telling Congress that if they can reach an agreement that day, they will throw in the undercoating, the satellite-radio package AND a set of floor mats. ''We're actually LOSING MONEY on this deal!'' they assure Congress. Finally they reach a $13.4 billion agreement under which the car companies will continue to provide jobs, medical insurance and pension benefits, but will cease producing actual cars. The agreement will be overseen by the federal government, using its legendary ability to keep things on budget. ~Dave Barry~

Last night, I found an article written by none other than Dave Barry on the condition of 2008. Despite his off-the-wall humor and zany ideas, I pull some meaning from his paper. (click here for the article) This post is my incredible insight into the year of 2008... Ok, so maybe not. However, I'm just gonna say what I think about the year that many see as the beginning of a new era and others see as the low point in American history.

So, in terms of the good/bad scale, where did 2008 fall? Was it really the worst year in American history as most of the news media is portraying it, (Minus the election of Obama)? Was there anything we could take away from this year that was actually something good? I think there was:

Despite all the miscarriages of justice we've seen since Everson v. Board of Education, O.J. actually was convicted of something. Imagine that. No, I'm not talking about the fruit juice.

Elliot Spitzer had to resign á la Bill Clinton.

(my favorite) Proposition 8 was passed in California. Bummer to the liberal judges who are trying to pervert the law.

I think the main thing that this year goes to show you is the fact that our hope can't be in men, whether they are OJ, or Spitzer, or even in Obama. Men will fail you over and over again. The irony is that we continue to place great hope in the "leaders" in this world, and yet again they fail. Welcome to reality, kids. Let's try not to screw this up too much.

-Cheers

The Cost of the Next Generation

2009-01-28T17:59:00.000-05:00

"Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." ~Nancy Pelosi~

Well, it seems that Nancy Pelosi has finally shown her true colors. In an interview with ABC's Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning, she made this comment, "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." Basically, she is saying that kids cost money (which they do), but then she is also inferring that they are a complete waste for the government to be spending money on, (which is not true). From a completely fiscal viewpoint, is the next generation worth the cost?

According to an online calculator(1) for the costs of raising a child born in 2009, including paying for their college tuition is roughly around $250,000 a child. Now, to be fair, we will take away the college tuition, as it comes further down the road, and the parents might win the lottery before then, so with the average tuition of a public university from the '06-'07 school year being around $12,000, this brings our total down to about $238,000.

Now, the question arises, how much of this 238k does the government have to dish out to its citizens to pay for the kids? Well, as long as Obama doesn't start "bailing" out everybody in the US, NOTHING. I know there are families with special needs children that will receive subsidies from the government; and there are families that will be receiving welfare checks; but for the most part, all of the money spent of a child is from the private sector. Thus, actually having children is stimulating to the economy in the way that it helps the circulation of the money supply. It keeps things "liquid" (there's your economic term for the day so you feel like you got your money's worth).

Now, what are the benefits for the government to promote contraception? Well, the only one I can think of is that there are less people to feed, and thus less food is required overall, which frees up more food to be consumed by each individual. (It's no surprise that the obesity rate in America is headed out the roof) Other than that, I really can't think of any benefits for the government to promote contraception.

What are the costs of not having children? They are a lot more than what you would imagine. For example, when you have less people, you will receive less taxes. The total federal budget for fiscal year 2008 was roughly $2.9 Billion (data taken from the Federal Budget Office(2)). Divide this among the 138 million citizens counted in 2007(3), and you get about $21,000 per person. Now, what would the cost be if had been no abortions in the United States? What would happen if we virtually reverse Roe v Wade?

An estimated 50 million babies have been murdered through RvW, but we'll only take half of that number so that we're sure to only get the kids that would be of tax-paying age. Thus, adding 25 million people onto the 138 million taxpayers, we get 163 million people for the government to suck money from. Diving the entire Federal Budget among these citizens, we get the amount of $17,700 per person. This is a savings of $3,300 per person, what a tax break! I know that taxes don't pay for all of the government's budget, but we're going by the KISS principle here for the sake of argument.

Tax breaks are great, and would stimulate the economy in and of itself, but the real benefit to having kids is to help solve the disaster that is Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. It's estimated that in 50-75 years, the total cost for just these programs will total the entire current federal budget. Why are we losing money through this program? Because there's not enough kids to pay for the older people going into retirement. It's also affected by the retirement age declining and some other factors, but we won't get into that here. The point is, if the government were smart, it would not promote contraception, but it would rather encourage its citizens to procreate.

So, why is Pelosi saying that it's cost effective for Americans not to have kids? It stems from a worldview, not from a political position. She's fallen into the same trap that the rest of politically correct America has stepped in, and now it's finally coming out of the closet. To paraphrase John McCain on the stimulus package, "it needs some work". I say we forgo the stimulus package all together and stimulate the economy through the means of the FairTax and balancing international trade... However, that's a different topic.

Look ahead to the future America, look to see where your past ideas will take you. Learn from your mistakes that you might not repeat them again.

-Cheers

The Cosmos: All that ever was?

2009-01-23T13:25:00.008-05:00

"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.)

Partisan Bi-Partisanism

2009-01-22T15:45:00.004-05:00

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

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

FOCA: Death of Generation Z

2009-01-21T21:04:00.011-05:00

"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..."

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

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.

Major Difference: Freedom, and the duty of the government...

2009-01-20T14:31:00.005-05:00

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

Tribute to Martin Luther King

2009-01-19T20:00:00.002-05:00

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.

Separation of Moral code and government: T/F?

2009-01-19T11:36:00.006-05:00

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.)

The Moral Code

2009-01-18T00:07:00.010-05:00

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.

Bush to bid farewell

2009-01-15T11:52:00.003-05:00

Tonight ends another legacy in the American tradition. The Bush father/son duo together served 12 years in office, and fought two wars in the middle east. I don't agree with everything that Bush did while in office, nor do I condone his presidency. However, I do believe that he has a sincere interest in preserving this nation, and that his motives should not be questioned. From what I have seen of the man, and the decisions he has made, I think history will vindicate him. Many criticize his economic and military decisions; however, with the knowledge that he had and the time schedule forced upon him, I think that he made the right decisions. The biggest blot upon his record in these past eight years will be the bailout. The war in Iraq will come back to honor the president who served his country by by placing the orders that are now overwhelmingly unpopular.

I guess if there's on thing that can be said for the leaving president, it's the fact that he never bowed to popularity. He made the decisions based only upon the information he had and extrapolating the data into the future. He didn't bow to the wishes of the majority, but rather did what he thought was best for the nation. I don't mean to say that all his decisions were worthwhile, but rather that his motives were clean. I don't believe that he ran into Iraq for the oil. His texan accent and the characteristic smirks will go down in history for this president. Lincoln was very unpopular in his day, and history has now redeemed him. I think it will do the same for Bush.

To quote Dr. Samuel Johnson, the British Author,

This world, where much is to be done and little to be known.

This is the legacy of the Bush administration.
Farewell to GWB.

-Cheers

When in the Course of Human Events...

2009-01-14T20:15:00.007-05:00

You know, it amazes me that some people have the gall to claim that this nation was not founded on Christian principles. Then, they further embarrass themselves by quoting the "separation of church and state".... which, if you are a learned educator from Harvard or Yale, is actually not in the Constitution, but since it is a "living" document and it evolves with the rest of culture and socie... Blah.... Blah... (insert much hot air here)

Folks, I'm here to tell you today that you don't have to listen to the guy in the tweed sweater any longer. Please, follow their advice and open up your minds. Read a little, learn a little, grow a little. I'm working through De Tocqueville's Democracy in America right now, and I have to admit, having been written from a guy who didn't believe in a god, it's pretty well unbiased. If only Dawkin's "brights" would learn this lesson. Granted, I've hardly scratched the cover yet, but even with just a before the end of chapter two, De Tocqueville brings in the religious nature of the first settlers. He is amazed at the nature of the early colonists and their aptitude to survive because of their faith.

However, that's all great stuff, but it's not my purpose here. In chapt 2, De Tocqueville quotes the famous Cotton Mather in a very astounding piece of writing:

"Nor would I have you to mistake in the point of your own liberty. There is a liberty of a corrupt nature which is effected both by men and beasts to do what they list, and this liberty is inconsistent with authority, impatient of all restraint; by this liberty 'sumus omnes deteriores': 'tis the grand enemy of truth and peace, and all the ordinances of God are bent against it. But there is a civil, a moral, a federal liberty which is the proper end and object of authority; it is a liberty for that only which is just and good: for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very lives and whatsoever crosses it is not authority, but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained in a way of subjection to authority; and the authority set over you will, in all administrations for your good, be quietly submitted unto by all but such as have a disposition to shake off the yoke and lose their true liberty, by their murmuring at the honor and power of authority."

Reading this makes me almost shiver. There is an idea within the American mindset that our "freedom" is what Mather describes first: men and beasts doing what they will. It's the idea that we have the freedom to do whatever we want... However, as Mather points out, "'tis the grand enemy of truth and peace".

However, there is another idea of liberty. A civil, moral, and federal liberty. Mather even goes so far as to say that this liberty "is the proper end and object of authority". Think about that for a moment. What would happen in this country if people saw freedom and liberty not as the ability to do whatever they want; but rather the idea that they can do whatever is right and just and moral. Imagine the difference. Imagine the revolution that would occur in this nation if we truly believed this.

Cheers y'all.

President Obama: tax cuts=good? y/n?

2009-01-12T22:00:00.007-05:00

So last time we looked at the president-elect's economic ideas for the bailout, and even though he has good intentions, we could see that it would eventually drive this country into the hole.

So now, we are going to look at the president's ideas for the tax cuts for all the "disadvantaged" Americans, or rather those who make less than 250 Gs a year. I highly doubt that the soon-to-be president will ever put this into practice, and I think you'll see why in the course of this article....

So, back in the beginning of this site, I posted an article that explained Obama's tax policies. You can look it up here. Quoting a section of this article:

99% of the American public makes less than 250,000$ a year. So when you lower taxes by 1000$ per each family, and the average family size is 2.59 people. Considering the US population to be 300 million total, the number of families in the 99% of the population that makes under 250 thousand dollars a year is roughly 115 million families. Because 50 % of the population is now single, we will cut this number in half and round up to rough 58 million families. Multiplying this by 1000 dollars a family makes the total come out to about 58 billion dollars that the US government is not going to be receiving whenever you enact this plan. This might sound like a lot of money, and it truly is, but the total amount of federal funds is roughly 2.65 trillion dollars, so the 0.058 billion dollars that you will be losing in tax income is small indeed, but it still is a chunk out of the pie. So, you plan to impose this on the 1% of the population (of which you are part). If you required that everyone in the households of the 1% pay taxes, the cost would be about an extra 50 grand per household per year. (58 billion divided by 3 million, multiplied by 2.59)

Now, 50 Gs per household doesn't actually sound that much, right? wrong. The average amount paid by the that top 1% is around 33-38%+. So, for the sake of argument, let's pin down a number here. We'll take the low end at 33% of 250 Gs. This ends up at $82,500 a year in taxes for those making 250,000 a year. Leaving them only $167,000 to work with. Adding another $50,000 on top of this $83,000 only leaves these families with $117,000 a year. That adds up to $132,500 going to the government on a yearly basis. That is over 50% of their yearly income. Basically, that's tyranny of the highest sort. That was the basic reason that we left England in the first place.

The problem is: this is a completely optimistic look at the situation, not even taking into account the estimated 40% of the public who don't pay their taxes. This 40% lies in the bottom tax brackets, which already is putting strain on the higher income levels. Basically, if Obama "cuts" the taxes on the lower incomes, he's going to be killing off the higher incomes. This is socialism 101 as taught by Barack Obama.

What's the way to combat this? Uh.....

We as the taxpayers are basically jammed between an empty bank and a socialist president. I'm not even paying taxes yet, and I'm already scared about the prospects. If this was a problem that only lasted four years and then we were done, there wouldn't be much fuss. However, the implications of this presidency last far beyond just these four/God-forbid-eight years. One of the legacies out of this elections will be one, maybe two SCT justices... Lord help us...

Cheers,

Peace on Earth. Hmm...

2009-01-09T19:08:00.009-05:00

The other day I parked behind a car with an interesting sticker. It said 'Obama' (nothing strange there) but the 'O' was a peace symbol. Now don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing wrong with people sharing their political opinions. But this... this was different. It was an endorsement of this candidate as a messiah. One who will bring peace. I'll be honest, even if George Washington rose from the dead and ran for president, I would never think of him as a messiah. (Needless to say I was rather pleased when someone placed an 'N' before 'Obama' but that is somewhat off topic).

I watched Obama's acceptance speech, I talked to some people who have shaken his hand, and he seems like a sincere, all-around nice guy. But I felt some apprehension seeing his campaign. I couldn't quite place it until I pondered on two words of his slogan: hope and change. First off, change is not always good. Secondly, hope is an emotion. The last time I recall the word hope leading a nation was when Time Magazine's Man of the Year Adolph Hitler helped Germany. By no means am I implying the analogy Obama:America : : Hitler:Germany; this is simply a statement to anyone who answers with, 'why is it bad to have a campaign slogan based on an emotion?' Emotions are unstable.

The Bible tells us to submit to our leaders (give unto Caesar's...) but also tells us who our Messiah is: Jesus Christ. For those who support Obama and those who don't, there are two verses which apply very nicely:

"Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. When his breath leaves him, he returns to his earth; in that very day his [previous] thoughts, plans, and purposes perish." Psalm 146: 3-4 [Amplified Version]

"The Lord is my Light and my Salvation - whome sall I fear or dread? The Lord is the Refuge and Stronghold of my life - of whom shall I be afraid?" Psalm 27: 1-2 [Amplified Version]

These verses cary a lot of weight in them. The first verse says to not put your trust in rulers, in people period, but rather in the LORD. This more than likely comes from King David who was himself a ruler. The second verse comes from David as well who was being hunted down and was living in the most unstable of conditions. Yet he put his trust in God.

For anybody reading this who supports Obama, keep in mind that no man will bring peace on earth. And whenever you hear that said of a human, I hope you get a little nervous. As for those of you reading who are hiding your guns because of Obama, keep in mind that there is nothing for us as Christians to fear. While both sides may not be able to agree on this topic, they can agree on this: that is, put their trust in God. He's the only one who can and will bring peace and security to this fallen world.

The Subtle Imprisonement

2009-01-08T19:56:00.009-05:00

The British were tactless. This is obvious in the American War for Independence. They taxed us heavily, without representation, and raised restrictive trade barriers. The British were tactless but there are people who have learned from this mistake. We are now being told that we need these things in order to survive as a nation.

But the worst part is this: we are buying into it.

You see, we are now being convinced that we need taxes and restrictive trade. The British forced this on us without our consent, but now we are forcing it on ourselves in the name of preservation of American jobs, better education, and the greater good.

However within the previous statement lies the rub. If you say anything against these things, it means you are socially insensitive. Politically incorrect translation: Satan. Because we need all of this, and if you say we don't then you have no right to speak. This is how America works now.

Don't misunderstand me; I am a major proponent of better education, preservation of American jobs, etc. Who isn't? Because these names bring up positive emotions and positive images. It's like saying 'Anti-pollution.' Nobody enjoys pollution, in fact I think it is safe to say that everybody wants their environment to be clean. But if 'anti-pollution' means no more coal and therefore a loss of jobs for thousands and higher prices on power, one might think twice. Likewise, if any of this means taking away my hard-earned money or my choices as a consumer, I must refuse it all. These terms do a good job of automatically demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.

Political correctness preys off of a person's sense of justice. A perfect example is homosexuality. Gays have now been thoroughly victimized throughout our culture (or so it seems) and because of this, if you say you are anti-homosexuality, people look at you like you shot Bambi... repeatedly. But you get the point: these claims are not backed up by logic, but by emotions.

Our founding fathers revolted for a reason. This reason was to give us freedom - freedom from taxes, freedom with trade, freedom of religion. I ask anyone who does not want any of this to move out of the county. It sounds rough, but honestly, these things have made America what it is. To go against these ideals is to to spit in faces of our founding fathers'.

Today is the age of hidden agendas. The British were tactless but political advertisers are not. We are forging our own chains. Don't fall into it.

-McKnight

President Obama: You'd trust that guy with your money?

2009-01-08T17:12:00.012-05:00

This is gonna be a new post series on the incoming president. I will probably continue this for awhile, especially as new topics keep coming in, so it'll stay open, maybe even for four years.

Well, twelve days from now, the world will recognize a new leader for America. Most of the communist/terrorist regions will probably be cheering the swearing-in of Obama, but hey, he won. Conservatives can complain about McCain's campaign and how the world is doomed now, but in reality that won't help us at all. We need to figure out how we can help Obama's good ideas, and squash his bad ones. Unfortunately, with the senate how it is, that will be difficult. Mainly we need to pray that Obama actually makes the right decisions. With the Madoff/Blago scandals, we (hopefully) have learned that we can't place our trust in human endeavors. So what's so great about Obama? How is the messiah going to save the United States from this economic pit and all the international snares this country is in. I mean, he offers "change" and "hope", right? Why is everybody so expectant that Obama is going to completely supercharge the economy and make the United States this pillar of morality for the whole world to bow down to? He is human after all. He bleeds, he cries, he has joy and sorrow... It's not like this is some terminator-type of creature sent back by Skynet to terminate the United States. I truly believe he is trying to help. I think he's sincere. However, sincerity with the wrong end in mind is like a bullet traveling full speed... off target.

Ok, so let's take a look at some of Obama's ideas that could get us into trouble. The leftist drive-by media already tells you about all the good things he's gonna do, and how he's going to restore the planet to the original condition before man ate the fruit; I'm going to give you the other side of the story. If this offends you, I'm sorry. However, there's got to be a reason it offends you, maybe it's true... something to consider. :D

Anyway, this post is gonna be on his economic ideas, considering the state the economy is in right now.

So, first things first. The BAILOUT. wow, that's an intimidating word, isn't it? Most people throw their ideas around about this particular subject without knowing what they are talking about. This is okay, however, because nobody else knows either, and so nobody can correct them. I don't think anybody really knows the full story, I think people know bits and pieces of it, and they try to adapt to the situation as they see fit. As it turns out, I also know next to nothing about the bailout, so definitely take this with a grain of salt, but I'm gonna try to give a basic overview of what happened, and what Obama proposes.

So, what caused this whole thing anyhow? I mean, it's not like an anvil of that size just falls down on the economy without people having seen it coming, right? Well, sortof... In actuality, it started back in the Clinton Administration when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was passed. This is the side that the liberals never tell you, and you never hear from the news. The ECOA basically said that the mortage companies couldn't discriminate against prospecting clients just because their credit was bad. (Political correctness in action. score one for the liberals.) So anyway, this caused a housing bubble to form and expand. People with bad credit and who couldn't pay their mortages would buy extremely nice houses and then stall for a bit, before defaulting on their loans. This would leave the banks with the houses and a debt to pay to the mortage companies. So eventually, people would be paying 900k for a house that was worth 500k. This is a problem, cause it can't last. When the bubble burst, houses that used to cost 1 mil could cost 500k, and so the banks are stuck with a 500k debt. This is why the banks went under.

Now, the solution that Obama and the rest of the government are trying to throw at it is the "government bailout" idea. Apparently they think that the government owes the business sector something and so they come up with this idea to pay out 700B + to the banks/big companies to "stimulate" the economy. Obama recently said, "In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse" if Washington doesn't go far enough to address the spreading crisis". See, the idea is that if the government throws enough money at the situation, it will fix itself. This is basically socialism in the making. In the free-market, the government works with the laissez-faire idea in mind, and allows the cycle to take care of itself. So, what will happen if the government throws money at it? Basically, it's Keynesian economics taken through their logical course and it will end this country up in the dumps. The government will have to borrow the money, and in doing so we will be pushed deeper into debt. Eventually, the interest in the debt will excede government budget and the government will have to begin to print money to cover the interest payments. When this happens, inflation will kick in and the dollar value will drop off the charts. The U.S. Economy will collapse and then we will have to rebuild. I know it sounds rather horrible, but it will happen. Maybe not that dramatic; maybe it will work out. I pray that it does, you never know. However, socialism in the past has never worked, and I don't see it ever working in the future. The government running the economy isn't the way things should be. Ever. Sorry, Obama/Bush/McCain/Pelosi/etc, this burden's on you.

Next time, Obama's taxation ideas. Woohoo!!

Cheers

Relationships: mandate from God, or just a kiss in the wind?

2009-01-03T22:43:00.005-05:00

Why are you reading this? Why should you even be interested in what I have to say on relationships? You must plan for the future; you cannot afford to live only in the moment of now. My Dad constantly reminds me that I am on the 10-year plan. That is, the choices I make now will impact my future life. All decisions have consequences; good decisions have pretty amazing consequences, and bad decisions can produce ugly consequences. You will pay for what you do, say, or think. In terms of relationships, you must plan for your future: marriage. The choices that you make about your current relationships will impact your future ones. Make the right choices; that is why you are reading this...

Know that guys and girls are very different. Girls are emotional; they have tender hearts and are often easily won over by guys who learn to speak their love language. They allow themselves to dream about “what might happen.” Guys are visual; what they see (and hear) directly impacts how they think and act. Guys are also rather blunt; they usually say (and often get) what they want.

Be considerate of the opposite gender. Girls should protect their brothers in Christ by dressing modestly and appropriately. Guys should communicate clearly with girls and not lead them on and allow them to fantasize.

Learn to invest in people, yet remain singularly independent. Do not ever hide from people or mask yourself to your friends. Do not wall yourself off from the world. Let people see the real you, but not to the extent that you give yourself away to them. People are not entitled to know all about you; but they are entitled to know you. You do not have to share every little detail of your heart with a person; but you must be real to them.

Change the focus of the relationship. The focus of a relationship colors how each person thinks, speaks, and acts. Take your eyes off yourself. Change your thinking from “what can I get?” to “what can I give?” Be about encouraging the other person in their walk with the Lord. Focus on service and fellowship, not on yourself.

Clearly communicate. Words are powerful; so do not lead the other person on by loosely throwing around terms and phrases. Say what you mean; do not beat around the bush. Do not guess what the other person may be thinking. Protect yourself and the other person by clearly defining the relationship and its boundaries. Hold to your standard and clearly state to the other person what that standard is; do not allow grey areas. An excellent measuring stick for clear communication is the question “would I say this to any other guy or girl?” If the answer to that question is anything but a solid yes, than you probably should not be saying it.

Do not dream. Face reality and do not allow yourself to dream about what was in the past, or what might be in the future. Do not allow yourself to fantasize about possibilities. As you think, so you will do. Channel your mental energy in the right direction.

Do not give out gratuitous physical touch. Do not be more physical than is necessary. While this does require each person to define “necessary,” the answer (to some extent) should be obvious. All physical touch signifies something. A kiss is never just a kiss. Everyone respond to physical touch; do not mislead another person with that tool. It can send the wrong message and open the doors to sin. Protect yourself (physically), the other person, and your future spouse, by having self-control.

Do not give the appearance of evil. Remember that actions speak far louder than words. Do not give an onlooker the opportunity to guess. Do not give someone the chance to question your motives, to wonder. That is, make sure that what you do, or what you say, reflects the intentions of your heart. As a Christian, those intentions should be in line with the teachings of the Bible. Realize that people are always watching, wondering, and wishing. Realize that everything you do and say will be scrutinized. Keep a check on yourself. Have someone evaluate your appearance. Be aware of how much time you spend communicating with someone: calling them, texting them, emailing them, talking to them online, hanging out with them one-on-one, and so on and so forth. Be aware of your physical touch. Confide in someone you trust and ask them how you appear.

Develop close friends of the same gender. Girls need to have close girlfriends they can confide in, take correction from, and be encouraged by. Guys need to have other men they can trust, ask for input, and take a rebuke from. Your closest friend should not be someone of the other gender. As you share your heart with someone, you will inevitably give them a piece of your heart. Keep yourself whole, and not just physically.

Finally, do not settle for less. Remember that you will attract the person that you are. If you are a loose person, you will attract loose people. If you hold to a rigid standard, you will attract someone with a similar standard. Decide who you are and what you believe; and once you’ve done that, don’t look back. Do not be pressured by everyone else around you. You will stick out. You weren’t made to fit in.

-Marguerite

New's Year Eve: Let's go bar hopping....

2008-12-30T19:13:00.004-05:00

Ok, so now that I have your attention, let's look at the whole concept of the New Year. The way I see it, it's basically on line with the winter solstice celebrations in that it is pretty much a pagan love fest to bring in the new year of the calendar. Not that I completely disagree with it... I love staying up to 12am to watch a glass ball slowly descend to the floor and confetti come streaming down the buildings. (If they actually "dropped" the ball, then that might actually be fun to watch... seven millennium of bad luck?)

So what's the age-old idea about the new year? The resolutions, right? The thing that I find funny about people promising to be "better" in this new year is that they either never actually continue their promise, or they go at it with such vigor that they end up more screwed up than what they actually began. Thus, I resolve for this new year: to not have a new year's resolution. If everybody did this with their resolutions, I think people would stop taking themselves so seriously. I mean, come on, we're basically a big giant joke. If people would just see this, they would stop taking their problems so seriously, and they could actually get something done about them. hah, I think I will write a book on that someday, it might hit the top 10 worst-sellers of all time.

Sooooooo..... Oh yeah, anyway. haha, my point. ah yes. Ok, so people make these resolutions. Then, they expect to be able to completely reshape their lives for the better within a year and then at the end of the year somehow be superhuman or something... Either we don't learn from past years, or we are completely delusional about our histories. I'm guessing it's probably a mixture of both. As Christians, we realize the power of God in changing lives, and basically it's futile to try and change it through any other means possible. I struggle to even get out of bed in the mornings, there is no way that I'm gonna change my life for the better all by myself. I mean, I'm a big boy, but so is my life. Usually, when I attempt it, I screw everything up even worse, and I'm a worse mess than when I started... thus, no new year's resolutions for me... (except maybe something like: I resolve to sleep in later every day.. that's something I could live with. haha)

Anyway, I now have soccer to go to, so chau amigos... leave me an e-mail on topics you want me to write about... believe it or not, I'm running out of inspiration... AAAAAAAHHHHH....

ok, Connor over and out.

Miracles: scientific occurance, or act of God?

2008-12-20T16:58:00.003-05:00

Miracle: supernatural event; wonderful occurrence that is considered to be the work of God; marvel, wonder. There are many miracles in the world, such as child birth. However, atheists say there are no miracles anymore. Childbirth can be explained through science, and though it may have been considered a miracle before the actual process came into light, it is just a process now. Nothing special about it. And the things we still don’t understand, astronomical phenomenon and so on, can still be explained scientifically. We just don’t know how yet.

I could rant for an hour about why we have the ability to understand these things in the first place. Why these things, even though we understand them, doesn’t mean they are any less of a miracle. But I would like to move on to a personal anecdote. I was about twelve years old, I think, and my mom took me to a bed and breakfast dude ranch sort of place. A horse ride through miles and miles of trails were offered in the morning and evening. It was amazing, and I actually went back to that place later, but I actually experienced something there. A miracle. Pastors surrounded the house and there was a big one right outside of the cafeteria. One evening after the second ride of the day and after I’d finished eating, I looked out the window and saw a baby horse nibbling on some grass by the fence. I had my camera with me, and me being young and naive, I grabbed my camera, walked out the door, and went down to the pastor. But the baby was moving away from the fence. I love animals, and I’ve always been good with animals. So I saw no danger in ducking under the fence and petting the baby. She was sweet and her brown fur was soft.

After taking a couple of quick shots, I started walking back towards the cafeteria. It wasn’t a long walk back and I was back through the fence in no time. When I got back, however, almost everyone in the cafeteria came at me, asking if I was all right. I told them as much and I asked what happened, because nothing had happened to me. My mom told me that the mom of the baby horse I had petted charged me after I started walking away. Apparently it hadn’t been too happy with me messing with its baby. Very protective and all. I hadn’t even heard it coming at me, obviously, but when the horse was only a few meters away, it turned and started heading back. It hadn’t touched me, yet a second before it looked ready to trample me to death!

I was freaked when I heard this, but now when I look back on it, I can’t help thinking about why the mom stopped charging me. It had just turned with no visible prompting, with no cause to stop, no deterrent, apparently. Someone said that I had moved far enough away to no longer be a threat to the baby horse, but I feel as though God was protecting me and he stopped the horse. Things could have gone terribly wrong, but the fact that I wasn’t even stuck by a blade of grass really speaks to me. I call that a miracle.

The next time something happens to you that could have turned out a lot worse than it did, think about it. Miracles happen everyday, everywhere. All we have to do is take notice.

-Rebecca Sinoway

A political smorgasbord for religious ideologies

2008-12-19T16:03:00.004-05:00

I'm sure by now you've heard of Obama's choice for Rick Warren to give the invocation at his shindig on Jan 20th.(1)I'm really not quite sure how I feel about this yet. In one sense, I'm elated that Obama would choose such a man, it shows that Obama realizes he can't get anywhere without the evangelical community completely behind him... However, on the other hand, it's really a funky choice, especially considering the polar opposite views of Obama and Warren on many issues. The ones that really surface are abortion and homosexual marriage. With the passing of Prop 8 in California, (one of the very few things that California has actually done right), and with Obama and Warren taking completely different sides of that issue, Obama is hailed as the national hero, and Warren is painted as a "homophobe". In his interview with Ann Curry, when she asked him if he would change his position if there was evidence found that homosexuality was "normal", he gave one of the greatest one-liners ever, "I’m naturally incline to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn’t mean its the right thing to do" (2) He obviously understands this issue, and Obama is clearly in the dark. It's like seeing Santa Clause and Jack the Ripper facing off over whether kids should be killed or not... I mean, this is a clear-cut issue in society... I really don't see how people could think that homosexuality is "normal"... I mean, the plumbing just doesn't work. I know that and I'm not even married! Sheesh, peoples, this ain't rocket surgery! Anyway....

Oh yeah, back to the topic at hand.... Obama's having this ginormous celebration for winning the election... I commend him for that, I think it's his right. He won fair and square, and how he has the right to celebrate. I just don't know how I feel about it. At the Democratic convention four years ago, when Mr. Big-Chin wanted the presidency, the Dems had a multi-faith worship service right before the convention... How dumb is that?!? I see this in somewhat of the same light. Yet, I am happy that there will be at least one sane person at the gathering. Hopefully Obama will realize this and repent of his ways and become a conservative... While we're dreaming, I'd like a Lamborghini.

-Connor

Creationism vs. Evolution in the classroom

2008-12-19T12:33:00.004-05:00

This was a paper that i had to write for my English class. I do not support everything I wrote. This is a debate between myself and a friend who thinks that both creationism and evolution should be taught in the classroom, and I had to have the opposite argument so our papers were not the same. I hope you enjoy it! =)

Rebecca Steiger

Advanced Writing

Opposition Essay

12/19/08

Creationism vs. Evolution

In 1925, the Tennessee Butler Act stated, “It shall be unlawful for any educator to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animal” (Scott). Thus the argument of what schools should and should not teach had begun. However, times have certainly changed, and with the now endless debate over whether schools should teach evolution and creationism, the question needing resolution has now morphed into that of a legal nature; should schools teach both, or one over the other? It is clearly important to know what you believe, and why, rather than living your life not knowing how you came about, so coming to a decision on one’s own belief should not conclude lightly. However, this decision should have no place in the classroom and decided in the privacy of one’s own. Although people should know about creationism and evolution to receive a better understanding of what they believe, these topics should not have a place in the public school curriculum.

The beginning of this controversy came from the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, bringing trouble into classrooms from the author’s, Charles Darwin, theory of evolution (Adams). Due to the lack of students in school at that time, the exposure to the theory was not wide. This percentage eventually rose from only 3.8% of students in the classroom in 1890, to nearly two million by 1920. This increase led to more parents becoming frustrated over the teaching of evolution to their children. They started to protest against it, in hopes of the theory becoming outlawed (Scott). This argument brings forth four sides. Should schools only teach evolution? Should schools only teach creationism? Should schools teach both creationism and evolution? Should schools teach neither? Two groups formed as a result of the controversy: antievolutionists and evolutionists. Antievolutionists have two goals; they want evolution banned from schools, and if not possible, then they would like an alternative, such as Creationism, as a balance presented. Society, however, will always have evolutionists who continue to defend their views on evolution, especially when it comes to keeping it in the classroom. The debate on what science teachers should teach became on-going, and quite emotional. No one knows when it will end, or what solution might surface as equitable for both sides of the argument.

A percentage of people may wonder what, if any, argument exists preventing both sides of the issue as having a legitimate place in schools. A problematic roadblock immediately surfaces. Organizations such as the National Education Association should not make one learn both, especially with an argument as crucial as the beginning of life. The authority granted to such an organization, dictating what a student should learn with regards to the issue of life, should never occur. What gives this organization the right to be the sole voice towards the public education based primarily upon what they believe has the best interest for the students (NEA)? Granted, it has the utmost importance to gain the knowledge of what you believe, however, a grade in a high school class should not occur upon it.

Teaching the two topics as a theory, and ultimately not forcing the students to believe what they are learning, is another argument. Nonetheless, they would still have lessons taught. What about all the other religions that have a different version of how life began? Should those religions go into the curriculum as well? People will try to explain the fairness of teaching creationism alongside evolution, but then other people would complain about how teaching creationism over other religions brings unfairness; not everyone believes in creationism. Exclusion of all forms of the origins of life from public education would solve the problems evenly for all. Bias appearances become obvious from both sides of the argument, leading to a biased and therefore unreliable conclusion. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (Camp). Dawkins, a materialist evolutionist, has only one side to his argument available because he believes in materialism, and he will never admit to his view as wrong. Richard Lewontin, much like Dawkins, stated, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism” (Amazing Admission). He will never admit, nor be persuaded, to believe the other side of the spectrum. However, much like evolutionists, biased views exist in creationism as well. The Bible states in Psalm 14:1, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” (David 472). This impels those who believe in God to trust only His word, and only his word.

A certain segment of people believe that children should learn young, while in school. When you put both evolution and creationism in the curriculum, the resulting dissent from parents will occur. The “separation of church and state” now plays a role. Many will want to say that creationism violates that law, when in reality that “law” does not exist. Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to the Danbury Church, a group at that time in fear of their religion (denomination) not having acceptance in America, but quickly became relieved when Jefferson stated that religion would not cause an issue with the government at all (JLttDB). People have twisted this and have allowed it to go much further than what it actually meant. If people will argue the separation of church and state then they might as well play it fair because both creationism and evolution are a form of a religion. Julian Huxley and Jacob Bronowski have said, “A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to coordinate man’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past” (Gish). If both proven a religion, then they (government, parents, etc…) should play the game fair and vote for the exclusion of both from the school system since both qualify as a religion.

Not all the stated data in evolution present clear and irrefutable evidence towards the validity of the theory. Evolution has provided false information. Why consider teaching a topic, like Darwin’s definition of Evolution, when it may or may not contain complete and confirmable truth? When Duane Gish brings forth the argument that in order for a scientific theory to exist, it must have repeated observations and the evidence to prove the theory false, evolution does not meet these requirements; therefore, it can not be a fact until it offers a demonstration of how it has the ability to repeat itself (Gish). In fact, fossil records have repeatedly given falsehood to the evolution theory. Evolutionist Douglas Futuyma said, “Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did not appear in fully formed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.” Even Darwin, should he live amongst us today, would admit to the fact that the fossil records do not prove his theory correct (Gish).

More evolutionists continue to agree that fossil records do not back up their argument, like David Kitts who said, “Despite that bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the present of “gaps” in the fossil record.” Gish states that, “Cats were always cats, dogs were always dogs, monkeys were always monkeys, and humans were always humans.” It all comes down to the fact that same species interbreed with one another. No matter how many times an evolutionist will deny it, no one has ever seen an animal or plant transform into another species like Darwin has said many times in his book, The Origin of Species. In fact, Darwin’s title for his book never explains the actual origin of species; he explains one thing, how evolution would occur, if evolution were even true (Gish). If evolutionists continue to present the statement that what they believe has gaps, then why do they equally insist on the truth of the whole? Yet schools continue to teach this theory to our high school students.

The individual should have the choice to research and conclude on topics such as these two, they should not be forced to learn both if they do not want to. Students should not have to learn something so controversial because of the likely confusion and conflict that will result. These issues only bring more and more trouble for each state. Louisiana attempted to bring the Louisiana Creationism Act to Court, nearly sixty years after the Scope’s trial, but was unsuccessful at passing it because the court claimed it promoted public schools to teach creationism (Adams). There have been several other attempts to change the curriculum. In Dover, Pennsylvania, Judge John Jones became very acknowledgeable with the debate of creationism. He knew about the vote in 2004 that had a mandatory statement read about Darwin’s “gaps” in his theory and brought the alternative of intelligent design into the classroom. He read through the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People and noticed that it changed since the 1987 act which stated that creationism could not be taught in the classroom. He found that instead of using the word creationism, they used the term intelligent design (An Intelligent Decision).

Creationism should always remain at home. The argument of the separation of church and state will surface, thus putting religion in a school not religion based, which only causes more problems. According to Thomas Demere, for religious doctrines to be treated as a science remains not mandatory. He also claims that even though it may seem that evolution helps explain many of life’s questions, that theories can have alterations to better fit the theory if a scientific contradiction was made. With concluding his statement, he brought up “You can’t prove that evolution is true (you weren’t there, it’s just a theory) and you can’t prove that creationism is false, so it’s only fair to teach both,” arguing against people who say this because if schools decide to teach creationism based off this quote, then they would only bring up the argument of astrology taught alongside astronomy, and teaching about witch doctors in medical school. If religion has a place in science, then it would only hurt the student’s ability of gaining knowledge of how science works (Demere). It should be left up to the creationism groups that form to spread the word, like the Creation Science Association.

Bob Farwell, a member of this organization, helps run the safaris that they hold, said the safaris “handle a lot of the falsehoods in the newspapers, and National Geographic, and on TV,” (Koerner). CSA has made their claim that they believe that God created Earth less than 12,000 years ago. They follow through with this statement within their safaris by having a fossil hunt made to show how Noah’s flood has more reality to it than that of an evolution theory (Koerner). Creationists will keep on trying to show to the world the gaps within the theory of evolution, but evolutions keep ignoring it to avoid having an incorrect statement. If schools leave out both sides of the argument and people learned their beliefs during their own free time, the controversy should no longer exist, or at least cause friction in a public setting.

Therefore evolution and creationism should not have a place in the school. The debates over the reality of evolution and creationism remain until further notice. Why cause an even more controversial debate by teaching both sides? The individual should have the choice to decide what they want to learn with respect to personal beliefs; they should not have to learn incomplete or unreliable theories that have proved more accurately as a religion than science if they do not wish to. Public schools should not have a course on religion, it should only remain with in a religious school or at best left completely noncompulsory. If both positions become removed from schools, the controversy should disappear, and if it does not, then perhaps people became too stubborn in their own beliefs to accommodate their personal differences. People should believe what they want to believe, but should not force it upon students to believe it as well.

Global Warming: fact, fiction, liberal cover-up?

2008-12-18T14:00:00.005-05:00

By now, if you still believe that global warming is true, basically you're living on a different planet... or maybe you need to be shipped to a different planet....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,469164,00.html

Bush Attack? - Gotta love the unbiased reporting of CNN

2008-12-18T11:50:00.002-05:00

Alright, I know CNN is basically the private news network of Obama and the leftist agenda, but I love the reporter's accent. One thing I do want to point out is the reflexes of the president.... also gotta love the reaction time of the secret service....

Authors

2008-12-18T10:08:00.003-05:00

Sam McKnight

Marguerite

Rebecca Steiger

Connor Baer

Obama's tax policies

2008-12-17T15:02:00.001-05:00

(This was an Essay I wrote for my AP Economics Class, enjoy. [I am sorry about the font in this post, it came out all funky and I can't change it for some reason... )

To the American Public,

Senator Barack Obama decided he would argue his tax case in front of the homeschooling public, which I find ironic at best, considering these are the “bitter” people who still “cling to God and guns”. However, I am going to grace Senator Obama with a response, not because I feel that it needs one, but because I feel that the absence of one might provide an argument that there is no rebuttal to his case.

So, to start off, I want to ask Senator Obama how much money he makes in a year. Under 250 grand? With how well your books have sold, I doubt that is the case. No, I suspect that Senator Obama is pulling in more money than your average American. Now, if he truly feels that President Bush’s tax plan is a burden on the American public, he would share his wealth with those who are less blessed than himself. However, this does not seem to be the case as his charity giving has topped the charts at 6% in the past two years. Before this, he was giving less than 1% every year to charity organizations, out of the four million plus that he made. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world”. So far, that change is not evident in the life of Barack Obama. Also, if you would like a very interesting study, look at the charity giving rates of all four candidates running for election this fall, especially that of Joe Biden.

However, I am not here to discuss the private life of the democratic nutcases with you. I am here to provide a rebuttal to Senator Obama’s very insignificant response to Miss Pride’s essay. First of all, I want to address his tax plan. For those making under 250,000$ a year, Obama and Biden plan to do this: “cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay”. Now, this might seem like a great idea, but let’s look at it a bit more closely, shall we?

First, let me explain a fundamental problem with this idea to Senator Obama called “human nature”. When you cut income taxes for people, it does not give them more money to save; it actually gives them more money to spend. The reason is that people are more likely to spend the money they earn than save it. Here are some statistics to prove it: - In 1980, Americans' savings rate as a percentage of disposable income was 8.2%. In the late 1990s, the economy was booming… By the late 1990s, the savings rate had plummeted to under 1%. In fact, the government initially published a negative savings rate for the month of October, 1998. - One-half of American households have accumulated less than $1,000 in net financial assets and $35,000 in net wealth. - The one-fifth of households with the lowest financial assets held, by far, the highest consumer debts, most of them unsecured (mainly credit card debt). - A majority of Americans in households with incomes of $35,000 or less believed that they are more likely to accumulate a $500,000 nest egg by winning a lottery or sweepstakes (40%) than by patient saving and investing of relatively modest sums (30%). So, if we are to amend this situation, we cannot just give them the money and expect them to use it wisely to their advantage. I am sorry to be so blunt, but this is the truth. If you really want to help them Barack, give them the money in other ways.

Here is the solution I propose: hit the “delete” button on the income tax and let taxes come in the package of the Fairtax or a Value-added tax. This would solve the problem of the consumer mentality, and people would be encouraged to save their money, not spend it. Also, on top of this, I need to ask Obama a question: where are you planning to get your tax money if not from those in the bracket under 250,000? This graph shows the average pre-tax incomes of the American public, taken from the US Census Bureau:

According to this graph, Senator Obama, you are in the top 1% of the nation in terms of yearly earnings. Also, it shows that 99% of the American public makes less than 250,000$ a year. So when you lower taxes by 1000$ per each family, and the average family size is 2.59 people. Considering the US population to be 300 million total, the number of families in the 99% of the population that makes under 250 thousand dollars a year is roughly 115 million families. Because 50 % of the population is now single, we will cut this number in half and round up to rough 58 million families. Multiplying this by 1000 dollars a family makes the total come out to about 58 billion dollars that the US government is not going to be receiving whenever you enact this plan. This might sound like a lot of money, and it truly is, but the total amount of federal funds is roughly 2.65 trillion dollars, so the 0.058 billion dollars that you will be losing in tax income is small indeed, but it still is a chunk out of the pie. So, you plan to impose this on the 1% of the population (of which you are part). If you required that everyone in the households of the 1% pay taxes, the cost would be about an extra 50 grand per household per year. (58 billion divided by 3 million, multiplied by 2.59)

This idea is completely outrageous and really not that practical. (Think of your daughters and wife paying an extra 20 grand to the government for taxes). Then, on top of this, you suggest a demand-side fix to the problem. You just give people money to deal with the high prices. Where is this money going to come from? You can’t borrow it from other nations because we are already in debt. You can’t make more money for fear of inflation. Are you going to tax the top 1% even more? For every one thousand dollars you give to the 99% of the population that makes under 250,000$, you’re adding another fifty grand in taxes to every household in the top 1%. Let’s say that you give every poor person $10,000, this is going to be an additional $500,000 in tax burdens on the top 1%. Now, let me ask you a question. How did these people get into the top 1%? They saved. Are you going to punish them because they save their money more than those who are poorer? The Beauty of America is that anyone can make a profit, so it really depends on how you use your money. The top 1% got to where they were because of what they did. I will admit that there are inheritances and some people did use fraud to get their dough, but I’m tired of the liberal media taking the minority and trying to make it sound like the majority.

As for giving people money, how are you going to do this? Welfare checks? Social security? Raise the minimum wage? None of these ideas are feasible in dealing with 99% of the population. You talk about shortages and surpluses, but in reality these are a small problem. The main issue at hand is how to keep the economy running smoothly. When the government sticks its hands into the incomes of people and withdraws and deposits cash, everything gets screwed up. Please stay out of our wallets.

Moving on to healthcare. Again, you are digging your own grave. Increasing taxes for the 1% of Americans making more than $250,000 is not going to pay for the health insurance for 46 million people. Let’s look at this in more depth. The average spent on job-based premiums each year for a family was $10,728 for 2005. Let’s round up to $11,000. The average family size in America is 3.14 people (family size is different from household size). So, we will divide 46 million people into families and the total comes to 14,649,682. Then, multiplying this by the $11,000 needed for healthcare premiums, the total for the expense adds up to $161,146,502,000 (161 billion dollars). Now, to impose this on 3 million people means that each person would have to pay roughly 54,000 dollars. Meaning that for your family of four, 216 thousand dollars would be added onto the taxes. This is very high considering the most you’ve ever given to charity is around 70 grand.

The other major flaw with socialized health care is the fact that the doctors no longer are paid by the services they do, but rather by salary. You may find this a minor problem, but again let me show you how human nature works. We as humans need incentive. To be paid by salary, when you could be making a whole lot more is not going to give the doctors incentives, and they will cease to function at the best of their ability. Since doctors are working with the lives of people, this is a major risk to take. Would you gamble with the lives of the American public, only to institute your socialist regime?

As for the “mini Great Depression” that many have mentioned, it will happen. Here’s why: (using your family of 4 as an example), you will be spending an additional $700,000 to pay for these plans of yours, ($200,000 for health insurance + $500,000 for welfare checks for the poor). This burden on the top 1% of the nation’s population doesn’t just stop there; however, it continues to trickle down in ways like decreased wages and higher prices. Supply and demand might function as they normally would, but supply and demand themselves can be completely shot out of shape when prices are really high and demand is really low. It is a modified version of price controls because you are raising the prices, not through direct government intervention, but rather through indirect taxation of the wealthy. You are not regulating the market, you are manipulating the market. In this case, I fear the market would collapse and the economy would take a downward spiral. It’s not your ideas that scare me; it’s the unintended consequences that would come about as a result from those ideas. Please keep your hands away from my future.

You stand for change, but the only change you bring in is the same change that Marx and Lenin brought upon the world. You say you are for the lower classes, but in the very act of helping them, you are actually putting a greater burden on their shoulders. You say that you are “your brother’s keeper”, yet your brother is living in a 5x10’ hut in Africa and living off of a dollar a month wages. You say you are against stupid government spending, yet you voted for the bridge to nowhere. You told the American public that one of the most important issues in this election, the sanctity of human life, was “above my pay grade”. You claim that the hardest decision you have ever made was to vote on the war in Iraq, yet you never even voted on the issue. You condemned the decline of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but you were the number two receiver of bribes from them in the senate (ahead of John Kerry and Chris Dodd). You will not make this country the world’s financial frontrunner, but rather gasping in last place. Your plans will not create a strong economy with new jobs, but rather destroy the existing structure we have.

Sir, I respect you as a person, but I strongly disagree with how you operate your policies. I commend you for being devoted to your cause, but I reject you as being the man who lashed himself to a sinking ship.

To the “change” that Barack promises I say:

No way

No how

NObama.

Sincerely,

John D. Taxpayer

Just doing the vatican rag: Pope comes out with an opinion on this Christmas season....

2008-12-17T12:39:00.000-05:00

The other day, I was driving back from reffing some soccer games, and on the Radio I heard the phrase "happy holidays" about 4 times in the space of 5 minutes... The guy even said it with a lisp! I mean, talk about a big neon sign "Hello, I'm a gay liberal and I can prove it".... Anyway, after cooling down a bit over the politically correct greeting, I starting thinking about Christmas and the whole aura around the season... The United States has turned into a nation of takers and consumers. Then, when the economy takes a turn for the worse, everybody is shocked and depressed; wondering how the hell they are going to buy gifts for their children. While I'm not advocating forgoing presents this Christmas, (I enjoy receiving just as much as the next person), I would ask for people to really stop and consider what the season is all about.

Consider this story from Yahoo news:

{Benedict has expressed hope that the financial crisis will help people focus on the spiritual meaning of Christmas, when Christians worldwide mark the birth of Jesus.

Benedict says the crisis can help people to rediscover what he calls "the warmth, simplicity, friendship and solidarity" contained in authentic Christmas values.

I think the Pope is dead on here... Christianity has always flourished under persecution, even under "economic persecution". Consider this season a fast of sorts to really stop and consider why we celebrate the season... Sanity Clauses are needed for the parents only when they take Christ out of Christmas. So, let's dump the big fella in the red jump suit (including the Pope), and let's try and focus on the baby in the manger who is now seated in Heaven.

Politically incorrect look at homosexuality

2008-12-17T10:03:00.000-05:00

Ok, so as a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is wrong... duh. However, I'm not going to walk around town with a sign that says "God hates fags" or something to that effect. There's got to be a middle ground between being apathetic and being overly zealous to stone all the gays in this country. So, I thought I'd just put together an argument against homosexuality without looking in the Bible at all. It's so hard to debate these people because they twist everything you say and they basically make it impossible to bring anything out of Christianity to help you in your argument. So, playing down to their level, here's what I got. (All of the studies in here are true):

1.) Homosexual relationships not only hurt those in the relationship mentally and physically, but it also hurts any children that might be adopted by this couple. On the norm, children growing up in hetero-sexual relationships outside of divorce are going to be happier than a kid living with two daddies. Plus, the people involved in a homosexual relationship are also hurt physically and mentally as well. Adopting a child is a great way to save a child from living in an orphanage, and I'm not going to say that all homosexual couples would be bad for an adopted child, but.... consider these studies.

-The life expectancy for any homosexual person is on average 33 years less than a heterosexual. Thus, a homosexual parent won't have nearly as much time as a hetero someone to help their children. plus, consider the impact on society from this: The average life expectancy of a person in the US in 2005 was 77.8 years, the peak year of production for a human has been estimated at around age 48. So, for a homosexual somebody, you take 33 years off of the 77.8 and you get 44.8, which means they aren't even at their peak production years yet, or they are bumping off right in the middle. This is helping society? Hardly.

-Violence is twice as common among homosexual couples as among heterosexual couples. Is this a good environment to bring an adopted child into? No.

-The average homosexual relationship lasts about 1 1/2 years, hardly enough time to raise a child.

-Homosexuals are more likely to experience mental illnesses.

-Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent.

-The homosexual is three times more likely to commit suicide than a heterosexual.

I could go on with statistics, but I will refrain, I think you get the point. I can back all these up too with links to the studies, but I didn't bother.

2.) Homosexual relationships hurt society:

-The life expectancy for any homosexual person is on average 33 years less than a heterosexual. Thus, a homosexual parent won't have nearly as much time as a hetero someone to help their children. plus, consider the impact on society from this: The average life expectancy of a person in the US in 2005 was 77.8 years, the peak year of production for a human has been estimated at around age 48. So, for a homosexual somebody, you take 33 years off of the 77.8 and you get 44.8, which means they aren't even at their peak production years yet, or they are bumping off right in the middle. This is helping society? Hardly.

-Dr. William Eckbert said this about homosexual murders which are more common, by the way, than heterosexual murders, "Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings..."

-Drug usage and over-usage is more common among homosexuals, than among heterosexuals, which isn't conducive towards a healthy society.

Also with this, children coming out of homosexual relationships are:

-Significantly more likely to smoke
-More likely to overuse drugs
-More likely to abuse alcohol
-More likely to commit suicide
-More likely to contract severe mental illnesses

These are hardly good statistics when looking at children from a society's standpoint. Plus, homosexuality is basically anti-procreation. They are incapable of producing children, whether they adopt a child or not. Again, I can produce the links to these studies, but again, I'd rather not go to the trouble.

3.) Contrary to public belief there has been no conclusive studies that homosexuality is passed down by genetics. Most studies given to show otherwise are flawed in that they assume the homosexual gene already exists. They just shows how the homosexual gene might be passed if it existed. Plus, from the admission of an ex-homosexual Mike Haley, whom I have talked to, most homosexuals usually come out of broken households where the father is absent, and thus the mother's traits are usually more shown by the homosexual. Basically, the idea that homosexuality is genetic is a myth. for example, if it were genetic, we would see homosexuality in all cultures in the world, however in 29 of 79 cultures surveyed in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent. Also, if it were genetic, then it would be impossible for somebody to move away from their homosexual tendencies, however there have been numerous cases of people who have turned from their homosexuality.

-William H. Masters, Virginia Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny stated categorically in their 1982 work Human Sexuality: "The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today."

Basically, the burden of proof is on proponents of the genetic idea, cause there have been no findings to say that homosexuality is genetic. The most quoted study, the LeVay study is completely bogus... why? LeVay was a homosexual. That's wonderful unbiased science right there...

4.) Homosexuality is anti-procreation and thus it is for exterminating the human race. True, the human race is still growing, but at slower and slower rates. If humans aren't propagating enough, then how the heck do you submit that society will survive? One of the reasons for the financial problems we have now is because the baby boomers are becoming less productive or leaving the workforce. The United States rate of birth is about 2.0 right now, you need 2.1 for the society to increase. Trust me, we don't want to see what happens if societies start to under-produce. The muslims are reproducing at a rate of about 6 children per family, so if we don't produce the kids, they will, and they will eventually take over the world just by nature of out-breeding us. Trust me, under Sharia law, we will be the minority, or possibly dead.

5.) Homosexuals are much more likely to carry or spread the deadly disease of AIDs and HIV due to the fact that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than hetero-sexuals:

-60% of homosexuals have had more than 250 lifetime partners, 28% have had more than 1,000. 79% say their partners have been complete strangers.

-Dr. William Foege, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, stated: "The average AIDS victim has had 60 different sexual partners in the past twelve months." In contrast with this, "the average heterosexual male has — throughout his life — from five to nine sex partners."

- 70% of AIDs victims are homosexuals or bi-sexuals.

-Regarding homosexuality and promiscuity, in 2004 the Baptist Press reported the following: "A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners...As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said."

- 63% of HIV victims are homosexual men who have contracted the disease from intercourse with other men.

- A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were entirely unaware of the HIV status of their partners.

Again, this isn't even scratching the surface when it comes to evidence that AIDs targets homosexuals.

Ok, so after all this, most people will shut up and not talk to you anymore. (This has happened to me a couple times...) Unless, of course, they happen to be a female with the last name of Clinton or Pelosi... In that case, just hedge your bets and run.

So, after you beat them down with the evidence, give them an alternative... Jesus called us to love our enemies... this includes the gay hippie who is strung out from his last run-in with cocaine and is still suffering the emotional loss of his last 16 boyfriends... If you notice, Jesus hung out with the prostitutes more than he did with the religious people of his day... Why? Cause the sinners took him for who he was... The religious people killed him for who he was. Welcome to reality. As a sin, I hate homosexuality. As people, I'm called to love them and serve them and point them to a savior. (At the same time, don't get too close, AIDs is contagious...jk...)

Aiight, I'm sure you loved this one.... (Awkward moment for everybody reading...) I have no idea what's coming up next.... haha. For now, I'm done... cheers y'all.