More than a year and half after Barack Obama was elected commander in chief, the governor of Hawaii is now publicly voicing the alleged exact location of Obama’s birth, saying “the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
The disclosure is believed to be the first time a state government official has declared the precise place where Obama was born, despite numerous other published claims, including some for a different hospital in Honolulu.
“It’s been an odd situation,” Lingle said, referring to the continuing controversy over the disputed natural-born citizenship of Obama. “This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.
“So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.”
I have pointed out (as well as many others) in the past that due to the secular nature of the Left, they still have a yearning for that which God can only satisfy. I also have pointed out the religion of environmentalism is a product of the Left and has many liberal denominations coming on board. Leading the way of course is the emerging movement. For instance, an earlier post (which is a must read: “Feminist Extremism, Eastern Concepts in Youth Specialties and Gaia in Emergence“) I did mentions this pull towards environmentalism when the true nature and deity of God is minimized:
C IS FOR CREATION
What modern secularists called “nature” (a term that turned a sacred work of art into a profane source of “raw materials”) and what modern Christians always linked with “versus evolution” (thus turning a sacred mystery into a profane and misguided argument).
What ancient Christians viewed, along with Holy Scripture, as one of God’s two primary sources of self-revelation.
What emerging Christians will cherish as God’s art gallery in which we live and of which we are a part and for which we were created as planetary trustees and caretakers.
Later of course we get to the “action” (the “praxy” if you will) behind the emergent meaning:
… For postmoderns, it’s “Mother Earth,” holy ground tragically portrayed in the words of James Merrill: “Father Time and Mother Earth, A marriage on the rocks.” No wonder the word environment is used less and less; it’s too cold a word for this theology of “holy ground.”There are now over 130,000 religion and ecology projects in operation worldwide. Unfortunately, very few of them are emanating from evangelical churches.
If our humaneness is most manifest in our relationships—with swallows and snails, with friends and enemies, with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—the modern world needed marriage counseling big-time. The willingness to sacrifice living systems for commerce has meant that the lungs and other vital organs of Mother Earth are being cannibalized to the point where “natural” disasters are no longer “natural” but induced.
The mad weather patterns of the past decade are a byproduct of disappearing forests (at current rates of deforestation, Ecuador will be totally barren of trees in 20 years), disappearing healthy air, and disappearing ecosystems….
This brings me to the NewsBusters article, imported in whole here. It is an example of a growing religious awareness that can easily drive an almost fascistic egalitarianism that will impose it’s will on us through law and those who would “report” to the authorities. Smokers, non-recyclers, SUV drivers, small-businesses, you should all beware:
Daily Kos may be an almost official stop of the Democratic Party — today’s top ad demands you help the Arizona Democrats fight the new immigration law — but it’s certain not a religious website. In fact, last Friday, the blogger “HumeSkeptic” declared that all religions pale in comparison to earth worship:
In so far as all morality is fundamentally based on preservation, betterment and continuation of life, there is no higher morality than environmentalism.
All religions pale in comparison.
Morality, when associated with religion, is limited and parochial. It is primarily focused on preservation, betterment and continuation of humans, but not all humans, only those following a particular belief system.
Even when it pretends to extend beyond that parochial realm – for example, “Love thy neighbor” and “Thou shalt not kill”, religious morality is limited to human life.
Environmentalism, on the other hand, encompasses preservation, betterment and continuation of all life, and, therefore, is the highest level of morality.
It being the highest morality, it is not a surprise that the vast majority of Republicans oppose and mock environmentalism.
HumeSkeptic can’t see that the limited and parochial worldview might be the one that worships the planet and human life, but seems to reject any notion of an afterlife.
The author points out a key aspect that degrades this religious position rather than raises it: limited and parochial worldview. Hume once said that if he did stand before the Christian God he would ask why enough “evidence” wasn’t given him to believe. What would his question for Gaia be?
Libertarian Republican[now defunct, sadly] on top of some news when others are not:
Naturalized citizen and Islamic Terrorist Bomber Faisal Shahzad opposed the War in Iraq. New reports suggest he held views much in line with leftwing AntiWar activists who fiercely opposed the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are even indications he may have been aligned with the so-called “Truther movement.” A witness told the Associated Press, that Shahzad believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. In truth, Hussein harbored top Al Qaeda Terrorist Abu Massad al Zarcawi and hosted two Al Qaeda-linked Terrorist training camps: Salman Pac and Answar Al-Islam….
After some quotes from newspapers, LR says this:
Yes, indeed. Around that time many Americans did not like Bush either: Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Al Gore, NetRoots, the Greens, the entire Progressive wing of the Democrat Party, and a host of other AntiWar advocates.
Is it safe now to begin referring to Shahzad as a “Liberal Progressive”?
This video tears many aspects of the “racial slur” incident said to of happened by Tea Partiers towards two black congressmen. There has been some back and forth going on on this topic over at POWER LINE BLOG that will enlighten the reader here to what is still going on with this story.
A sad day for truth as Christianity Today posts its “story” on the Ergun Caner situation. Very little of the actual documentation (court documents, video tapes, etc.) are discussed. The title makes it look like “bloggers” are just out to cause trouble, not that there are documented, serious issues relating to Caner’s myth-making. The worst part is the utter-disconnect in the comments given by Elmer Towns, described in the article as “co-founder of Liberty University” and Dean of the School of Religion. According to the article, Towns claims “the Liberty board has held an inquiry and directors are satisfied that Caner has done nothing theologically inappropriate.” Lying is theologically appropriate? Creating an entire mythology about your past and your expertise in Islam is theologically appropriate? Then Towns is quoted as saying, “We give faculty a certain amount of theological leverage. The arguments of the bloggers would not stand up in court.” Is myth-making and misrepresentation “theological leverage”? And could someone explain how court documents and video and audio recordings would not stand up in court? What kind of documentation would Dr. Towns like to have, if court documents and video recordings are not enough? Could anything suffice, one wonders?
The final comment offered by Towns should cause any honest hearted person to sit back and ponder: “We don’t see any way that bloggers will damage Liberty,” Towns says. Does Towns have any idea why anyone out here cares about this? Does he really think it is some kind of attack on Liberty? Let’s be straight up front Dr. Towns: your institution now has a massive credibility problem on its hands, and you put it there. Had you done due diligence and followed up on the publicly available documentation that is already out there, already obtainable, and then acted properly in demanding an open and honest explanation by Ergun Caner, you could have kept this a personal issue relating solely to one individual. But now, by failing to do what needs to be done on any simple ground of honesty, you have placed your institution squarely in the defense of documented and obvious falsehood. Yes, it seems you are confused about a non-existent connection between Caner’s comments about Rankin. You further seem confused that this has something to do with Ergun Caner’s synergism and anti-Reformed polemics. If that is so, sir, why wasn’t I looking to raise these issues in 2006 after the Liberty debate debacle? No, none of those assertions are true. This is a simple matter of a man making up a past and using it to gain his position in your institution. You had a chance to right the wrong and bring these issues to light, hoping for Ergun Caner to confess and repent of his falsehoods. But you have chosen the “party line” instead. Dr. Towns, many Muslims are watching, and you have just verified for them that for many in evangelicalism, truth is only important when it is expedient.
Finally, I note the real telling words of the article: “Neither Caner brother responded to interview requests from CT.” Those who honor the truth do not hide in this fashion. The Caners are under obligation to speak the truth. Until they start doing so, they have no business serving those who claim to be followers of Him who is the Truth.
Three people were attacked and at least two others were arrested. The people assaulted were part of the Minutemen demonstration, a group in favor of Arizona’s new immigration law.
They said a large group of immigrants’ rights supporters followed them to the BART station on Market Street and started punching and kicking them, and calling them names.
“They said we were racists, and we were against them, and against their town, and against San Francisco,” said Parker Wilson with the Bay Area National Anarchists. “What they were saying, they said we need to get out and called us racists, and that we need to go home. And then they just attacked my friends and me.”
The Immigration protesters carried brass knuckles, maced their victims and then stomped on them.
[You will not the people protesting sanctuary cities are of all colors — but they are called NAZIs and racists anyways]
[….]
The violence of the Left is their operative norm. Both now and in history.
HOTAIRpoints out the hypocritical nature of the media and those opposed to the tea parties. There is even video of the “rioters” as they pass by one person who films them. If Tea Party members did what these people did… all hell would break loose on the news networks… instead, silence. Which is yet more proof of media bias
After months of warning that Tea Party protests would erupt into violence, a wave of vandalism and violence crested in Santa Cruz this weekend. Masked protesters wielding torches swarmed through the business district, smashing windows and chanting “the streets are on fire!” and “Revolution!” It’s exactly the kind of armed uprising that Tea Party critics predicted … except that it didn’t erupt at a Tea Party:
A group of protesters demonstrating at a May Day rally for worker’s and immigrant rights downtown broke off into a riot vandalizing about a dozen businesses around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, police said.
Windows were left shattered and graffiti including anarchy signs were tagged onto buildings. The Rittenhouse Building, Urban Outfitters, Jamba Juice and Velvet Underground all had windows broken, according to Capt. Steve Clark.
Santa Cruz police asked for help from all agencies in the county to break up the riot of about 200 people. At one point, protesters lit a fire on the porch of Caffe Pergolesi and blocked access to firefighters, officers said. Police were able to clear out the demonstrators before more damage was caused.
A large rock sat outside Verizon Wireless on the 100 block of Cooper Street, where vandals tried to break the window twice, according to Clark.
[….]
Update: Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee says it wasn’t just Santa Cruz, either, but also Asheville, NC. The Boss Emeritus finds another in San Francisco. She also finds a Univision reporter participating in a protest he was covering. Will Univision suspend the reporter as KOTA did Shad Olson?
In politics, apples are always compared to oranges because the outcome is usually what a politician is looking for. I will give two examples of this comparison and correct them.
The Glass Ceiling
President Clinton said that women make .73 cents on every man’s dollar. He used this as a campaign issue to try and smear Republicans. Kerry said that women make .76 cents on every man’s dollar, and likewise used this stat as a political smear. The question then is this, are these two persons correct?
YES! If you compare all men to all women, then yes, there is a disparage. This stat doesn’t take into account a few things. It doesn’t consider the fact that women tend to choose the humanities when entering college and men seem to choose the hard sciences. So by choice women tend to choose professions that pay less. Not only that, when you compare Oranges to Oranges, you get something much different than expected, or that we would expect from the liberal side of things. If a woman and a man have had the same level of education and have been on the same job for an equal amount of time, the woman makes $1,005 while a man makes $1,000, a difference of $5 dollars every thousand dollars a man earns.
Next.
Draconian Cuts
During Bush’s last run, I heard a lot of politikal talk about Bush cutting veteran benefits by 2-million dollars. “Bush is putting these vets in the poor house, “ or, “Bush doesn’t care about the military veterans.” What is a person suppose to think if Bush is cutting 2-billion dollars out of veteran benefits? Well, as you can see from the graph below, this is merely a play on words/deeds. Bush was originally going to raise the benefits by almost 5-billion, but decided to trim the proposed increase for the next fiscal year by 2-billion. The opposing side took this decrease and used it as if Bush was actually cutting benefits, when in fact he was increasing them by 3-billion. In fact, as shown, Bush seems more compassionate about the veterans than do the opposing sides “cigar aficionado.”
Deficit
Very similar to the above examples of comparing apples and oranges, many make the same mistake with the deficit. Mind you, I do not support Bush’s spending habits, they are reminiscent of what Democrats always do when in office. Besides spending on the war on terror, I would take issue with much of Bush’s increases of spending on education, farm-subsidies, Medical spending, and the like. He’s a drunken sailor!
Take note that while the Democrats will take issue with Bush’s spending habits, they would spend more… this is a tactic to try and dissuade Bush’s fiscally conservative supporters from voting for him again (last election cycle) or to cause panic in our fiscally conservative base to vote for another “Ross Perot” so another “Clinton” can make it into office. Politics is about winning.
Even my critique of Bush is somewhat apples and oranges, what’s the truth? I will quote from an article that will explain the situation in a more apple vs. apple friendly manner (*as I am not an economist):
Over the next few weeks, the unveiling of new budget forecasts, as well as President Bushs budget proposal, will be followed by predictable, sky-is-falling coverage of the “record budget deficits” that threaten to force up interest rates and devastate the economy. Many people will say that only tax increases can avert this calamity.
Don’t believe them.
America’s debt burden is actually below the post-World War II average. In fact, its lower than at any time during the high-flying 1990s…..
The misunderstanding flows from the obsessive focus on the budget deficit, which is not the proper measure of the debt burden. Here’s why: Suppose a family borrows $5, 000 this year. Are they carrying too much debt? Answering that question requires knowing how much debt the family is already carrying. If they owe $95, 000 from previous borrowing, then the additional $5, 000 is less affordable than if the family had no prior debt.
The family’s income also needs to be known. A debt of $100, 000 is easily manageable for Bill Gates, but not for many lower-income families.
The proper way to measure the impact of borrowing is to consider the total debt as a percentage of income. Banks use this “debt ratio” to determine how large of a loan families and business can afford. The same common sense applies to measuring the federal government’s finances. Last year’s $413 billion budget deficit says no more about Washington’s debt burden than the $5, 000 loan says about a family’s debt burden.
A better measure is the federal government’s debt ratio, calculated as the total federal publicly held debt as a percentage of Americas annual income (the gross domestic product). The current debt ratio — 38 percent — is actually below the post-World War II average of 43 percent. America’s debt burden is low by historical standards.
Heavy borrowing during World War II pushed the debt ratio up from 40 percent to 109 percent. Since then, it has typically ranged between 25 percent and 50 percent. The plummeting post-war debt ratio is no mystery: Economic growth has dwarfed the amount of new debt. Since 1946, inflation-adjusted federal debt has grown by 84 percent, while the economy has surged 429 percent. Just like a family with rising income can afford to buy a more expensive home and take on more mortgage debt, the growing American economy has been able to easily absorb its modest new debt.
This is especially true since 1994, a period in which the economy has grown six-times as fast as the federal debt. This kept the 2004 debt ratio lower than it was at any point in the 1990s.
So when we compare apples with apples, Bush comes out looking better than even his predecessor, Clinton. I always say: context, context, context! Whether in religious statements, or political, context is always key.
My Main Premise: Science, with a philosophical naturalist presupposition isn’t science, it is faith.
I will elucidate: The following interview was held with Dean Kenyon, the professor of biology at the University of San Francisco, who was for many years a staunch evolutionist, wrote the book Biochemical Predestination (McGraw-Hill, 1969), which was the best-selling advanced level university textbook on chemical evolution during the decade of the 70s. One of Dean Kenyon’s students gave him a copy of a book written by Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who holds three earned doctorates) entitled The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. In this book by Dr. Wilder, Dr. Kenyon’s book is critiqued.
Instead of Kenyon saying Well, Dr. Wilder is just a creationist, who would listen to him? Dr. Kenyon read the book and tried to answer the arguments in it against his own book. When he couldn’t, he began to investigate where the evidence led to. It ended up leading outside of his previously held naturalistic presuppositions commonly known as evolution.
One of the questions asked of Dr. Kenyon in the before mentioned interview was: “What are the general presuppositions that scientists make who study the origin of life?” Dr. Kenyon responded:
Well, I think there are two general kinds of presuppositions that people can make, one is that life, in fact, did arise naturalistically on the primitive earth by some kind of chemical evolutionary process.
The second presupposition would be that life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process.
Now, if you have the first presupposition, then the goal of your research is to work out plausible pathways of chemical development to go to the bio-polymers, then to the protocells; and what would be likely pathways that you could demonstrate in the laboratory by simulation experiment.
If you have the second presupposition, your still going to be doing experiments, but your going to be more open to the possibility that the data, as they [or, it] come[s] in from those studies may actually be suggesting a different explanation of origins altogether.
(The logically rational, and hence scientific way to look at origins is to say what Kenyon just did life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process.) This is what the fervor was over in Kansas a few years back. The Kansas School Board, while leaving microevolutionary teaching mandatory, did – however – make the teaching of macroevolution optional for the local districts discretion (e.g., let the elected officials represent what the parents want… this is called choice folks!); the part that caused the biggest stir was changing one word in a definition. The original drafting commission defined science as:
Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.
The Kansas Board defined science as:
Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.
This simple word change, and the subsequent fervor it caused, illustrates the embedded philosophy in current science (i.e., scientism, materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism whatever you want to call it it is still a metaphysical position as it assumes or presumes certain things about the entire universe).
This is what caused Richard Lewontin to plainly state (Dr. Lewontin is a geneticist and professor of biology at Harvard University):
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. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Plain and simple, this is not science, but a philosophical/metaphysical paradigm. I will illustrate with another example. The Miller experiment which was proposed on the basis of a hypothetical atmosphere has been disproved by the evidence that the early atmosphere was not reducing. Unfortunately, like many other doctrines, it too still graces our universities and textbooks as being experimentally sound. This study is still cited not for empirical (evidential) reasons; but rather, for methodological necessity. In other words:
If molecular oxygen had been present (even a tenth-of-one-percent of today’s percentage), then chemical evolution could not have happened. Therefore, molecular oxygen must have been absent; because we know that chemical evolution happened.
Another way to explain this obvious philosophical outlook that dresses itself in drag/science is that of a conversation between a professor and his student:
Professor: Miracles are impossible Papa_Giorgio, dont you know science has disproven them, how could you believe in them [i.e., answered prayer, a man being raised from the dead, Noah’s Ark, and the like].
Student: for clarity purposes I wish to get some definitions straight. Would it be fair to say that science is generally defined as the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us?
Professor: Beautifully put, that is the basic definition of science in every text-book I read through my Doctoral journey.
Student: Wouldn’t you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be and event in nature caused by something outside of nature?
Professor: Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of miracle.
Student: But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism whatever you wish to call it], you are forced to conclude that miracles are impossible
Norman L. Geisler and Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House 2001), pp. 63-64.
So an honest atheist [or, philosophical naturalist] would realize that his position is philosophical and/or presuppositional (presuppose: to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance) and not rationally or logically defensible. Plato was right when he said atheism is a disease of the soul before [a priori] it is an error of the mind.
Another example, in syllogistic form, is in order. The atheist can be shown that his starting point presupposition interferes with how he views evidence; much like the above example, biased philosophy is the guiding force rather than systematic investigation:
Premise: Since there is no God,
Conclusion: all theistic proofs are invalid.
Premise: Since the theistic proofs are invalid,
Conclusion: there is no God.
Robert A. Morey, The New Atheism: And the Erosion of Freedom (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R [1986], p. 57.)
It is quite comical that people ask for evidence, and I give them many, however they still (a priori) reject it because they are committed to a philosophy of life (e.g., a worldview) that states that this evidence is invalid. I wish to end with a quote I often use; it is from Scott Todd, a Kansas State University immunologist:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
(Correspondence to Nature, 410 [6752], 30 September, 1999)
In April, I will have had my .COM for a decade. I have been online in various forms since before the NET ZERO “days.” In all these years I have had a single donation of $25 from a reader (and brother in the faith) from New Zealand. So I reinstalled the “donate button” (dead center bottom of home-page and any post). I just re-upped for five years… any help will help. (Also, here is the link TO DONATE)
BTW, I just updated the old pic of Mr. T.’s stain glass graphic… the same as before but enlarged. I noticed something however. Mr. T. anticipated supporting Trump
I will be working on this site for a while… so bear with me.
untry.
