Society Unplugged

The Damsel Sleepeth

2010-04-06T15:50:00.000-07:00

Many times over the past years, I have personally wondered (aloud often) about the state of the church in America. Unfortunately, I have made some relatively strong remarks about the fact that the church is not doing its job in our country, and I know that dwelling on the negative can sometimes blur the positive. There is a lot of good being done by the church too, and I would not feel right if I did not mention that, but as a Christian I have found myself frustrated with those who masquerade as the true church while doing nothing to build the body of Christ. Many have made a career out of playing church, and that sometimes casts a shadow over all of us, especially in the eyes of unbelievers, and destroys the credibility of churches nationwide that honestly want to see the will of God accomplished on the earth. If you have had these same feelings and thoughts, there is reason to hope concerning the emergence of God's true church. In a recent church service, a scripture that I have pondered on many times in the past, kept coming into my mind as we were worshipping as a congregation. One simple phrase kept running in my mind, sort of like a heavenly ear worm, and I would like to share it with everyone. I heard "why make ye this ado and weep? The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth." Anyone that knows the Bible knows of this account from Mark of Jesus raising what in the flesh seemed to be a dead girl, but as I meditated on the scripture, the true meaning became clear. The damsel Jesus was speaking of, to me at least, is the true Church of our living God. For years, this "damsel" has been a sleeping giant, but as I considered this, another phrase lept to my mind. It was simply this, "take off the sackcloth and ashes and rejoice, because the church has begun to awaken, and things will never be the same." A sense of pure joy ran through me as I had these thoughts, and that is why I wanted to share them. No matter what happens, it is vitally important that we as Christians never lose hope, because we can not be defeated unless we leave the battlefield.No weapon formed against us will be successful, even as it seems our world is growing ever darker. In fact, we are the light that must confront that darkness, and as the church as a whole awakens, the light will grow ever stronger. There is a good chance that many that the world view as members of God's church may fail in the near future, but if they do, there is a fair chance that they were never members at all. This truly is a time of separation, and evil can not stand to be in the presence of God, it will wither away, and what is left will be those fully commited to the cause of Christ. I hope this was an encouragement, I know that it is something God spoke to me, and I am very thankful for the encouragement is has given me.

No Such Thing as a Blue Dog Dem

2010-04-01T17:31:00.000-07:00

I have come to the conclusion that there really is no such thing as a blue dog democrat, just one time semi-Conservatives that turn into sell outs when they see the dollar signs. The sad part is that there are hundreds of thousands of democrats across the nation that vote democrat because...their parents did. I can not get my logical head around such an ignorant phrase, and if anyone can help me, please explain it. The only thing most of these people have in common with Pelosi or Obama is the existence of vowels and consonants in their name. One of the only chances our country has is for these people to wake up, lose the incredible stubbornness that possesses them, and vote with their heart, and their mind, not their heritage. I honestly know people, as fiscally and socially conservative as me (maybe that's a stretch) that vote democrat because their long dead ancestors voted democrat. Can you think of anything more illogical than voting for and supporting something that goes directly against your beliefs because of the letter next to a candidates name? Everyone, please pray for a new awareness to everyone, but especially those blinded by tradition. This entire topic falls in line with the religious mindsets that doom millions to a lifetime of unhappiness and a lack of fulfillment. While your at it, please pray for me, I think I may explode if I hear about one more stupid thing the humanists are planning. The newest is replacing "Good Friday" on every calender with "Spring Holiday". How is Good Friday offensive when Ramadan is not? In any event, keep your eyes on God, and he will guide you through any storm.

There is Nothing Fair About Socialism

2010-03-25T16:21:00.000-07:00

If you have listened to President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez (how sad is it that you can group those people together), or any other Socialist speak for any length of time, you have heard them extoll the virtues of socialism, whether they call it that or not. The most common of these virtues is that socialism is fair. Or, here is another, socialism levels the playing field. Those claims are not only untrue, but they are the opposite of the truth, they are an out and out lie. Liberal talk show host Ed Schultz said today that the fact that liberal talk shows can not support themselves, and are therefor vastly outnumbered by conservative shows, is "not fair". He went on to say that the government should step in and institute what he calls the fairness doctrine. That proposed law would make radio stations run one minute of liberal programing for every minute of conservative programming, whether they liked it or not. Did I miss the actual definition of the word fair? Another great one I heard today was from Mr. Fairness himself (note the sarcasm, he has been in trouble numerous times for taking bribes to give his associates government jobs without letting others bid), Harry Reid. Reid said that the new healthcare bill was actually a Bill of Rights, placing everyone on the same playing field for once. Actually Harry, that is not all together true. For one, everyone is not covered by the new bill, all congressmen and women are exempt from the bill....why is that? So, by being exempt, they are actually getting special treatment, isn't that unfair? Or how about this one, 80 plus percent of us will see the quality of our coverage go down, and we will pay more, while the other 20 percent will get the exact same coverage we receive, but they will pay nothing. Again, does that seem fair? Socialism is a system that rewards mediocrity, or downright laziness, and it punishes overachievers and hard workers...fair? The end result, as it has always been, will be a rich government class, and a poor citizenry. That is why we must stand up and refuse to allow this hostile takeover of our rights, freedoms, and our country. Fair, I really do not see who this system is fair for, unless by fair they actually mean slanted completely in the favor of those creating the policy, and to me, that is not only unfair, it is evil.

What is the Big Deal with Healthcare

2010-03-20T11:20:00.001-07:00

I believe that every citizen of the United States that currently has health insurance can agree that the process as it stands is not perfect. There seems to be a great deal of waste in the upper realms of the health care industry, and the unmitigated malpractice law suits, looking for a quick buck in many cases, and taken advantage of by greedy trial lawyers such as that bastion of morality John Edwards, have cause an escalation in cost that many struggle to keep up with. That being said, the "answer" put forth by the current administration does nothing to fix the current problems, it only advances a far left agenda aimed at securing votes and pushing a flawed way of thinking generally called socialism. The current proposal not only creates new avenues for corruption, it forces all Americans to pay a monthly premium for the support of abortion. In my opinion, abortion is deplorable, sinful, and murder, but even without that viewpoint taken into account, making citizens pay for, and support, any act that goes directly against their religious views is unconstitutional. Also, why should we all pay monthly for abortion, why not cancer treatment, what makes abortion so special? Where is the ACLU now, pushing separation of church and state as they do when a teacher is caught reading his Bible in the classroom? That of course is a rhetorical question because everyone knows the ACLU is only concerned with fairness when it pushes their perverse agenda of eliminating God from all aspects of life, or when it defends the rights of a terrorist bent on destroying our society. There is only one word to describe the theft of our country that is currently taking place in Washington, and that word is Evil. There, no more dancing around it, I believe that the Whitehouse, the Senate, and the House have become evil, completely consumed with money, power, and flesh, with no concern for morality or ethics, and absolutely no desire to represent the citizens of our country. That being said, I think that the "Bid Deal" with health care is not the flawed bill being pushed, or even the completely idiotic idea that it is "fair" to punish hard work and reward irresponsibility, but the insane manner in which this process has occurred. There are daily bribes to secure votes, an unimaginable number of lies spewed from those we are supposed to trust (Obama stated this week that our monthly premiums would be reduced by 3000% if his bill passes...huh?), and in the end, a complete disregard for what matters most in a Republic, the will of the people. Even with this rampant corruption and lack of any ethics or morals, the House must completely ignore the Constitution and rules of Congress to push through their ridiculous legislation. Here is a direct quote from a non-partisan (he is a Democrat) Constitutional scholar in regards to the actions of Congress:

"It is clear that the actions of the House, if followed through with, are nothing if not unconstitutional. Article I, Section 7 clearly states that bills cannot be presented to the president for signature unless they have been approved by both houses of Congress in the same form."

Yet, that is exactly what they plan to do, in public view, with no fear of reprisal...why? It is simple, they have all placed themselves above the law, and will push their ideology no matter what the people desire. Perversion has taken over the highest chambers of our country, and the results will be extreme if citizens do no take back this country. In a nutshell (I know many of you think I live in a nutshell), that is the big deal with health care.

What Has Changed

2010-03-18T15:52:00.000-07:00

Over 230 years ago, the inhabitants of this land rebelled against their government. Why? Well, the government was becoming increasingly tryanical, forcing taxes and legislation on the people while indulging in the pleasures of the world on the colonist's dime. They were seperated by a great expanse, the Atlantic ocean, and had lost touch with their citizens, living in an alternate reality in which they were smarter than the common people and thus, could treat them as they wished, not listening to them, but ruling over them as servants. The government had placed itself above God in many instances, and many colonists had actually left the mother land to avoid religous persucution at the hands of a corrupt King, and church. It was a power hungry government, elitists that felt they deserved special treatment because of their status, exempting themselves from civil service and the law, and bent on invading every aspect of the common man for his own good. So, that was over 230 years ago, but what about the day we live in now? Well, we are currently living under a government that is becoming increasingly tyranical. They are passing legislation and taxes, such as Cap and Trade and Healthcare, that punish the common man with tax increases and invasions of privacy while exempting themselves from the laws (yes, they are exempt from the healthcare bill..if it is so great, why are they exempt?). While the citizens suffer, government members are living the life of luxury. The White House has a weekly party every Wednessday night (ironically on the day most reserve for church service) with live entertainment, an open bar, and $500 per plate meals. The Speaker of the House has spent over 2 million dollars of our money to keep her private jet stocked with liquor over the past year while the unemployment rate and foreclosure rate continue to rise. They consider themselves superior to the average citizen, and due to this elitism, they feel no need to listen to the electorate, because they know what is best. Many of our current government officials believe they are above, or have no need for God. This was exemplified when Obama became the first president in our history not to attend church the Sunday after his election...he went to the gym instead to worship his God, himself. So really, what has changed? The only difference I can see is that the citizens of 1776 America joined together and took their lives back from the tyranical government that was oppressing them. They used a backbone of steel, and trust in the almighty God to beat what seemed to be insurmountable odds. What does the next chapter of modern day America hold? Will the government become more and more overbearing, taking away the very Freedoms our ancestors bled and died to secure, or will we also stand up, placing God between us and our enemy, and take back this country?

What is wrong with Congress/Society?

2010-03-14T11:04:00.001-07:00

The title of this blog is a bit confusing, but I wrote it this way because our Congress is a microcosm of our society as a whole, or at least it should be. What is wrong with our society? I have thought about it over, and over, and over, and being the analytical person I am, over again. I have thought about it mainly in terms of Congress, but it fits society as well. It seems that they have become confused, even ignorant in their actions of late. They continue to push their vastly unpopular agenda even as their approval ratings plummet, but they are said to be a representation of the electorate. They constantly scold conservative Americans, calling us heartless, uncaring, selfish, and unintelligent because we disagree with their views, but aren't they supposed to represent our views. As a group, we are vastly more giving, caring, and intelligent than they, but facts mean nothing. It is a proven fact that conservatives, year in and year out, give more to charities than liberal, socialistic people, politicians included, by over double. However, when we balk at new taxes, or at income redistribution, we are called selfish, and self serving, again facts are ignored by this group that considers themselves intellectually superior to us commoners. It seems that our society, with its humanism and liberalism, has lost not only their way, but their minds. As a group, they preach restraint to us, telling us not to buy what we can not afford, but they spend $20,000.00 on a date night, and throw weekly lavish parties with $500.00 per plate meals and overpaid entertainment. At the same time, we are to cut back, eat out less, and be thrifty to support their over priced and less than efficient programs. The Speaker of the House, our House by the way, and her followers, talk about the need for transparency and honesty while engaging in backroom deals, pay offs, and down right bribery. We are constantly blasted about our carbon emissions, as the average Congressperson uses hundreds of times more carbon than the average citizen. So, what is wrong with these people, do they suffer from split personalities? Is it even sane to tell Americans to balance their checkbooks and reduce debt while at the same time quadrupling the country's deficit in one year? Is it ethical to become rich from the sweat of a struggling family's brow while asking for more, and more, and more? So, what is the problem? I read a verse a few days ago that answered my question with absolute clarity. The 1st verse of Psalm 14 reads:

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Rarely has God answered a question for me with such clarity. It is crystal clear, as a society, and in the case of Congress, as an institution, they have done away with God. Their eyes have become dimmed and their thoughts slowed or cluttered with their on self indulgent desires. They have no qualms about lying, cheating, or stealing in pursuit of what they consider success, and they do not feel bad about it. They are self righteous, greedy, elitist consumed with an ever growing fleshly need for power. As a type of parasite, they feed upon the people, which serve many times as a willing host, but without us they would not exist, so, are we not in some manner responsible for their growing depravity. In fact, it is us that allows this corruption because in some measure, we too have eliminated God from our lives, but we have no problem criticising them for their actions while wallowing in our own form of Godless living. So, what is wrong with Congress, and society? In short, the answer is that God has been evicted from both, and darkness has replaced him, filling the void left behind with evil and unrighteousness. They are heading for a cliff, and since the wisdom of God has been eliminated, they are speeding up instead of turning. What should we do? Fortunately, God has mercy beyond compare, and he is extending his hand to anyone that will turn towards him. Those who refuse to turn will eventually fall of off that cliff, but your family, as well as mine, can be spared, if we will only choose God over our own flesh.

Why do we struggle to trust God?

2010-03-09T11:43:00.000-08:00

Why do we struggle to trust God? It is a simple question, and the answer lies in the prevailing philosophy of our society. What is that philosophy? Simple, it is humanism. So what exactly is humanism? Humanism is the belief that man is at the center of all things. It states that man comes from man, and not from God. Looking deeper, humanism embraces the belief that there is no moral foundation within each human being at birth, and that the conscience is a creation of what humanists term “the fairy tale believing Christians”. Ironically, it is those very Christians that founded this country, and in so doing, gave humanists the freedom to express their views. Humanism is a philosophy that could never create the great freedoms we enjoy in America, but it is thriving by using those freedoms to reshape the idea of morals and ethics. To a humanist, each person has their own moral code, and what may be deemed sinful or outrageous to one, is completely acceptable to another. In short, there exists no absolutes within the mind of a humanist (not sure there is anything at all in there), and it is that fact that places their philosophy at direct odds with God. So, what is it about humanism that makes us question the trustworthiness of our almighty God? As Americans, or even humans, we have been bombarded with the philosophy of humanism since birth. Unfortunately, Christians are not immune to this bombardment, and one quick way to prove this is to look at our churches. Pick any Sunday morning, and turn your television to a mega-church service and simply watch, or even better, listen. I can assure you that nine times out of ten, you will hear songs about getting blessed, or sermons focused on self improvement, or living for a blessing, or in short, man. The one thing that is generally absent in these services, and in most all churches, is God. When did church become so man-centered? When did church become less about praising and worshipping God, and more about meeting the needs of men? Anyone? That being said, the influence of humanism is deep in all aspects of our lives, especially our churches.
I have noticed throughout my life that God has a knack for giving spiritual parallels through natural events. The Old Testament is full of these examples, and humanistic thinking within the church is no exception. At one time in history, everyone believed that the Earth was the center of our solar system. This charge was actually led by none other than the church. To disagree with this philosophy would make you a heretic, and could very well cost you your life. Another way to describe this belief is that man thought the Sun revolved around the Earth(man). This was of course disproven in time, and here is the parallel. In today’s world, even if most will not admit it, our society has decided that the Son revolves around man. The leader in this philosophy again seems to be the church, and disagreeing with this can make you a heretic, and could cost you your life in the form of your reputation. You will be called a “hater” for pointing out the flaws of man centered churches, and you may even be labeled “jealous”. Just with the natural example, this will be disproven in time, because we all know that the “Son” is the center of all things.
So, what does this have to do with not trusting God? Glad you asked. In the Bible, we are taught that man was created in the image of God. This is a wonderful truth, and should give us all hope, and a goal to shoot for. Every Christian should spend their lives trying to be more like Christ. However, humanistic thinking has crept into this great truth as well, and our warped minds reverse it to read that God is in the image of man. This is why many times people will call God cruel, or angry if they disagree with him. Throughout all of our lives, we have at one time been let down by another person, and this has sewn trust issues into the majority of us. It is very difficult for us, as humans, to trust other humans because of our past experiences. Due to our warped view of God, viewing him like a man, we have trouble trusting in God. The good news is that God is more than trustworthy, and he will never fail any of us that follow him. God is good, and his mercy truly does endure forever. So, starting right now, with all humanistic shaded glasses removed, Trust in God. There is only one path to fulfillment in this life, and that is putting your heart in the hands of God, and you can not do that if you do not trust him.

What is Important

2010-03-06T07:34:00.001-08:00

With the world in a bit of chaos, the economy less than stable, and the government gone slightly insane, we often forget what is actually important. First and foremost is the personal relationship each of us has with God. We were created to be a family for God, and to strive daily to be closer to him, but that is a different subject for a different blog. Personally I tend to get caught up with my daily tasks, such as work, and I miss the life that I am working to support. It is very important that we never lose sight of the big picture of what is important, and ironicly, the best way to do that, is to focus on the little things. Husbands, never forget to kiss your wife before you leave for work, and always tell her that you love her before you walk out the door, that is important. Remember to start each day with a thankful heart, because in my experience, I have learned that thankfulness brings joy, while being unthankful brings loss. Take every opportunity that comes along to tell others how much you appreciate them. This can be very difficult, especially for us tough guys, but I have learned that the strongest man is the man that is not affraid to be vulnerable to others. Parents, cherish every little kiss, hug, or in my case tackle, that you get from your children. Mine is still small, but I have already learned that if you turn your head, they will grow up before you can turn back around. Employees, give your employers all you can for the time they are paying you, not only is that the right thing to do naturally, it is the God thing to do. Citizens, embrace the wonderful country God has blessed you to live in, because no matter what others say, America is the best country in the world, and God has blessed her from day one, and we must fight to keep from losing what many of us seem to take for granted. Spend a little extra time with your family each day, preferrably without the noise of the television in the background, and make sure that before they close their eyes each night, there is no doubt in their minds about how much you love them. So, what really is important? Are we as a society so consumed with consuming that we fail to enjoy what God has already given us? When it is all said and done, the stuff we have is meaningless, and no ammount of it will ever fulfill us. Just remember that the most important thing, aside from our time and relationship with God, is people, and how we treat them. We were not only created to be children of God, but we were also created to be brothers and sisters to those around us. A selfish life is a life of waste, and one who gives himself freely to others is the richest man in the world, not for what he has, but for who he is. Do something nice for someone you love today, it will make their lives just a little bit better, and ultimately, that is what is important.

The Road to Authoritarianism

2010-03-04T15:53:00.000-08:00

I just read a great book that a friend let me borrow, and it really made me think long and hard about the direction of our country. The book was written in the lat 70's, and the author layed out a road map for the path of a society dominated with Humanism. The most concerning aspect of the book is that the United States of America has followede the path, and we are nearing the paths end, authoritarianism. What is authoritarianism, other than a long word most often uttered in Spelling Bee's? In a nut shell, it a society whose government acts solely on their will, not the will of the people. In such a society, an elitist group, generally the government, believes that they know what is in the best interest of the common man, and thus, they take whatever means necessary, including the abolition of freedom, to make sure the common man follows their will. Now that I have written that sentence, it is almost creepy how closely we have followed the path to this point in our history. This all stems from the adoption of the philosophy of Secular HUmanism that is currently ravaging not only our country, but the world. In this philosophy, man is the center of all things, and there is no existance of a moral or ethical code as given by an all knowing creator. In other words, reality is created by man, for man, and everything centers around man. Societies that follow this philosophy are often self centered and narcissistic at their core, and it goes from the top down. Symptoms of this can even be seen in churches. America's churches are infected with this, and that is why you hear so many differing messages from men and women that are supposed to be called by one unchanging God. How can homosexuallity be ok to one minister, but not another? In this instance, one of them is not hearing from God, and I know which, but this is only one example. Humanistic societies also begin to blur the existance of absolute truths until none are recognized. This leads to abortions, mercy killings, unfettered debt, corruption at the highest level, gay marriage, rampant divorce and infedelity, and anything else you can think of that any right minded person knows is wrong. Many humanists will state, "it may be wrong for you, but that does not mean it is wrong for me." This, of course, is an absolute absurdity, for we know there are absolutes, and only absolutes in God. There are no gray areas, and God is unchanging. In the eyes of God, there is perfect order in all things. For instance, there is God, then Law, then the King (or government), and then citizens. This is not the case in the eyes of a humanist, because man is at the center of everything. To a humanist, there is the king (government), then Law, and then citizens. This convienently places government officials above the law, and allows back room deals, bribery, and a complete disregard for the will of the people. If you read the news on almost any day during modern times, you will see this in action. So, now that we are hear, what happens next? In the past, such disorder has led to one thing, chaos, which is generally followed by revolution. This can clearly be illustrated by the French, and American revolutions. The only way those in power, that believe they are smarter than you and I, and that feel they are above the law, can maintain their control once the chaos begins, is an authoritarian style of government. They will stop at nothing to maintain their power, and this is what generally leads to revolution. All I can say is this, pray. Pray for the mercy and will of God, because at this point, that is the only answer. It is almost ironic that the only hope for a world system that has expelled God, is God.

Gay Rights and the Church

2010-03-03T13:59:00.000-08:00

The title of this article is actually a contradiction in terms. The "Christian" church has become so watered down and weak that the majority of "Christians" remain as babes their entire life, only being capable of eating "milk", not the true "meat" of God's word. If you are a true Christian, then you most assuredly read the Bible and commune daily with God. Therefore, you must be versed in the scripture, and therefore, you are aware that the Bible considers Homosexuality a sin. I did not write the Bible, it is the word of God, but I do believe wholeheartedly in the Bible. Too many "Christians" have become pick and choose believers that only follow the scriptures they agree with. In a word, this is WRONG. They worship as fools worship; not my words, it is in the Bible. Saying this, people that are living the homosexual lifestyle should be welcomed into church so that they might hear the truth, but they can not be allowed to lead or influence the church in any way as long as they do not repent of their sins. This goes for all people, not just homosexuals. We all fall short of the glory of God, but as Christians, we must aspire daily to be more like Christ. Our world has become so concerned with nickles and noses that God has become an afterthought at most churches. Church is to be God centered, not man centered, but most pastors worry more about what their congregation believes than what God has said. These practices have basically tied the hands of God, and then people wonder why the church is weak and anemic. It is a sad commentary, but it is true, read the Bible for yourself, and not just that part you like, read it all. So many churches preach only the feel good portions of the Bible, but that is a charade, and they will never come to a full understanding of God, or the purpose he has for their lives.

Battling Fear in Your Life

2010-03-02T13:07:00.000-08:00

“The only thing to fear is fear itself.” This oft repeated quote is possible one of the truest axioms ever uttered. People use it all of the time, but how many actually believe it? In truth, if you are a Christian, fear is the most irrational emotion you can have. Why is fear so debilitating and dangerous, and according to the Bible, sin. I would like to explain it in the form of a story first, and then back it Biblically. I hope it helps everyone struggling with fear. Since I began looking at fear from this perspective, it has definitely helped me.
A small mouse and her offspring were wandering through a dry and parched area in the midst of a debilitating drought. They came upon a small watering hole filled with clear clean water, a source of salvation for the small rodent family for they would have soon died of thirst had they not happened upon it. They all begin to drink from the hole, and suddenly, thunderous footsteps can be felt approaching. The small mother mouse spins around to see a mother elephant and her calf. A sense of doom comes over the mother realizing that the much larger animal will soon run off, or destroy the rodents and keep the water for it and its calf. Suddenly, the giant beast flinches, and rears up at the sight of the tiny mouse. The elephant is clearly terrified of the mouse, and is frozen in fear. This continues for some time, and sensing the fear, the mouse and her offspring set up a nest in front of the watering hole. The elephant paces back and forth with her calf, slowly dying of thirst.
I hope you got the picture from the story, but if not, I will explain it. You, as a Christian, are the elephant, and those that depend on you, such as your children and spouse, are the calf. The mouse represents anything in your life that is holding you back from what God has prepared for you, your destiny. It is totally irrational that an animal as large as an elephant is scarred of a tiny mouse, but this is the case. All the elephant had to do to save itself and its family, was stomp on the tiny mouse in its way. The same holds true for all of us that follow God. We are often held back by our irrational fear of circumstances.
A biblical backing for this story is found in 2 Kings, the seventh chapter. The city of Samaria was besieged by the Syrian army, and the inhabitants were starving. They had very little hope, but the prophet of God stands up and proclaims the power of God. He was the elephant, and by facing the fear head on and trusting God, hem stomped out the mouse in his path. The Syrian army however, did not handle fear as well. As the much larger force, they served as the elephant in their own eyes. However, the heard what the thought was the sound of chariots in the distance, and even though their fear was completely irrational and unfounded, they fled, leaving great spoils for the people of Samaria.
I realize this is a simple illustration, but defeating fear is something all Christians must strive to do. So, remember, there truly is nothing to fear if you follow the almighty God, and do not be afraid to stomp on the mice in your life.

The Theory of Global Warming

2010-03-01T13:03:00.000-08:00

The term theory, as defined by Webster, is “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” In other words, a theory is simply a possible explanation for otherwise unexplained phenomena created from empirical, or known, data. One major aspect of a theory, which separates it from a conjecture or opinion, is that there exists a means by which it may be proven or disproven. A total lack of empirical data to support a theory would in essence discredit it to the point of becoming an opinion or hypothesis based only partially on actual data. Are you following me thus far? Good. Another problem with many theories, that completely discredits them, is that many are formed on the basis of ulterior motives. For instance, a theory may be created that if proven would generate financial gain or notoriety for the creator of said theory. Perhaps the creator of the theory could even win a Nobel Peace Prize, but surely the great Nobel Committee would never stoop to giving their world renown prize to an unproven theory. Ok, so maybe that line is a bit sarcastic, but it does lighten the mood a bit. Now that I have bored you to tears with way too many definitions and words in general, let me tell you what I think about the Theory of Global warming…it is a crock. I know that crock is a technical term, but I think most of you get the drift. Here is the first major problem with Global Warming as a theory, it can not be proven or disproven. How can I say such a thing, it is solid Scientific fact according to those who sacrifice lambs to its very existence, but I think they may be a bit biased. Remember what I said about ulterior motives? For instance, when we had very little snow fall over the past 3 or 4 winters, all I heard was “look, I told you there was Global Warming, what are we going to do, ahhhh!” Maybe that is a bit over the top, but it is pretty close. In fact, such bastions of scientific knowledge as Robert Kennedy Jr. proclaimed that Washington D.C. would face winter with no snowfall…think he missed that one a bit. But, no worry, when two major blizzards smashed D.C. this year, Kennedy and his pals spouted out that in fact Global Warming is the cause for the blizzards. Another example comes the way of tropical storms and hurricanes…does Global Warming cause an increase or decrease in such storms? Well, when there are more storms than average, it apparent causes an increase, but when there are fewer storms than average, guess what, Global Warming. Are you beginning to see a problem with the Theory of Global Warming. If not, lets continue. Look in the news over the past 6 months, and there are no less than 5 instances where a scientist has been caught lying to support Global Warming. The sea levels have not risen in 5o years, the glaciers are not disappearing, and the Earth has actually cooled for 15 consecutive years, but all of this was hidden and or lied about to push the Global Warming agenda. Look guys, where there is smoke, there is fire, and in this case there is an inferno a blazin. There is more evidence against Global Warming than for it, yet the government, Al Gore, and the U.N. continue to parade it as a point of fact, why? Again, look back to the ulterior motive comment earlier and pair that with dollar signs, and you may begin to get the picture. Do I know what is going to happen with our climate over the next few decades? No, but neither do they. I do know that sunspot activity is down, ocean currents are cyclical, and it has been cold as…fill in your own metaphor…this year. I also know that someone has a lot to gain by being correct about Global Warming, and that someone is nether you or me.

Some people speak only one language - DEATH

2008-07-09T12:39:00.000-07:00

The following link is to an article regarding Iranian test fires of medium and long range missles earlier today. As the Iranians speak peace and understanding out of one side of their mouths, they speak hate, death, and threats out of the other. It is purely coincidental that upon firing their long range missles, they then proclaimed that these missles could reach Israel. This is a time much like the times leading up to World War II when the majority of the world did not fear the German war machine. The common idea of that era was that Hitler was a madman that had little influence , and that he should be left alone. Remember those sentiments in the coming months, I believe they will gain a deeper meaning for all peace loving people in the world. It never ceases to amaze me when the United States is called a violent war loving nation.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/09/mideast/iran.php

Weather Changers?

2008-06-17T12:27:00.000-07:00

Does it not seem hypocritacle that America gets blamed for altering the atmosphere through CO2 emmissions, but Moscow gets no complaint when it intentionally alters the atmosphere?

In Russia, sometimes it rains cement
Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:17am EDT

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian air force planes dropped a 25-kg (55-lb) sack of cement on a suburban Moscow home last week while seeding clouds to prevent rain from spoiling a holiday, Russian media said on Tuesday.
"A pack of cement used in creating ... good weather in the capital region ... failed to pulverize completely at high altitude and fell on the roof of a house, making a hole about 80-100 cm (2.5-3 ft)," police in Naro-Fominsk told agency RIA-Novosti.
Ahead of major public holidays the Russian Air Force often dispatches up to 12 cargo planes carrying loads of silver iodide, liquid nitrogen and cement powder to seed clouds above Moscow and empty the skies of moisture.
A spokesman for the Russian Air Force refused to comment.
June 12 was Russia Day, a patriotic holiday celebrating the country's independence after the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Weather specialists said the cement's failure to turn to powder was the first hiccup in 20 years.
The homeowner was not injured, but refused an offer of 50,000 roubles ($2,100) from the air force, saying she would sue for damages and compensation for moral suffering, Interfax said.
(Reporting by Chris Baldwin; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

2008-06-16T07:17:00.000-07:00

It astounds me daily that people question the mercy of God. How can events such as the one written about below take place without dire consequences. The "Church" looks some much like the world now that there is no distinction. How can the Anglican Church "legalize" gay priests and not expect gay marriage to follow. True church leadership had better stand up, or this slippery slope will become an avalanche.

Male priests marry in Anglican church's first gay 'wedding'
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:10PM BST 15/06/2008
An Anglican church has held a homosexual "wedding" for the first time in a move that will deepen the rift between liberals and traditionalists, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.
Two male priests exchanged vows and rings in a ceremony that was conducted using one of the church's most traditional wedding rites – a decision seen as blasphemous by conservatives.
The ceremony broke Church of England guidelines and was carried out last month in defiance of the Bishop of London, in whose diocese it took place. News of the "wedding" emerged days before a crucial summit of the Anglican Church's conservative bishops and archbishops, who are threatening to split the worldwide Church over the issue of homosexual clergy.
Although some liberal clergy have carried out "blessing ceremonies" for homosexual couples in the past, this is the first time a vicar has performed a "wedding ceremony", using a traditional marriage liturgy, with readings, hymns and a Eucharist.

Both the conservative and liberal wings of the Anglican communion expressed shock last night.
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, the Archbishop of Uganda, said that the ceremony was "blasphemous." He called on Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to take decisive action if the Anglican Church were not to "disintegrate". Archbishop Orombi added: "What really shocks me is that this is happening in the Church of England that first brought the Gospel to us.
"The leadership tried to deny that this would happen, but now the truth is out. Our respect for the Church of England will erode unless we see a return to traditional teaching."
The Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester – a powerful conservative figure – said that the service represented a wedding "in all but name". He said: "Strictly speaking it is not a marriage, but the language is clearly modelled on the marriage service and the occasion is modelled on the marriage service. This clearly flouts Church guidelines and will exacerbate divisions within the Anglican Communion."
The bishop said that it was up to the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, to act, adding that it would become a high-profile test case of Church authority.
"Can we stand for the clear teaching of the Church of England or are we powerless in the face of these actions, which I regret enormously have taken place," he said.
The service was held at St Bartholomew the Great in London – one of England's oldest churches, which featured in Four Weddings and a Funeral – and was conducted by the parish rector, the Rev Martin Dudley.
The couple, the Rev Peter Cowell, who is a cleric at one of the Queen's churches, and the Rev Dr David Lord, had registered their civil partnership before the ceremony.
Mr Dudley opened the service by saying: "Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God to join these men in a holy covenant of love and fidelity. Such a covenant shows us the mystery of the union between God and God's people and between Christ and the Church." In the vows, Mr Cowell and Dr Lord pledged to "hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part".
Mr Dudley blessed the union with the words: "As David and Jonathan's souls were knit together, so these men may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made."
Leading church figures expressed astonishment at the language and grandeur of the service, claiming that it was a highly provocative act. Although, the use of such a traditional ceremony does not constitute a marriage in the eyes of the law, Church figures on all sides said the event went further than any gay blessing ceremonies that had gone before.
The "marriage" will revive the war over homosexual clergy that has engulfed the Church since 2003 when Gene Robinson was made Bishop of New Hampshire and Jeffrey John, another gay cleric, who was about to become Bishop of Reading, was made to step down.
It is likely to embolden liberal clergy who have been reluctant to offer a full "wedding service" and will open the floodgates to other homosexuals who want a traditional ceremony.
Mr Dudley agreed to conduct the service despite Bishop Chartres warning that Church guidelines – drawn up when the Civil Partnerships Act was introduced – do not allow formal blessings of gay relationships. He argued that it was not a wedding but a blessing and that he was not "offering" blessing services, but responding to personal requests from friends. "I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but I see nothing wrong with blessing a couple who want to make a life-long commitment to one another."
A Church of England spokesman said: "Where clergy are approached by people asking for prayer in relation to entering into a civil partnership they should respond pastorally and sensitively in the light of the circumstances. But the House of Bishops affirmed that clergy should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership."

"Can we stand for the clear teaching of the Church of England or are we powerless in the face of these actions?"
Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester

What Global Warming?

2008-06-13T07:40:00.000-07:00

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
The future of our civilization lies in the balance.
That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.
With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.
Here is my rebuttal.
There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?
The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.
Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.
The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.
All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.
Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.
The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.
May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.
Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.
So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.
So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.
To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.
So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.
I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.
In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.
I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.
The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.
So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.
So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.
I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.
If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.
My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

Quotes From Barrack Obama

2008-06-09T11:47:00.000-07:00

Here are some of Barrack Obama's less popular quotes. See how many of these the main stream media decide to publish. I am guessing that the answer will be none.

> From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the> age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was> ingratiating myself to whites.'
> From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mothers race.'
> From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
> From Dreams of My Father: ; 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
> From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.' >From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.' If you ever forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do it again.

Well Said Mr. Cosby

2008-06-09T07:12:00.000-07:00

The following is a great example of someone that gets it, and is not affraid to tell everyone else how it is. Mr. Cosby ignores the demon we call political correctness, and he demonstrates a great clarity on a controversial subject. Until we cease dwelling on our past, we can never enter into the future that has been planned for us.

COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER
Bill Cosby on Rev. Wright
Article from Wall Street Journal:

Rev.Wright epitomizes the thoughts and actions that have prevented and continue to prevent black America from moving ahead and achieving their potential as a people. He suggests that this United States of America made up of sons and daughters of immigrants (I'm talking of the millions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation immigrants in this country) of every race, creed, color and religion each and everyone of them who had nothing to do with slavery, some how owe something to a group of people who have never been slaves? Its amazing. It seems everyone is to blame for the shambles black society is in with its violence, drugs, high school drop out rates, misogyny, and a host of other real and virulent problems, except for the very people who engage in such behavior.

Enough. As a society, culture or people, they should look within themselves and fix their problems.

When did this man become the spokesman for the 'black church'? And of course his church is different, but that doesn't mean his message and philosophy is acceptable, or productive or non-offensive or not-racist or indicative or our greater cultural behaviors, values and norms Americans.

And yes, the link between this man and Obama really does matter. At a very minimum, it provides insight into the political and philosophical strain that Obama adheres to.

Comment by Bill Cosby

Is Global Warming a Farce?

2008-06-05T12:32:00.000-07:00

Electromagnetic Energy may hold the key
by Brian Bloom, Beyond Neanderthal June 2, 2008
Print
Introduction
One of the six topical themes of the storyline in Beyond Neanderthal is the likely impact of Climate Change on world-wide agricultural production and what we might do about that. Importantly, our response will need to be tailored to address causes, not symptoms. When I watched Al Gore’s body language in the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, I formed the view that his stepping onto that scissor lift was an act of salesmanship. This bothered me. If the “science is settled” why was this obviously sincere man in hard-sell mode? Did he lack confidence that the facts spoke for themselves? It was then I decided that – for the purposes of ensuring integrity of Beyond Neanderthal’s storyline – it would be necessary for me to do my own detailed research as to the likely causes of Climate Change.
(Reader Note: The information contained in this article is far too complex to have been included in a novel in this format. Beyond Neanderthal is a factional novel which weaves a highly simplified version of the results of the research into an easy-to-read storyline which shows how a jigsaw puzzle of the novel’s six themes, listed at the end of this article, fit together.)
Forces impacting on Climate Change
In summary, my desk research led me to conclude that the “drivers” of climate change are certainly not as cut and dried as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes.
What most analysts and commentators appear to be focussing on is the change in global surface temperatures, which can be seen from the HadCRUT3 chart below (Source: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html).
Since around 1860, ‘best estimate’ temperatures have risen by about 1oC, with half of this increase occurring in the last 25 odd years.

But focusing only on atmospheric temperature is like listening only to the “tick” of a grandfather clock. There is also a “tock”. Our oceans also play a role in climate. To quote from one particular article, “.. the oceans and the atmosphere constitute intertwined components of Earth’s climate system” (Source: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282 ).
When one listens to the “tock” one discovers the mechanism by which the seasonal storage and release of heat by our oceans also has an influence on Climate Change (For a detailed explanation see: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf )
Whilst the heat content of our oceans – to a depth of 3,000 meters – certainly rose overall from 1955 to 1998, it fell between 2003 and 2005. (see http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf ). Common sense dictates that the 1955 -1998 rise could not possibly have been caused by the rising temperature of our atmosphere. The reason (apart from the 2003-2005 heat content reduction) relates to the significantly different amounts of heat energy required to raise the temperatures of the same quantities of water and air by one degree. This can be seen from the Table below.
Table 1: Indexed amount of heat energy required to effect an increase in temperature of one degree Celsius
(Note: Index Numbers have been rounded to the nearest meaningful number)
Comparative Quantities
Water
Air
1 Kilogram each
>4
1
1 Cubic Meter each
>3,500
1
Total volume of water in oceans vs total volume of air in atmosphere
>1,000
1
(Note: The “Specific Heat” of water is 4.181 and the Specific Heat of air is 1.0035. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Heat_capacity )
The table shows that, everything else being equal, it would take over 1,000 times as much heat energy to raise the temperature of our oceans by one degree as it would take to raise the temperature of our atmosphere by one degree.
The relationships in Table 1 may be conceptualised in another way:
Heat transfer is not instantaneous. Just think of how long it takes to bring a kettle of cold water to boil on a red hot stove.
Thus, for example, if the temperature of our atmosphere increases by 1oC over a period of one year because of greenhouse gas driven global warming (of which Carbon Dioxide is but one such gas) – and if the atmospheric temperature remains constant thereafter – it would take more than 1,000 years for that incremental heat energy to be transferred to our oceans so as to raise their overall temperature by one degree. This time frame falls dramatically outside the roughly 250 year period of the Industrial Revolution during which there has been an increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
It is now appropriate to consider the fact that the rate of flow of the Gulf Stream slowed by around 30% over the 12 years to 2005. (Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article598464.ece )
What caused the Gulf Stream to slow?
It seems that this was related partially to the rising temperature of our oceans and partially to the lower level of salinity in the waters around the Ice Caps because the ice has been melting. (The Specific Heat of Ice is 2.05).
But it has already been demonstrated that there is no way the temperature of our oceans could have risen within such a short period as a result of our warming atmosphere. It would have been physically impossible.
Interim Conclusion
The argument that there is a cause-end-effect linkage between CO2 levels in our atmosphere and global warming seems erroneous in context of the fact that the rate of flow of the Gulf Stream slowed by 30% in 12 years. Something else must have been causing both the temperature of our atmosphere and the heat content of our oceans to rise.
This interim conclusion casts considerable doubt on the statistical integrity of the IPCC model. Indeed, such doubt was already cast in November 2006 by Dr Edward Wegman, then Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. (Source: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0 ).
The fact is that there are several examples which illustrate that the IPCC model has the capacity to be seriously misleading in its forecasts. One such example is Melville Island – where temperatures have shot up by 15 degrees C above normal. “On land at Mould Bay on the island’s northwest side, his research team measured record-shattering temperatures of between 15 to 22 degrees C in July. Until then, the normal July average temperature had been between 4 and 5 degrees C.” (Source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4348/ ). It is self evident that this could not possibly have been a consequence of greenhouse gases.
If CO2 has not been causing global warming, what has been causing it?
The general consensus of the “other side” argument is that global warming has been caused by a cyclical increase in the sunspot activity on our sun’s surface. It can be seen from the top chart below that, since around 1929 (the peak of cycle #16), the 11 year solar cycle has become more pronounced.
Source: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml
Some climatologists attempt to rebut this on the basis that the measured irradiation arriving from our sun has shown little change. But, all one needs to do is look at the “Y” axis on the lower chart. Simulated magnetic flux has demonstrably increased by almost 100% relative to the 1880 – 1929 average. So who do we believe?
Well, let’s apply some common sense: Arguably, if the surface of the earth is warmed by the sun’s rays (demonstrably true); and the sun flares (which it demonstrably does); and if the average number of flares rises (which has demonstrably been the case since the 1930s) – then it will have been getting warmer on the earth’s surface. One can play with statistics all one likes, but that logic seems unassailable. It is far more reasonable to conclude that greenhouse gases (including water vapour from the evaporating surfaces of the oceans) have served to trap the increased heat of our sun being reflected off the earth’s surface, and that CO2 emissions have been exacerbating global warming rather than causing it.
Conclusion
Common sense dictates that our more active sun must have been raising the temperature of our oceans; and that the warmer sunshine, together with the warmer oceans, together with warmer winds which they spawn, together with the greenhouse effect, has been melting our ice caps.
Looking Forward: What might we expect?
After writing Beyond Neanderthal, it struck me that the increased electromagnetic activity of our sun might have been having other consequences. For example, it might have been causing an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity in addition to changed climate patterns.
Question: Are there any other symptoms of possible changes in the electromagnetic energy field of the earth which might further validate the above conclusion?
Answer: Yes – but it must be stressed that, as yet, there appears to be no cause and effect linkage between the increased intensity of solar flaring and these symptomatic changes. We are merely hypothesising at present.
The linkage between pre-seismic electromagnetic anomalies and earthquakes has been scientifically validated. (For an example, see http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2001GL013124.shtml ). In the recent past it “feels” like there has been an increase in the number of earthquakes. Most occur at the joints of the Tectonic Plates which float on an ocean of magma. Heat escaping from these joints might have served to warm the oceans’ waters from below. I have done no research in this area, but was struck by the fact that the map below showed 341 earthquakes during the 7 days preceding May 7th 2008. (Note: The 7.9 magnitude earthquake in Szechuan Province of China occurred on May 12th 2008)
Source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/
On May 2nd 2008, the Chaiten volcano in southern Chile erupted. It had lain dormant since 7,400 BC. http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=DE437859-E097-9DEF-EA64B135AA52CB17 . (Intriguingly, this eruption may have been linked to the 7.7 magnitude quake in northern Chile in November 2007.)
The following shows a possible linkage between volcanic eruptions and electromagnetic anomalies:
Sat May 10, 8:02 PM ET
Lightning bolts appear above and around the Chaiten volcano as seen from Chana, some 30 kms (19 miles) north of the volcano, as it began its first eruption in thousands of years, in southern Chile May 2, 2008. Cases of electrical storms breaking out directly above erupting volcanos are well documented, although scientists differ on what causes them. Picture taken May 2, 2008. REUTERS/Carlos Gutierrez (CHILE) Photo Tools
The Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) of the bees may be a “canary in the coal mine” symptom that something is happening to the earth’s magnetic polarity. Whilst some scientists believe that the bees find their way back to the hive by following polarised lines of light in the sky, others argue that they have magnetic homing devices which allow them to return to their hives. (See: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/trek/4wd/Over57.htm ). The bees’ failure to return to their beehives may have less to do with “abandonment” or “disease” and more to do with “getting lost”. (“Curiously though no dead bees are found either inside or outside the hive” Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070407/ts_alt_afp/sciencenaturebeesus_070407020928 , 7th April 2007. Note: For those who are unfamiliar with CCD: “A survey of bee health released Tuesday revealed a grim picture, with 36.1 percent of the nation's commercially managed hives lost since last year. Last year's survey commissioned by the Apiary Inspectors of America found losses of about 32 percent.” Source: Associated Press News Article, May 7th 2008).
Assuming for the moment that there may well be a cause and effect linkage between solar activity and changes in the earth’s electromagnetic energy field, this, in turn, begs the question: What caused the increase in solar activity?
The answer to that question appears to be linked to the position of our sun within the galaxy and the impact of gravitational forces that are brought to bear on our sun as it travels along its elliptic path.
Not all the above issues are addressed in Beyond Neanderthal, but the underlying electromagnetic issues are addressed in some detail – specifically, the position of our sun in the galaxy. It is being forecast to reach a culmination point in its 26,000 year cycle on December 21st, 2012; when its elliptic will intersect the Dark Rift of the Milky Way Galaxy. If this unfolding scenario is indeed impacting on the earth’s electromagnetic field, then we might expect to experience more Myanmar cyclone type occurrences and also an increasing number and intensity of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
It is being anticipated by some that, from 2013 onwards the flaring on our sun’s surface will begin to wane (if this is not already happening), and that the earth’s surface will begin to cool again – perhaps culminating in mini Ice Age conditions by 2050. Such an outcome would be consistent with the cyclical nature of climate change as is reflected in the chart below (Source: Why Geography Matters, De Blij, Oxford University Press, 2005).
Peering into the future: A conceptual pathway forward
As a matter of philosophical principle, it seems to this author that all problems are either soluble or partially addressable – even those described above – provided we understand those problems. In pragmatic terms, there are specific actions that might be taken on a collaborative basis across the planet. In relation to the above cases in particular the problems may either be addressed or ameliorated by the appropriate application of available technical knowhow. We have access to some extraordinarily powerful technologies.
But before we act, it needs to be recognized that a basic principle of problem solving is: “First, define the problem”. The evidence suggests that the IPCC may have defined the problem incorrectly. A higher level perspective of the broader evidence suggests that CO2 is not the problem and therefore we have a “crap-shoot” chance of appropriately addressing the issues which will flow from climate change, one of which will be pressures on agricultural capacity to feed the world’s population.
For example, just like the “biofuels from corn and/or soybeans” concept – which gave rise to food shortage related rioting in thirteen countries in less than a year after the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) – the concept of carbon credit trading does not stand up to scrutiny. How, precisely, will such a course of action address the driver of climate change if CO2 is not the driver?
For that matter, even if CO2 was the driver, it seems likely that carbon credit trading will inhibit the economic development of under-developed countries. Surely, encouraging them to sell their “right” to produce carbon emissions will also serve to discourage them from becoming net contributors to global Gross Domestic Product. That appears seriously counterproductive when viewed from an economic perspective. This is not to say we should not aspire to reduce CO2 emissions. Of course we need to reduce the level of all pollutants!

You Can't Appease Everybody - Ann Coulter

2008-06-02T12:44:00.000-07:00

After decades of comparing Nixon to Hitler, Reagan to Hitler and Bush to
Hitler, liberals have finally decided it is wrong to make comparisons to
Hitler. But the only leader to whom they have applied their newfound rule of
thumb is: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

While
Ahmadinejad has not done anything as starkly evil as cut the capital gains
tax, he does deny the Holocaust, call for the destruction of Israel, deny the
existence of gays in Iran and refuses to abandon his nuclear program despite
protests from the United Nations. That's the only world leader we're not
allowed to compare to Hitler.
President Bush's speech at the Knesset two weeks ago was somewhat more
nuanced than liberals' Hitler arguments. He did not simply jump up and down
chanting: "Ahmadinejad is Hitler!" Instead, Bush condemned a policy of
appeasement toward madmen, citing Neville Chamberlain's ill-fated talks with
Adolf Hitler.
Suspiciously, Bush's speech was interpreted as a direct hit on B. Hussein
Obama's foreign policy -- and that's according to Obama's supporters.
So to defend Obama, who -- according to his supporters -- favors appeasing
madmen, liberals expanded the rule against ad Hitlerum arguments to cover any
mention of the events leading to World War II. A ban on "You're like Hitler"
arguments has become liberals' latest excuse to ignore history.
Unless, of course, it is liberals using historical examples to support
Obama's admitted policy of appeasing dangerous lunatics. It's a strange
one-sided argument when they can cite Nixon going to China and Reagan meeting
with Gorbachev, but we can't cite Chamberlain meeting with Hitler.
There are reasons to meet with a tyrant, but none apply to Ahmadinejad.
We're not looking for an imperfect ally against some other dictatorship, as
Nixon was with China. And we aren't in a Mexican stand-off with a nuclear
power, as Reagan was with the USSR. At least not yet.
Mutually Assured Destruction was bad enough with the Evil Empire, but
something you definitely want to avoid with lunatics who are willing to commit
suicide in order to destroy the enemies of Islam. As with the H-word, our sole
objective with Ahmadinejad is to prevent him from becoming a military
power.
What possible reason is there to meet with Ahmadinejad? To win a $20 bar
bet as to whether or not the man actually owns a necktie?
We know his position and he knows ours. He wants nuclear arms, American
troops out of the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. We don't want
that. (This is assuming Mike Gravel doesn't pull off a major upset this
November.) We don't need him as an ally against some other more dangerous
dictator because ... well, there aren't any.
Does Obama imagine he will make demands of Ahmadinejad? Using what stick as
leverage, pray tell? A U.S. boycott of the next Holocaust-denial conference in
Tehran? The U.N. has already demanded that Iran give up its nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad has ignored the U.N. and that's the end of it.
We always have the ability to "talk" to Ahmadinejad if we have something to
say. Bush has a telephone. If Iranian crop dusters were headed toward one of
our nuclear power plants, I am quite certain that Bush would be able to reach
Ahmadinejad to tell him that Iran will be flattened unless the planes retreat.
If his cell phone died, Bush could just post a quick warning on the Huffington
Post.
Liberals view talk as an end in itself. They never think through how these
talks will proceed, which is why Chamberlain ended up giving away
Czechoslovakia. He didn't leave for Munich planning to do that. It is simply
the inevitable result of talking with madmen without a clear and obtainable
goal. Without a stick, there's only a carrot.
The only explanation for liberals' hysterical zealotry in favor of Obama's
proposed open-ended talks with Ahmadinejad is that they seriously imagine
crazy foreign dictators will be as charmed by Obama as cable TV hosts whose
legs tingle when they listen to Obama (a condition that used to be known as
"sciatica").
Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a
messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit
Hume?
There is no possible result of such a meeting apart from appeasement and
humiliation of the U.S. If we are prepared to talk, then we're looking for a
deal. What kind of deal do you make with a madman until he is ready to
surrender?
Will President Obama listen respectfully as Ahmadinejad says he plans to
build nuclear weapons? Will he say he'll get back to Ahmadinejad on removing
all U.S. troops from the region? Will he nod his head as Ahmadinejad demands
the removal of the Jewish population from the Middle East? Obama says he's
prepared to have an open-ended chat with Ahmadinejad, so I guess everything is
on the table.
Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, Obama could agree to let Iran push
only half of Israel into the sea. That would certainly constitute "change"!
Obama could give one of those upbeat speeches of his, saying: As a result
of my recent talks with President Ahmadinejad, some see the state of Israel as
being half empty. I prefer to see it as half full. And then Obama can
return and tell Americans he could no more repudiate Ahmadinejad than he could
repudiate his own white grandmother. It will make Chris Matthews' leg
tingle.
There is a third reason to talk to dictators, in addition to seeking an
ally or as part of a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Gen. Douglas MacArthur talked with Japanese imperial forces on Sept. 2,
1945. There was a long ceremony aboard the USS Missouri with full press
coverage and a lot of talk. It was a regular international confab!
It also took place after we had dropped two nukes on Japan and MacArthur
was officially accepting Japan's surrender. If Obama plans to drop nukes on
Ahmadinejad prior to their little chat-fest, I'm all for it. But I don't think
that's what liberals have in
mind.

Should the Faith of a Candidate Matter?

2008-05-29T12:39:00.000-07:00

Should the weather effect what you do on your day off? If there is a thunderstorm brewing should I play golf? It seems almost silly that such a question is so highly debated. I think the answer is a clear cut yes, but there are just as many that see it as a clear no. The debate boils down to one simple fact, how important is spirituality to you. This seems to be the deciding factor, but upon further review, it occurs to me that everyone does take the faith of a candidate into account when voting, whether they realize it or not. For instance, those who claim to ignore the faith of a candidate when voting would probably not vote for someone like Mike Huckabee. This is directly related to his faith, and by not voting for him, the nonreligious are doing exactly what they persecute the religious for doing. Hypocritical? I do submit that certain sects of the population are more likely to vote for someone based on their faith, but in opposition, the remainder of the population is likely not to vote for someone based on their faith. Is that not the same thing? Basically, a conservative Republican will hold similar view on most issues with a practicing Christian candidate. That is a simple fact. Due to this, the two will share similar values, and why else do you vote? As humans, we all have agendas that we would like to see pushed, and how better can this occur than to elect officials with similar values. Only an idiot would elect someone that does not share there values. It seems very disingenuous, or naive, to even suggest that faith should not play a part in your voting decision. It does not cover only religion, it covers all aspects of the social spectrum. I submit that a homosexual is more likely to vote for the homosexual candidate, the Muslim is more likely to vote for the Muslim candidate, and even the woman is more likely to vote for the female candidate, and there is nothing wrong with that, it is human nature. So, why should faith be any different? Everyone should take all aspects of a candidate into account when they vote, and "Separation of Church and State" be darned, religion is no exception.

Teach, Your Children Well

2008-05-27T12:15:00.000-07:00

The following is an excerpt from a study conducted on homeschooling. I am not specifically pushing homeschooling per se, but I did want to show parents what happens when they become involved in their children's education. It is not how much money we pour into our child's education, it is how much time we pour into our children's lives that counts. The public school system has become a breeding ground for sin and corruption, and as a country, we must recapture this aspect of society. I hope you read and enjoy the following information.

Academic Statistics on Homeschooling

I. Independent Evaluations of Homeschooling
1. In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile.

There was no significant difference between minority and white homeschooled students. For example, in grades K-12, both white and minority students scored, on the average, in the 87th percentile. In math, whites scored in the 82nd percentile while minorities scored in the 77th percentile. In the public schools, however, there is a sharp contrast. White public school eighth grade students, nationally scored the 58th percentile in math and the 57th percentile in reading. Black eighth grade students, on the other hand, scored on the average at the 24th percentile in math and the 28th percentile in reading. Hispanics scored at the 29th percentile in math and the 28th percentile in reading.

These findings show that when parents, regardless of race, commit themselves to make the necessary sacrifices and tutor their children at home, almost all obstacles present in other school systems disappear.

Another obstacle that seems to be overcome in homeschooling is the need to spend a great deal of money in order to have a good education. In Strengths of Their Own, Dr. Ray found the average cost per homeschool student is $546 while the average cost per public school student is $5,325. Yet the homeschool children in this study averaged in 85th percentile while the public school students averaged in the 50th percentile on nationally standardized achievement tests.

The message is loud and clear. More money does not mean a better education. There is no positive correlation between money spent on education and student performance. Public school advocates could refocus their emphasis if they learned this lesson. Loving and caring parents are what matters. Money can never replace simple, hard work.

Understanding the Pitfalls of Communism

2008-05-23T10:35:00.000-07:00

The definition of Communism, in one word, is failure. No communist society has, or will, reign supreme in the world due to the simple fact that the Communist system values, and forces mediocrity. The total absolving of God in society also makes Communism a failed theory. Whether you are religious or not, the merits of spirituality, and its importance in a well functioning society are absolute. The belief in a higher being, other than the State, creates an environment of restraint and order. Without this aspect of society, chaos ensues. However, it still seems that the reason for the failure of Communist societies lies in Communism's goal of mediocrity. In every society, there are over achievers. There are those that strive for more, and are never satisfied with the status quo. This leaves no room for a social order based on communal ownership of property, and rigid ceilings that do not allow over achievers to prosper. For this reason, in time, every truly Communistic system will either collapse, or evolve into a version of the free market system. Looking from another perspective, one of spirituality, you can compare the competing systems of Capitalism and Communism to the alternate governments of Good and Evil. Even if you do not believe in biblical truths, you can appreciate the simple similarities between the principals of God's kingdom as compared to Capitalism, and the principals of the dark kingdom as compared to Communist rule. In Capitalism, and the Kingdom, all charity and income redistribution is done by choice, and with joy. The churches of Acts had no needy among them because they gave with joy, and of their own desire to give. In a system of Communism, and in the government of Evil, resources are taken forcibly, and spread out by the government itself. This system creates a lack of growth in the resources, and the system becomes stagnant. Another Biblical example of this theory is found in the story of Cain and Able. Able gave his best out of desire, and Cain gave his portion out of obligation. God was pleased with Able's sacrifice, but did not bless Cain's. As a result, Cain slew Able. In todays world, the United States gives more freely than any other society in an attempt to help those less fortunate. As a result, this country has been abundantly blessed with economic growth. However, the United States is also hated deeply by countries opposed to the free market system. Also, as the United States has become less and less of a free market system, the overall growth and prosperity of the economy has waned. Therefore, as stated in the opening, Communism can be defined with one word, failure.

The Real "Roots" of America (Brent Moody)

2008-05-22T07:20:00.000-07:00

Our real roots...A history lesson that needs to be told....

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of The Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.

It is the same congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation.

Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death." But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he said: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.

Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well- worn Bible: "I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also."

Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796:

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Was George Washington a Christian? Consider these words from his personal prayer book: "Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thy son, Jesus Christ."

Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society.

In an address to military leaders he said, "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

How about our first Court Justice, John Jay?

He stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President.

He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation."

Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: "The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."

Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first.

Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures:

"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3)."
For over 100 years, more than 50% of all Harvard graduates were pastors!

It is clear from history that the Bible and the Christian faith, were foundational in our educational and judicial system. However in 1947, there was a radical change of direction in the Supreme Court.

Here is the prayer that was banished:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country.
Amen."
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was outlawed as unconstitutional in the public school system. The court offered this justification: "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children."

Bible reading was now unconstitutional , though the Bible was quoted 94 percent of the time by those who wrote our constitution and shaped our Nation and its system of education and justice and government.

In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the rights of a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food.

In 1980, Stone vs. Graham outlawed the Ten Commandments in our public schools.

The Supreme Court said this: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective."

Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

Today we are asking God to bless America. But how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him?

Most of what you read in this article has been erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our country's Christian roots. I , Mary Jones, the designer of this web page, encourage all who read and agree with the words herein, to share it with others, so that the truth of our nation's history may be told.