Pocket Full of Mumbles

What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones

My Photo
Name:
Location: South East, United States

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Separating Facts from Fictions...

And a call to arms...


I went to see "300" for the second time this afternoon. It is a beautiful film to watch despite its testosterone rating-- it's strictly a guy film, evidenced by the fact that on both occasions the audience was made up of less that 30 percent female; each accompanied by men. Apparently, just as there are 'Chick-Flicks' so too are there 'Man-Flicks'.

Because of the 'historicity' issue brought up in my previous post, I thought I'd look at the Battle of Thermopylae. Wikipedia doesn't have much to say, so I delved into James Ussher's 'The Annals of the World' (Only recently translated into English from its original Latin, and definitely one of the greatest books on my bookshelf).

Here is what Ussher had to say about the Battle of Thermopylae, 480 BC:



1118. Xerxes marched from Doriscus into Greece. As he came to any county, he conscripted all who were fit for fighting {*Herodotus, l.7.c.108. 3:413} He added a hundred and twenty ships to his navy and added two hundred more troops per ship, so increasing the naval forces by a total of twenty-four thousand men in all. Herodotus thought that his army increased by three hundred thousand. Diodorus though the increase was less than two hundred thousand. {*Diod. Sic., l.11.c.4.s.5. 4:135} [E124] So the total of Xerxes' army in European and Asiatic soldiers amounted to 2,641,610 men. [L177] Diodorus believed that the number of boys keeping the horses, the servants and sailors in the cargo ships and others, was larger than the number of soldiers. This means that even if that former sum were only doubled, the number of those which Xerxes carried by sea to Sepias and by land to Thermopylae would come to 5,283,220 men. This did not include the women cooks and the eunuchs, for no man can tell the exact number of them. Neither could he give the exact number of the horses and other beasts of burden, and the Indian dogs with their keepers, that followed the nobles in the camp for their pleasure. Hence, it was no wonder that so many rivers were exhausted from the thirst of so many people {*Herodotus, l.7.c. 185-187. 3:501-505} Junenal stated: {Juvenal, Satire, 10.}

We now believe that many rivers deep,
Did fail the Persian army, at a dinner.

1119. Therefore, it was less of a wonder that both Isocrates and Plutarch claimed that Xerxes took over five million men into Greece. {*Isocrates, Panathenaicus, l.1. (49) 2:403} {*Plutarch, Parallel Stories, l.1.c.2. 4:259}

1120. Yet in this large host, there was not a man as handsome as Xerxes or one that might seem more worthy of that great empire than he. {*Herodotus, l.1.c.187. 3:505} Like Saul among the children of Israel, so Xerxes might well seem to have been worthy of a crown. {1 Sa 10:23,24} Yet, stated Justin, when you spoke of this king, you would find cause to commend his wealth, mentioned before in Daniel, {Da 11:2} rather than his character, of which he said: {Justin, Trogus}

"There was such infinite abundance in his kingdom, that when whole rivers failed the multitude of his army, yet his wealth could never be exhausted. As for himself, he was always seen last in the fight and first in the flight. He was fearful when any danger was, but puffed up with pride when there was none."

1121. Leonidas, king of Sparta, with an army of four thousand Greeks, interposed himself against him and his whole army of three hundred thousand troops at the pass of Thermopylae in Thessaly. It was called this after the hot springs which were there. In this epitaph by Herodotus, we read: {*Herodotus, l.7.c.228. 3:545}

Here against three hundred thousand Persians,
Four thousand Spartans fought it out and died.

1122. Thirty myriads is three hundred thousand, which was the total given by Theodoret as the size of the whole army. {Theodoret, l.10.} Diodorus in the Greek and Latin edition of his work when commenting on the epitaph in Herodotus, wrote twenty myriads, which was two hundred thousand, instead of thirty myriads. {*Diod. Sic., l.11.c.4.s.5. 4:135} Yet in another place he said that the whole army consisted of a little less than a hundred myriads, or a million troops. In referring to this battle at Thermopylae, he said that five hundred men held off a hundred myriads, or a million troops. {*Diod. Sic., l.11.c.11.s.2. 4:151} Justin related the same story, and stated that six hundred men broke into the camp of half a million or, as in Orosius, six hundred thousand men. {Justin, Trogus, l.2.c.11.} Isocrates said that a thousand of them went against seven hundred thousand Persians. {*Isocrates, Archidamus, l.1. (99, 100) 1:405,407} Instead of the thousand mentioned by Isocrates, Justin and Orosius said it was six hundred, while Diodorus said five hundred. These were those men who were left when the rest of the Greeks were sent away. [L178] They held out against the Persians to the last man, including their Spartan king, Leonidas. Of this number, three hundred were Spartans, the rest were Thespians and Thebans. {*Herodotus, l.7.c.222,224. 3:539,541} They killed twenty thousand of the enemy. {*Herodotus, l.8.c.24. 4:25}

----



What the exact number of Spartans may have been is not particularly relevant. What IS relevant is the fact that a vastly smaller force of men held off a vastly superior force in a bottleneck roughly 14 yards wide. That historians disagree on the exact number of Spartans and the exact number of Persians doesn't take away from the obvious fact that a few held off many; giving better than they got, and dying to the man. On the face of it, that is exactly what happened... That much we can know.

Historians can likewise disagree about the Jefferson Bible, but what can't be argued is what the original publication's were titled, and the impact those titles have on the intent behind their compilation. It is at best 'flawed logic' to declare what was in the mind of any author in the writing of any work, but how a man labels his own work speaks volumes about what the author thought of his own work... to include what Jefferson's contemporaries thought of his work... This post is no different.

Liberals can choose to believe as they wish-- that is the nature of this beast we call America. What I and others strenuously object to is their insistence that their view be taught to the exclusion of dissent... as in Evolution, Sex Education, and other issues of personal morality that directly impact cultural morality. To deny criticism its lawful voice is to lie each time the protected view is presented as established truth. They may sneer all they wish, but to deny opposition its rightful voice speaks to their own petty fears and hypocrisy, and their 'Truth' can only be viewed as a usurper. Our duty then is to drag it from its throne, kicking and screaming if need be, and put it to the test. If it pass, well and Good! But if it fail, we will kick it to the street.

For now, it may seem that Conservatism is vastly outnumbered, but Liberalism has grown soft and vainglorious, all we need do is hold the pass; Shields up, thigh to shoulder, protect the man to your left, and give no ground-- Spartans do not retreat... Spartans do not surrender. Why then should we?

Great film... I will definitely add it to my DVD collection.


Here's more

Friday, March 30, 2007

The Fabrication of Miss Nomer


"Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and dismissed most of Scripture as unimportant, even detrimental, to the Gospel itself. As. Do. I. He did not worship the Bible. Nor do I."


The Jefferson Bible is a misnomer. When it was first published it was not called a "Bible", nor was his name attached in any way to the book's title, except as author. The original project was titled simply "The Philosophy of Jesus". The work was expanded in later years and finally published by Congress in 1820 under the title "Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". It was certainly not a Bible. Nor, obviously, did Congress consider it as such. The title "The Jefferson Bible" is a relatively new construct that carries with it the very seed of 'misnomer'. Yet this is what Liberalism is best at-- The fabrication of misnomers, half-truths, and outright lies.

Liberalism, to my mind, has repeatedly sought, and to some extent succeeded, in altering this nation's museum of recollection-- our collective memory. The history we once knew is routinely dusted off by Liberalism and given the restoration treatment. Dusted and gilded, revised and expanded, our collective memory is a living document-- 'living' in the sense that we ourselves 'live' and should we tell ourselves a thing often enough we should begin to believe it as truth... 'As a man thinketh, so is he'... The flesh of our minds is indeed mutable; the ink easily erased and penned anew.

Our Constitution, on the other hand, is NOT a living document. Quite the contrary! It is static and unbending... unyielding. But that hasn't stopped two centuries worth of addition, subtraction, and interpretation in changing the face of our founding document to reflect the times in which alterations were deemed imperative. 'Interpretation', however, is the least valid of alteration, as it alters perception of content, rather than content itself. As was clear to the founders; what was not specifically delineated within the body of the Constitution fell under the sovereign jurisdiction of the state. For example: The Constitution does not specifically mention abortion as being a right of the people guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and therefore the individual state's right and responsibility to allow or reject its practice within its borders.

So where's the misnomer? That the "Jefferson Bible" was constructed by Jefferson, as many Liberals contend, to be a 'Bible'. Another misnomer is Representative Ellison's contention that because Jefferson owned a Qur'an he obviously found the book to possess wisdom and truth. And yet the 'Truth' was Jefferson was on the verge of declaring war against the pirates along the Barbary Coasts of what is now called Morocco-- and what better way to glean insight into a man's thought process than to study what he holds sacred? That Jefferson pieced together a book that contained the 'Wisdom of Jesus' is not indicative of a calloused heart, or any desire on his part to cast off 'suspect' portions of scripture. His speeches and writings that touch on scripture and faith show clearly that he held both in high regard. But rather, 'The Philosophy of Jesus' is no different from "God's Promises", compiled by A.L. Gill, and another such book, "God's Inspirational Promise Book", by Max Lucado. I hardly think it was Mr. Lucado's intention to rewrite the Bible, nor was it A.L. Gill's intent to rewrite the Word of God, yet Liberals will swear up and down that Jefferson despised much of the Gospels, and deeming many passages as fables and lies, he cut them out. But I can find no evidence to support this.

That Jefferson was a deist and a despiser of 'much of the Gospels' is a Liberal fabrication, and not worth entertaining further.



Here's more

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Losing Abroad to Win at Home


A dangerous disconnect exists in the minds of many Americans. It seems preposterous that the men and women we send to Washington are inexplicably blinded to the obvious truth that this nation is at war; that there is an enemy out there who wish to destroy what America is… To kill what America has traditionally stood for. It seems impossible that just five years after 9.11 our elected representatives cannot see the forces arrayed against them, weapons in hand, firing at will, with impunity and the willing support of traitors.

Yes, I said ‘traitors’.

Radical Islam has been at war with America since November 4, 1979 (if not earlier). It’s understandable that President Carter didn’t recognize the opening salvo. It’s equally understandable that President Reagan didn’t recognize the first strike in 1983 at the Marine Barracks in Beirut, but the attacks kept coming, and in increasing number and frequency. Someone should have recognized we were at war by the Clinton administration, but no one thought to view the perpetrators of these ‘crimes’ as the enemies of the America, for they hardly fit that particular bill; they wore no uniforms, they neither belonged nor owed allegiance to any one nation or national leader, yet they all took aim at America, without fear of reprisal.

Now we are embroiled in a war against those who use terror; namely, the fascist ideology of Islamic extremism. And again, many Americans seem incapable of recognizing this struggle as a war that needs to be both fought and won—decisively.

It would be easy to go on from here and castigate liberals and democrats for owning defeat in Iraq—they do. It would be easy to point out their duplicitous rhetoric—it is. But at this point my aim is not to speak specifically to the evils of Liberalism and its wantonly perverse desire to see America less safe—I did say specifically. Instead I’m here to rail against Republicans in general, and Republican leaders specifically. The fact that Democrats and the ‘evils of Liberalism’ are mentioned at all is only partly due to their overt complicity in the defeat of America—If only that were their only crime against this nation! The truth is Liberalism, and Democrats by extension, are just as much purveyors of terror within the United States of America as was al-Qaeda on 9.11.

So here we are today, the Spring of 2007, embroiled in a war on three fronts: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Washington D.C., the last of which will, when the dust settles and a clear victor stands victorious, determine whether the other fronts are ultimately successes or defeats.




“Now that we have our outer vestments in hand”

--Willy Wonka


The problem we face now as a nation is one of misperception. It is the same problem that allowed 9.11 to leave us all dumbfounded and wondering ‘What the hell just happened!?’ I remember being dismissed from classes at the local community college and going into the station. We ran wall-to-wall coverage of 9.11 for three days, initially preempting even our own local news broadcasts. I was in complete awe of what I was witnessing. We all were.

Our bank of monitors were all tuned to network, and at one point that afternoon the camera shifted to across the river where it ran unedited, and uncensored. When the first tower began to fall there was a woman’s shrill scream off camera, “OH MY F—KING G-D!!!!” …On national television, no less! It was visceral; as naked as a dead dog with its entrails spread out across five feet of asphalt. It was perhaps the biggest kick in the crotch I’ve ever experienced. And yet it was something I needed to see… something we all needed to see. Everyone… even the most die-hard pacifist had to have understood that this nation was officially at war. All that remained was to determine who the enemy was.




“We have seen the enemy, and he is us”

--Pogo


As if 9.11 weren’t enough of a wake-up call (it wasn’t), the fact that America’s greatest enemy is itself seems to have struck no chord at all; partly due to a sense of national apathy fueled and perpetuated by media induced ignorance, and an unhealthy belief that America—despite 9.11—is somehow invulnerable.

Democrats and Liberals (and Media) have, for the better part of four years, trotted out the dead-horse comparison to Vietnam when describing Iraq and America’s involvement in that conflict. And yet the two are as different as night and day.

For example: Despite the obvious similarities of media coverage, one-sided and agenda driven, and Congress’ desire to micro-manage the war-effort, the fact that this nation is at war hardly registers in most minds. There are simply too many distractions to hold the average American’s attention than gleefully delivered nightly body-counts. American Idol commands a huge audience, as does the continuing saga of Britney Spears, and Anna Nicole. Naomi Campbell arrives for community service wear fur and followed by a bodyguard—Imagine the irony in that! Oprah Winfrey has discovered ‘The Secret’ and wants the entire nation to see the light of this new truth…

What little news most people get is hardly straight-forward ‘just the facts’ news. Anchors today interject their own opinions into the telling of the news; forgetting, it seems, that it’s their job to tell the news, not editorialize—let the opinion makers make the opinions, news anchors should read the news… at least, that’s how it used to be. These days everyone who sits in front of a camera is a star in their own right; their words and opinions carry weight! But if Al Gore is now a ‘movie star’ (straight from the lips of several talking heads in media) how much more so those who tell us the news?

This is perhaps one of the biggest delusions suffered by Media and her worshippers; namely liberals. How news became a vehicle for personal stardom is no mystery; the desire for attention is part and parcel with what it means to be human. Ratings are synonymous with relevance to these people, ratings determines how much face time with the camera each anchor gets, or how long their show runs. At least that’s how it works with sitcoms or dramas; the same cannot be said for news shows. ‘Countdown’ with Keith Olbermann is one of the lowest rated shows in cable news yet the rest of media reward him with renewal, relevance, and a quick defense for any untoward comment regarding Nazis and a certain other higher-rated cable news rival.

And then there are the ‘entertaining’ news shows, like HBO’s ‘Real Time with Bill Maher, and the only slightly easier to digest ‘The View’ starring Rosie O’Donnell—featuring 3 other women of lesser relevance. Both of these seek to entertain as well as shock their viewers; which they do on a regular basis.
But the sad truth of all this is most people take what these talking heads say as the ‘gospel’ truth. After all, none of these people have any reason to lie or stretch or hide the truth by embellishment or omission. Most Americans believe every word that comes out of their mouths.

If you were to listen to the likes of these you’d think the enemy wore gray and performed tricks at the circus under the stage name of 'Ellie Phant'. Every ill in America and around the world can be laid at the rather conservative doorstep of Republicans. But because these paragons of journalistic integrity have no reason whatsoever to lie, most people swallow it all without question—hook, line and sinker. These media ‘elites’ can say, with complete impunity, whatever they wish and millions of Americans will believe. And there is great power in this.

The same can also be said of politicians, though to a lesser degree depending solely on their political affiliation. They run to microphones after every meeting—even if it were simply for coffee and scones—and make grand pronouncements. Some of what they have to say is truly relevant; most is not. Some seek to inform the public on issues that, as the true power in the nation, the Public should be aware. Everyone, however, has an agenda. Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Republican, but it’s Media who decides what agenda gets play. There is great power in this—the fact of which they are well aware.

With the advent of the personal computer and the Internet, Media has lost some of its market share—for a time, but it has adapted and has managed to regain much of what it once possessed in terms of human minds, or Mind Share. Mind Share is a valuable commodity, more so now than at any time before. In the sixties Cronkite all but single handedly lost the Vietnam War for America. Without the people who watched, respected, and hung on every word that came from his lips as the ‘gospel’ truth, this nation lost the hearts and minds of the American people. Vietnam perfectly illustrates the maxim that “All wars are won or lost at home” —especially in America. America doesn’t win wars by superior firepower, technology, or training, America wins by public opinion; not on some distant battlefield, but in every pair of eyes tuned to a news channel… channels that peddle ideologies cleverly disguised as ‘News’.

This is why the battle here is far more important that the one being waged in Iraq or Afghanistan.




“Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”

--Ronald Reagan


With every war there are battles, battlefields, winners, losers, and the rare draw. There are generals, soldiers, and noncombatants. And there are at least two opposing sides. The war America is engaged in is one of ideology, both here and abroad—but especially here, in America. The major combatants are Liberalism and Conservatism. Each are engaged in a struggle within its own ranks for control, and extremism is giving each combatant a run for its money.

One side naively imagines a nation ruled by biblical tenets, the other sees America ruled by science and compassion, both diametrically opposing motivations—the former insists on logic, and verifiable and repeatable data, while the latter strives for a Utopian ideal akin to the vision of Marx and Engels. Neither of these motivations are within reach of men, who are conceived in sin, and born striving for personal gain, be it promotion, pay, or a scrap of food.

But that doesn’t keep Media from using our every weakness against us to carve out their own corporate hegemonies, and personal and private Idahos. They want what they want—they’re only human. And this wouldn’t be so troublesome except for what Liberalism wants.

Those who preach the party line will tell anyone who’ll listen that Liberalism seeks to make sure everyone is afforded the ‘right’ to decent affordable housing, fair wages, the ability to feed oneself and ones family—that no one go hungry, everyone is assured medical care, and has leaders who will see to it that everyone is afforded their inalienable rights as American citizens to receive all these things and more. Conservatism seeks to ensure everyone is afforded the ‘opportunity’ to decent affordable housing, fair wages, the ability to feed oneself and ones family—no one going hungry, assured access to medical care, and leaders who will see to it that everyone is afforded equal opportunity under the Constitution to seek their dreams unfettered by racism or prejudice, and achieve all these things through self-determining and meaningful work. The difference between the two is one of responsibility: Liberalism says it is Governments’ responsibility to give the people everything they need to live and lead healthy, productive and prosperous lives, while Conservatism says it is the peoples responsibility to achieve these things for themselves; Governments’ duty is to ensure equal access to goods and services, including education and healthcare, taking on the role as judge in civil disputes. This is where the distilled notion of “Liberalism is Big Government and Conservatism is Small Government” comes from. Democrats today still hold to the idea that Government exists to provide for every want and need of the people, but Republicans seem to have lost hold of Small, unobtrusive and non-intrusive government.

Yet despite this, war continues in the House, Senate, the airwaves, and in every American heart.




“History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.”

--Etienne Gilson


Yes, it’s true. A battle is being waged for the hearts and minds of the people. Not just in Baghdad, but here on the streets of America and in the corridors of its powerful. It is a defining struggle, for what this nation will look like for generations to come, but more importantly it is an ideological struggle. Win the ideological battle and the future will take care of itself. Those who worship at the altar of Liberalism understand this. Those across the street at the Church of Conservatism apparently don’t.

Liberalism has seized control of our schools, and through our schools are reshaping our history, our sense of civic duty, and the standard by which judge morality.

Christopher Columbus did not come to the Americas in an effort to spread the gospel; bringing light, salvation, and Christian liberty to the pagan natives. Enlightened Liberalism now knows, and teaches our children, that Columbus came to take slaves, steal land, and in the process committed genocide.

Liberalism assures us that Jamestown, now celebrating it’s 400th anniversary, was not founded by Christians to spread the Gospel, and bringing with it the light of Salvation and Christian liberty to the pagan nations of native America. Jamestown was founded for commerce, despite her Charter that exists to this day, on display. And tour guides at Jamestown are not allowed to talk about the town’s Christian heritage.

[The new history of] Jamestown is a fiction. It is a pretend story that American schoolchildren are being spoon-fed by revisionist historians and special interest groups as part of the highly politicized events surrounding the quadricentennial.

Example: Boys and girls attending the state-sponsored Jamestown commemoration (and please don't call it a "celebration," for this phrase has been officially removed) may attend signature events where they can listen to speeches like "The Ecology of Jamestown – Origin of Environmental Injustice in America," or watch panel discussions including the Rev.'s Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Otis Moss, the latter of which boldly declared the Jamestown settlers to be guilty of a "holocaust" and "lynchings."

Students can even log on to the official Colonial Williamsburg site for articles that insist that Pocahontas was "forcibly converted" to Christ and that the Jamestown settlers were predisposed toward cannibalism because they craved human flesh.

The message of the Jamestown revisionists is clear: Christian settlers were vicious savages, genocidal murderers and environmental terrorists. In contrast, native pagans were noble, civilized and peace-loving. The providential history of America's founding is a national embarrassment. Children should hate their forefathers.

But there is another Jamestown that American boys and girls can remember for their 400th birthday party. It is the same Jamestown that has been honored and remembered on historic jubilee and centennial celebrations spanning the last 200 years.

It is the real Jamestown – the story of imperfect but remarkable men who were instruments of a sovereign Creator to establish a nation of law and liberty under God.

What is the Christian legacy of Jamestown?

That story really begins in the 16th century with a visionary named Richard Hakluyt. A prolific author, cartographer and ordained minister, Hakluyt is the man primarily responsible for persuading the monarchy and a generation of explorers that Virginia was the best place for carrying out the Great Commission. His vision of discipleship and dominion was formally enshrined in the Virginia Charter of 1606.

The men who arrived at Jamestown inaugurated their settlement with the planting of a cross, thanksgivings to God and followed with daily prayers. They would build the first church in American history, disciple the first Indian converts and perform the first Christian baptisms.

Jamestown is the spot of America's first "interracial" marriage based on the Christian faith. In his eloquent letter to the governor of Jamestown, John Rolfe would argue for the legitimacy of marriage, regardless of skin color or national origin, where the couple was united by faith in Christ. His theological argument won the day and established a legal precedent that endured for more than half a century.

The Jamestown settlers gave the Holy Scriptures a permanent home in America. This is perhaps the most enduring legacy of Jamestown. The coming of the Bible to America fundamentally changed the history of the North American continent. It was the Bible that communicated the hope of personal redemption and the basis for stable civilization.

This is one reason why Jamestown would become the first permanent settlement to establish a legal system based directly on the moral law of God and the applicable principles found in the case laws of Holy Scripture. This Christian "common law" was later incorporated by direct reference into our United States Constitution. Jamestown also gave us our first experiment in republican representative government, a model that finds its origins in the Hebrew Republic of the Old Testament, and was formally adopted by the Founding Fathers of a later generation.

While the legacy of Christian Europeans at Jamestown is not without its bumps and warts, the lasting influence of the settlement would change the world – and dramatically for the better! Before the arrival of these Protestant Christians and the successful planting of the first permanent English settlement, North America was dominated by warring tribes engaged in demonic activities like paganism, cannibalism and ritual torture.


Other revisions being made are assertions that George Washington, our first president, along with Thomas Jefferson and other great movers, shakers, and thinkers of the time, were Deists, despite evidence to the contrary.

Liberalisms effort to sanitize this nations' history has spawned a kind of ‘Neo-History’ where Christianity has been removed from this her humble beginnings-the effort has been largely successful because a great many people could not see that an alien ideology had declared war upon Faith in America. And the result has been a great falling away from truth in this nation—the truth that America was founded on Biblical… Christian… principles. Many people believe, having never read the Constitution, that the phrase ‘Separation of Church and State’ is in the Constitution. It’s what they’ve been taught in school.

And this is where Liberalism wins the war: in the public school system. Societies, like great hulking vessels do not turn quickly or easily, it takes time and patience. And Liberalism has had a fair measure of both over the last four decades.

Because of Liberal Academia, we have abortion on demand—the slaughter of forty-five million children since Roe because the law of the land. Promiscuity rampant. Sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are both incurable and deadly, not just here at home but abroad as well. We are to blame for that as well.

Children are taught today that morality is an individual and personal understanding, not universal. They are taught that they must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, never mind the fact that this nations' laws clearly define what is right (what is allowable in a civilized society) and what is wrong (what is not allowable).

Television plays a big role in this as well. The average child witnesses somewhere in the neighbor hood of 20 murders a week on television. Sex and talk of sex are glamorized and trivialized in almost every show that makes air. Drugs are glamorized, Smoking is glamorized, Sex is glamorized, Murder is glamorized, even horror is made tame by the frequency of slaughter and mayhem.

Music has gone from simple and relatively clean to being filled sexual innuendo, violence against women, the glorification of self and the pursuits of self, i.e., “fame, and fortune, and everything that goes with it…”

But for all the pleasures and freedoms Liberalism has sought to ring in with their Revolution for a New Morality, the state of the nation has instead steadily sunk lower into a pit with slippery walls of filth and degradation. Getting out of this hole into which Liberalism has flung us will not be easy, or painless… it might, in fact, be impossible. Impossible, because too few people are willing to stand up, grab the helm, and lean into the wheel—this ship must be turned or America will cease to be ‘America’.

Republicans are asleep at the wheel. They gained power, and in 12 short years grew complacent and desirous of the things Democrats love—power and a secure seat in the houses of power. They forgot that they work for the people. Democrats have long forgotten this, but Republicans, whose very party was founded on the idea of Democratic opposition in the fight for the abolition of slavery, have forgotten their roots. They gained power and promptly set to work to maintain that power rather than do the work of the People.




“The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.”

--George Orwell


The divisions and level of distrust in America might as well be insurmountable considering the very slim odds that Washington and Media will recognize what they've done to this nation, and seek to make honest amends and reparations to the people they have brutalized. The hate and vitriol half of this nation feels for the other is as palpable and stomach-churning as the coppery taste of blood—Instinct says to spit it out, yet many revel in its cloying headiness.

Both sides claim moral superiority but in truth only one side, if any, can claim Truth walks among its ranks. Truth cares nothing for ideology, but it does define one. Everyone claims exclusive intimacy with Truth but few actually do.

Truth doesn’t slander the president in the vilest language possible, on television. It doesn’t wish the vice-president dead. It doesn’t claim to love and support its military forces while bending over backward to pull the financial rug out from under them. It doesn’t claim to support the troops while simultaneously seeking to abandon them in time for the next election cycle. It doesn’t win the recent round of elections claiming moral superiority only to commit the same crimes of excess for which it castigated its opponent mere months before. But that is exactly where Liberalism is today.

The Republican Party was the party of corruption, and democrats are embroiled in their own scandals and choosing not to investigate. Their hypocrisy lies in the fact that to do so might mean losing seats in the House or Senate. Their hypocrisy lies in their feigned outrage over fabricated scandals. Their hypocrisy lies in Senator Schumer words, ‘the template is this: investigation after investigation after investigation’. Not because of illegalities but because of their unbalanced and irrational hatred of George W. Bush.

Liberals wish to loose this war in Iraq, and Republicans have sat quietly by allow ing them the stage and microphone to level whatever charges they choose… without opposition. Rarely have Republicans challenged such charges. Also, Liberals have engaged in heinous sophistry to discredit the war in Iraq, with little defense from the President and Republican leaders.

It has been said that ‘Democrats own defeat in Iraq.’ But I would add ‘Media’ to that. Media has gleefully, in somber tones, celebrated every milestone of American casualties—500, 1000, 2000, 3000. Three-thousand deaths is too high a price to pay to win the hearts and minds of a people who have been brutalized by a fascist murderous dictator. Media has bent over backward to portray American soldiers as war criminals, branding them murderers without the benefit of due process, trying them instead in the court of public opinion—A public, I might add, that is as ignorant of the exigencies and hardships of war as is Media, despite losing some of their own in the conflict. (One bright spot in all this, is the embed program. A vast majority of journalists who spend time with military units in the field, come to respect and understand the mission… and the need for American soldiers in the far-flung corners of the world.)

Republicans are not only losing the battle for Iraq, and the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people through their poor defense of the war against the mostly baseless charges made by Liberals against them, but they are also losing the war for America, and for the very same reason.

The Democratic Party isn’t interested in bi-partisanship, and, quite frankly, neither are Republicans—each having their own agenda to push, both of which are diametrically opposed to one another. But the truly horrific aspect of this strangely familiar new front in the War on Terror is that Liberalism has managed to mirror Iran’s efforts to foment sectarian violence among Sunni and Shi’a, here at home between democrat and republican… liberal and conservative. The Mullah’s of Media have directed the flow of arms and aided the sectarian violence; championing Liberalism over Conservatism.

There is no actual blood running in the streets, no physical IED’s placed in the highways and hedges of America, but the violence is real. Men like Bill Maher, Sean Penn, John Murtha, and too many more to count, are all guilty of lobbing grenades into crowded marketplaces… and of whom blame President Bush for the resultant chaos. But what do Republicans do to counter these attacks? Nothing. They, like pre 9.11 America, refuse to believe they are at war with an enemy that wishes to see them dead—in a manner of speaking.

Democrats are choosing to win the war at home by losing the war abroad. They are cowards. And republicans aren’t much better as blind fools. We are at war… here in America! And this is where the decisive battle will be fought. Not on some distant foreign shore, but here.

If we lose the war here, we lose far more than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We lose the very heart and soul of American. There is a lot wrong with this country, much of it lying at the foot of Liberalism. But there is still some good left as well. And I happen to believe it's worth fighting for.


----
This post has kept me up at night for the better part of three weeks and is a long read for that very reason.


Here's more

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Proof that not all Liberal Media is Brain Dead


Three Quotes from...
Retreat and Butter
Are Democrats in the House voting for farm subsidies or withdrawal from Iraq?
Friday, March 23, 2007

"...the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual members of Congress. At the tail of all of this logrolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill -- for whatever reason -- will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008..."

"...dates for troop withdrawals might be helpful, if they are cast as goals rather than requirements -- and if the timing derives from the needs of Iraq, not the U.S. election cycle."

"As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support."

[Emphasis Added]


Personal Note: And so continues the Culture of Corruption, what hypocrites!


Here's more

Heard on the Radio


"God-like for the godless"

--Rush Limbaugh
Describing liberal fascination with, and the meteoric rise of, Sen Barack Obama, presidential hopeful


Here's more

Evidence of Global Warming?

The U.S. side of Niagra Falls ran out of water on February 22, 1903... believe it or not!

The culprit? Drought.



Here's more

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Happy Birthday!!!

The European Union turned fifty today. Born March 25, 1957, who'da thunk she'd come this far-- especially with Berlin split plumb in two!

But it was inevitable that Europe would rise from the ashes of two world wars. It was inevitable that Europe would erase the divisions and reclaim what was once hers. It was inevitable that Europe would begin her year long celebration in Berlin, the reunification of which stands as a testament to the inevitability of a United Europe... the seedling of a revived Roman empire; under one flag, one governing council, one currency, and soon one military.

Did you know Europe ultimately wants the nations that were once Rome's to be part and parcel of the EU? Egypt, Turkey, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria? All one day member states within the EU.

Europe has come this far because of incremental advances... slow and steady steps that, once implemented, are irrevocably set. How long before she ratifies her constitution? Very soon-- France and the Netherlands are the only real hold-outs, and their objections are fast crumbling.

How many of you know that most Israelis want to be part of the European Union? They see such a move as a boon for their economy, and granting greater stability to the State of Israel. And how many of you knew the EU wants to include Israel?


Well, Happy Birthday, Europe! You're still a work in progress, but you're almost to the finish line!


Here's more

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Thanks, Ollie, for the heads up!


"This is the first war in history where all the images on American television are provided by the enemy."

--COL Oliver North

[This from a post at @ Large aptly titled, 'Sleeping with the Enemy']

It's common knowledge that much of the reporting being done in Iraq and Baghdad is done from the safety of 'The Green Zone', and yet it never occurred to me that the images, as well, would come from stringers. I am both surprised and nonplussed by this revelation.


Here's more

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

What is Apostasy?

Taking a page out of ER's book [He likes to put a question out there and see what commenters think], let's take a look at Apostasy. ER, commenting in the previous post asked...

"Why do you keep calling people who have never exhibited any sort of Christian faith in the first place "apostates"? Doesn't that refer to people who have turned away from the faith? You can't lose what you never had."

I contend that it is impossible for genuine Christians to become Apostates. In fact, I contend that Apostates are those who have 1. Heard the truth 2. Rejected the truth 3. Ridicule the truth, and 4. Seek to redefine the truth, and that these, in fact, have never been saved.

I realize that, having made the above statement, I've opened a big No. 10 can of worms in light of the OSAS argument, which is critical to my contention.

But what say you? Prove me wrong using scripture.

Discuss...


Here's more

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Proof Positive Rosie is a Toasted Bag of Nuts...

Rosie: Was 9/11 inside job to protect Enron?

"Was the World Trade Center brought down deliberately on Sept. 11, 2001, for the purpose of – are you ready for this? – eliminating records of government investigations into corporate fraud? That's the implication of a blog posting by Rosie O'Donnell about the worst terror attack in American history."


Someone needs to stop feeding that girl Fruit Loops. She needs an intervention. And she needs to be able to keep her job on The View. She destroys what little credibility she has each and every time she opens her mouth... and that can only be a good thing.

The saddest part, however, is the state of her soul. Her mind is reprobate, and she is a classic Apostate. Despite the simple truth that God is not will that SHE perish, it appears unlikely she will ever find God. That's no excuse to not try to win her over, but judging strictly from what the Bible has to say about such as her, it's a very slim hope that she'll see life anew when this one is done.


Here's more

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Liberal Hypocrisy! What Else is New?

Katie Couric had a resident talking head on this afternoon to tell the entire viewing audience that what the Bush administration had done in firing eight U.S. Attorneys was 'unprecedented'. Really!? Are you sure? Care to amend your answer?

The fact is President Clinton, in March of '93-- his first year in office --fired a few U.S. Attorneys as well... All 93 of them. And, without any fear if Liberal Media, stated the reason why...

"All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently."

And he's right! Truth is, Bush is also right-- U.S. Attorneys serve at the president's pleasure. This was true in Clinton's day and it's still true.

This is what's called 'Hypocrisy', and the Media and Democratic Congressmen, and Liberal hatchetmen are guilty of it. Mostly, they're guilty of passing off their false outrage with lies, castigations, and empty demands for investigations and resignations. Clinton fired 93, but most Americans have short memories and tend to believe whatever the likes of CBS and "Chuckie" Schumer tell them. Sadly, this kind of behavior by Liberals and Democrats is NOT unprecedented.

Truth is, Liberalism is dangerous. It feels deception is justified if it serves the cause, and Liberalism is, perhaps, the greatest of deceptions. Like communism, it promises prosperty, and equality... but in the end only the elite benefit from the promise. Everyone else pays an increasing number of taxes, levies, while suffering from dwindling civil and corporate liberties; payment to keep the cream on the top of the Liberal mocha latte. If there's one thing that sickens me about 'This President' it's his refusal to call the liars 'Liars'.

As to Liberalism. It's tentacles are not content to simply grab up political power by any means necessary... ANY means. Since Liberalism is every bit as much an ideology as Engel and Marx's bastard child, all this should come as a surprise. But while the Marx and Engels' 'Child' pushed its 'Religion is the opiate of the masses' agenda, Liberalism seeks to subvert religion and remake it.

                              ---

I've heard of Dennis Prager; read the name, heard it bandied about, but I don't know much about him-- who he is and why I should care. I mention this only because I actually read an opinion piece today by Mr. Prager. Not because of his name... no. It was the title that caught my eye.

"Jesus was no Leftist"

Being what I am [thank you Sinead] I was compelled... COMPELLED... to check it out. Suffice it to say, Prager hits Liberal Hypocrisy's nail square on the head.

In the view of John Edwards and other Christians on the left, Jesus would raise taxes, promote single-payer, i.e., socialized, medicine, be pro-choice and advocate same-sex marriage. But most of all, Jesus would be anti-war, opposed to the military and essentially be a pacifist.

This is based largely on one of His most famous statements: "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

I've tried to argue this point with liberals here before, because while its obvious to me and other Conservative Christians, the truth is apparently too simple for Liberal Christians to grasp.

The flaw in interpreting such statements as policy statements on how a nation should behave is that Jesus was speaking about the life of the individual – the micro – not about nations and the macro.

...

But Jesus was clearly referring to interpersonal relations. It is critically important when trying to understand any portion of the Bible or any other text to read a passage within the context of the surrounding material. As biblical commentaries often put it, "Context is king."

Context may be king, but a lie is still a lie, and what Liberals are trying to do to Christianity is perhaps the greatest of lies in that it distorts the truth of God.

Anyway...

It also shows how hypocritical are the left's attacks on religious conservatives for taking the Bible literally. It is the left that engages in a far more dangerous literalism when it applies Jesus' words to national policy. Those on the religious right who believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days are engaged in, I believe, a completely unnecessary literalism. But it is hardly dangerous. The left's biblical literalism, however, applying "turn the other cheek" to millions of its own citizens, is fatally dangerous.

Besides literalism, another point of hypocrisy: The left attacks the religious right for threatening to replace our democracy with a theocracy that will impose fundamentalist Christianity on the nation. Yet the people who loathe conservatives for using Scripture have no difficulty with those who cite Jesus' words when arguing their positions – even when citing them incorrectly.


So there it is... it's not new and it's not surprising, it's simply par for the course for Liberals and their vision of Utopic Jesus-loving America.

I'm not impresed. Or swayed.


Here's more

Friday, March 09, 2007

Programing Note:

For anyone interested, there are two new posts at
The Battlements


Here's more

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

8:43 AM ...::UPDATED::...

Hmmm... Scooter Libby can expect to serve 1-3 years in prison for lying about something he had no good reason to lie about, while Sandy Berger who stole, defaced AND destroyed classified documents-- an act of treason --gets off with a slap on the wrist and a fine? Why? Perhaps because Scooter worked for a Republican, and Sandy worked for a Liberal.

Joe Wilson was crowing yesterday about how justice was done and the media allowed it. Yet the media is all too willing-- and complicit --to ignore the fact that Joe Wilson is a greater liar than Scooter Libby. It was, after all, Joe Wilson's lie that started this whole affair.

America has sunk so low, and continues to sink, not because of the Libby verdict, but because of it's glaring hypocrisy in its dichotomous and preferential perceptions of right and wrong; what's punishable and what's not worth the effort based on political orientation. Our government is supposed to be 'of the people, by the people, for the people' yet the culture in Washington is Liberal in it's orientation... its ideological bent. How can a culture that so defines itself as Liberal claim to be a voice for the entire nation?

It can't.

That's why Scooter Libby is guilty of a heinous offense against truth and justice, and Sandy Berger gets an 'Aw, shucks, Sand-man! Ya shouldn't orta done that! But you meant well and that orta count fer sump'n, right? Run along now and play a while, make sure yer back in time fer dinner!'

Working on the assumption that there will ALWAYS be some who simply do not get it, at least a third of America is woefully inexperienced and unequipped to make moral judgments. And most of Media capitalize on this, knowing they can run roughshod over just about any issue they choose; pedaling snake oil to a besotted nation unable to differentiate between right and wrong, fact from fiction, relevant from irrelevant, the inspiring from the banal. This nation has become, in Coulter's colorful language, a nation of faggots; wussified Oprah worshippers, and the senseless fans of insensate celebrities like Britney [Who?], WHO should be pitied rather than put upon a pedestal.

May God have mercy on us all!


----
H/T to Neal


Update: 2:26 PM

Ari Emanuel, HuffPo blowhard, has established a countdown for the Cheney resignation.

My prediction about Dick Cheney is one step closer to coming true. My clock gives it three weeks before his resignation letter lands on Bush's desk. What does your clock say?

That's it! That's his entire post at HuffPo! These people are so deluded by their own hypocrisy and their inability to read [the indictment of Scooter Libby]. This is not about Cheney or Bush, however tortured the Liberal logic of the day. This is about Libby lying. Obstruction of Justice!?!? Please! That's a highly subjective charge that carries with it very little weight considering the jury was sat from a pool of Washingtonians... a staunch Liberal fiefdom if ever there was one!

Also, in lockstep with the party line, Meredith Vieira on this morning's Today Show asked Tim Russert, "Is this the beginning of the end, do you believe, for the Vice President?"

What!?!? Can you not see the foam gathered at the corners of their mouths?

From Mark Finkelstein's NewsBusters entry:

Sounds like Russert calling for the head of the Vice-President. The Vice-President is of course a separately-elected constitutional officer. He does not serve at the pleasure of the president. Leaving that aside, and even by Tim's terms, neither Cheney nor Libby could have "leaked" Plame's identity since it was, thanks to Richard Armitage, already out there. But that didn't stop Russert, with a little helpful prodding from Vieira, from none-too-subtly suggesting that Cheney should go.

This goes back to my earlier statement-- "...[M]ost of Media capitalize on [the general public's ignorance], knowing they can run roughshod over just about any issue they choose; pedaling snake oil to a besotted nation unable to differentiate between right and wrong, fact from fiction, relevant from irrelevant, the inspiring from the banal..."

If America spends it's every waking hour listening to the likes of CBS, ABC, NBS, MSNBC, CNN, and to some extent FOX, it's not a wonder this nation has surrendered it's God given right to think and choose for itself.

If nothing else in life is true, this certainly is: We deserve the government/society/culture we get if we choose not to make our leaders, ourselves, and those who seek to teach and instruct us, accountable.

There is little enough accountability in the hollowed halls of Government and Media as it is. Trying to stand up now would be to invite the image of that poor mole in the immensely humorous Whac-a-Mole Arcade game... But anything worth doing is worth giving it your all... however many times you get whacked.

Half-assed merely slows the poison, and slowing the poison is not STOPPING the poison. But that's what Liberalism is... Poison.




Here's more

Monday, March 05, 2007

Can't Buy Me Love

As an unrepentant and consummate Beatles fan, naturally, the first thing that popped into my head upon reading of Britney Spear's latest sad moment were the following lyrics

I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love...
[...]
Can't buy me love, everybody tells me so
Can't buy me love, no no no, no

Scrawling '666' on her forehead, shouting "I'm the Antichrist!", and attempting to hang herself with a bed sheet... WHILE IN REHAB, no less.

If ever someone was to be pitied... Britney Spears heads the list.

But we all have a part in this. We're spending much of each and every day


"Looking through the bent backed tulips, to see how the other half live"
That Glass Onion we call a television has been the ruin of many a soul... and yet I can't seem to draw my gaze away from its baleful hypnotic stare.


"I GOT BLISTERS ON MY [EYEBALLS]!!!"



Here's more

Friday, March 02, 2007

On the lighter side of yesterday's tornados...

Apparently there's a town my neck of the woods called, I kid you not... Screamer. It's only about 25 miles northeast of... Echo. No kidding. It's amazing what one can learn in the aftermath of tragedy.

We did wall to wall coverage of the storms yesterday, and the tragedy in Enterprise where one of our reporters, former lineman for the Florida Gators, Mr. Mike Gurspan, took his camera into Enterprise High School minutes after the tornado struck. If you watched the news last night and saw images of a gymnasium with water everywhere, and men carrying a student on a stretcher... that was Mike.

It was a tough day yesterday.

The owner of the flower shop where I work mornings spent much of THIS morning organizing a community (florist) effort to provide free flower arrangments to the funerals of the victims. The flowers themselves are being donated by a local wholesale distributer. Tomorrow, President Bush flies in to survey the damage. The station will be fully staffed in the morning if necessary, but without me... I'll be delivering flowers.

Enterprise is a nice 20 minute drive westward.


Here's more

More Global Warming...

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human,
Cause for Warming, Scientist Says               












Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.



Hmmmm...

Well, all this global warming talk has long sounded a bit 'Chicken Little-ish' to me. You can check out the entire article at National Geographic by clicking the title-link. If you have trouble getting the page to open (I did... heavy traffic), I've archived it here in the Library.

Interestingly enough, Abdussamatov's theory is curiously in step with Roy Spencer's explanation of the Greenhouse Effect as detailed in my previous post.

But one thing is certain: When scientists get together and say they've come to a 'consensus' on the science surrounding Global Warming, they have pretty much tossed out fact science... when Consensus' are reached, some measure of compromise has been made. Science on the other hand is fact-based, with no room for compromise-- it's either demonstratable fact or it is not.

Theory is not science; science formulates and PROPOSES theory, but until said theory is proven beyond any reasonable doubt it cannot be considered fact, and is therefore NOT science.

But then that's my take.

I'm still looking for the Crichton quote...


Here's more

Revisiting Global Warming...

What follows is Rush Limbaughs interview of Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville. He served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. He's the recipient of NASA's medal for exceptional scientific achievement, principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society Special Award. He is also a vocal supporter of intelligent design and denies the predominant scientific view that human activity is responsible for global warming.

For those wanting to read the whole thing you'll need to make use of the Here's More link...



Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth
February 28, 2007



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We had a call yesterday. The last call of the day was from a guy calling himself "Roy," and he wanted to talk about the whole global warming controversy. What a great Global Warming Stack we have today, too. (Laughing.) Let me just give you a little heads-up. "Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, Carbon Tax." Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah. I told you all of this is coming. What kind of arrogance is this? “A panel of scientists has presented the United Nations a detailed plan for combating climate change. [Voice of America]'s correspondent at the U.N. Peter Heinlein reports the strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling.” Which means that these scientists are going to tell the weather how hot it can get. That has to be what a global temperature ceiling is, as though we have any way of controlling this.

Oh, by the way, I had a lot of people thanking me for my detailed explanation yesterday of the Algore hypocrisy -- and Schwarzenegger, too, registering his jet with some carbon registry -- and explaining these carbon offsets. One of the best ways to explain it to people I think is to say, “I have concocted the Algore Gore diet. It's a variation of the old Marie Antoinette diet.” Basically, Dawn, let's say that you and I live together, all right? Hypothetically here. And you tell me that you think I need to go on a diet. "Okay, I totally agree. I'm going to go on a diet. We're going to do the Algore diet, which is I eat whatever I want, and you starve. That way, I eat what you would normally be eating, and I call it a diet." It's also known as the Marie Antoinette diet. At any rate, lots more coming up in the Global Warming Stack today. Did you get a hold of Roy, Mr. Snerdley? Is he ready for one o'clock?

The last caller of the day yesterday was Roy Spencer, who is a highly acclaimed climatologist who used to work for NASA. I am really looking forward to talking to him. If you didn't hear his call yesterday, we only had about a couple minutes with him. I asked him for permission to get back to him, and he gratefully granted us that. His theory, among many... I've now done Wikipedia searches, Google searches on Mr. Spencer. He's truly a brilliant man. He started talking yesterday that the one thing that nobody can factor in when it comes to global warming, the effect on global warming and the temperature on the earth, is precipitation. He's made a career of studying this. He also is not a global warming advocate. He thinks it's basically a hyped crisis. He also, for example, used to believe in evolution and has become an ardent believer of intelligent design combined with evolutionary things, because evolution does take place, but it doesn't explain Creation. Obviously, it can't. I'm just giving you a heads-up on who he is. He also said precipitation and clouds have been a great factor.

But the whole point -- as I have astutely, instinctively pointed out over many, many broadcasts on this program -- is the climate of the earth is so, so complex that we may not even be able to as human beings to craft computer models that can factor in all the variables and come up with anything that's reasonable which results in scientists having to make guesses -- and why do they make guesses? They make guesses because they get funded to make guesses. It's all politics. There are scientists who have, in the manufacture of semiconductors, studied atmospherics in a closed environment which limits the complexity of the variables -- and even those model predictions are wrong, and those are tiny compared to climate models. Anyway, we'll talk with him in great detail at the top of the next hour. I'm really looking forward to it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It's time to move on to the latest in global warming. We had a caller in the last segment of the program yesterday identifying himself as "Roy." We asked if we could get back to him today. He's on hold, and we'll be getting to him here in mere moments. I just want to introduce him. His name is Roy Spencer, and he is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville. He served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. He's the recipient of NASA's medal for exceptional scientific achievement, principally known (I'm reading here from Wikipedia. Sometimes there are errors there, so he can correct this) for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society Special Award. He is also a vocal supporter of intelligent design and denies the predominant scientific view that human activity is responsible for global warming. You are Dr. Spencer. You should have identified yourself that way. Welcome to the program, Roy.

DR. SPENCER: Hey, Rush. Well, nobody calls me doctor.

RUSH: Well, I'm honored to call you doctor. Does Wikipedia have it right here?

DR. SPENCER: Yeah. Yeah. I've always been scared of going to Wikipedia to read about myself, because, you know, people can put in some bad stuff in there if they don't like you. So I just stay away from it.

RUSH: Well, everything here is good. The only thing I noticed is you've been awarded something from the American Meteorological Society, a special award, and there is a climatologist at the Weather Channel who thinks people like you should be decertified.

DR. SPENCER: Oh, yeah, that's right.

RUSH: Heidi Cullen.

DR. SPENCER: I guess that's what happens when meteorologists get tied too closely to the media.

RUSH: You called yesterday and you wanted to say that my instincts on this global warming as you've heard me discuss them, are accurate. You started a discussion of the calculations here, these climate models, saying that they do not factor -- because it's not easy to do or maybe it's not even possible to factor -- in the role of precipitation and clouds. Could you start there, and basically whatever you were going to say yesterday, go ahead and launch.

DR. SPENCER: Well, I feel like -- and there are a few of us that are like this -- that the Earth has a natural air-conditioning process which occurs that is mainly through precipitation systems. Now, people will think, “Oh, well, you mean when they come by they cool off the air,” and that's not what I'm talking about. It's about the Earth's natural greenhouse effect which is mostly water vapor and clouds. The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth warm.

RUSH: Isn't it true that the majority of greenhouse gases do come from the sources you just mentioned, not manmade sources?
DR. SPENCER: Well, yeah, that's true. Carbon dioxide is a relatively small part of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Now, the party line on this whole thing is that what we're doing is, with the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we're enhancing the greenhouse effect, and by now it's like about 1%. And since we're changing what's called the radiation budget of the Earth -- you know, like how much sunlight comes in and how much infrared radiation goes back out to space, since we're changing the radiation budget of the Earth -- the temperature has to change. This is the way you'll hear scientists explain the greenhouse effect. From a simple physics standpoint, it's a very attractive way of looking at climate change. There's a big problem with it, though. It makes it sound like the greenhouse effect is what determines the temperature of the Earth, and actually the truth is it's more the other way around. Given a certain amount of sunlight coming in, that is mostly absorbed at the surface of the Earth, weather processes happen which create the greenhouse effect because most of the greenhouse effect is from evaporated water which then turns into clouds, and of course water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas.

RUSH: I dare say I have to interrupt you at this point because most people who only pay attention to the crisis mongers, believe that there is no greenhouse effect other than that created by man. The whole notion of the greenhouse effect has led people to believe that man has totally manufactured this and that it's totally harmful. What you're saying is it's a natural thing that helps keep the Earth's temperatures moderate?

DR. SPENCER: Yeah, that's right. That's right. All the scientists agree with that. What you're talking about is the fact that the media distorts things so much that people don't get the right information. If you're using the media to rely on to get the science about this issue, you won't.

RUSH: Well, but the media is only relying on the scientists that they want to believe, and that to me is evidence of the political agenda that's attached to this. Let me get your reaction to this. There's a story that ran on the Reuters wire today -- and I want your reaction as an awarded climate scientist from the University of Alabama at Huntsville and NASA -- declaring the global warming debate over. “An international team of scientists urged the world's nation on Tuesday to act now to keep climate change from becoming a catastrophe.” Companion story: “Panel of scientists has presented the UN a detailed plan for combating climate change. The VOA correspondent reports the strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling.” Now, how in the hell do we do that? How do we tell the world we're only going to allow it to reach a certain high temperature and then the global warming debate's over? What does that do to you as a scientist who doesn't buy into it?

DR. SPENCER: Well, yeah, that is a problem for people that really worry that we need to do something now because if we decide that all we're going to do now is policy, then we don't need to support the science anymore. But what I'd like to emphasize is sort of the bottom line of this whole debate -- and it's sort of what you've talked about -- which is, it all depends on how fragile you think the climate system is. The people that have built the climate models that predict global warming believe they have sufficient physics in those models to predict the future. I believe they don't. I believe the climate system, the weather as it is today in the real world shows a stability that they do not yet have in those climate models. Those climate models have a history of drifting. It took them a lot of years before they kept them from drifting too warm or too cold over time. That tells you it doesn't have the stabilization processes.
The point I wanted to make about precipitation was that it's precipitation systems that condition the rest of the air on the Earth. All of the air on the Earth is being slowly cycled through precipitation systems, which then gives that air its moisture characteristics. So when you're out on a beautiful sunny day golfing with not a cloud in the sky, you can thank a precipitation system somewhere for the weather you're having. In other words, they control the weather everywhere including the weather over the dessert where you don't have any rain. Precipitation systems control everything, and I think that they have a stabilizing effect. I'm not the only one that has this theory. There’s a few other scientists, too, that have written on it. I think that's where the answer is in terms of climate sensitivity and whether we have much of an impact on it at all or not.

RUSH: Now, if you're right, I look at the ten-day, 15-day forecasts that you get from various weather sites, AccuWeather, the various weather services. They're not going to go much longer than three to five days on precipitation forecasts because they can't. If your theory is correct, the whole notion of predicting global warming 30 to 50 or even a hundred years out cannot possibly be done because predicting precipitation cannot be done on that scale.

DR. SPENCER: Here's where you have to be careful, Rush. The forecasting of weather is called "an initial value problem." You measure the atmosphere today, what it's doing, and you sort of extrapolate out in time with equations, of course. That's only good five or ten days out. For global warming forecasting, those models, what you're doing is sort of changing the rules by which the atmosphere operates. You're changing the greenhouse, one of the minor greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trying to figure out how it's going to change average weather over a long period of time. So climate forecasting and weather forecasting are sort of two different things.

RUSH: Okay. I'm talking with Roy Spencer here from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, a former NASA scientist. Can you hang on through the break for a couple more questions?

DR. SPENCER : Sure.

RUSH: Before we go to the break, let me just ask. Is there catastrophic manmade global warming occurring?

DR. SPENCER : Well, I certainly don't believe so.

RUSH: All right. We'll take a brief break and discuss that in detail when we come back. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville with us.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Hi. Welcome back, folks. We're talking with Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville, also a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville and a skeptic on the concept of manmade global warming. Roy, in trying to learn about you last night, I came across a piece in a blog that I like called the American Thinker written by Jerome J. Schmitt who is president of NanoEngineering corporation, and he has worked in the process equipment and instrument engineering industries for 25 years. He mentions you and your work on precipitation, your theories on precipitation as it relates to limiting the properties of precipitation systems and how they change with warming and so forth. Let me just tell you basically what his theory is here, or what his point is. He says that to model the climate of the Earth is so complex as to be practically impossible. He talks about how the semiconductor manufacturing business works, that they also try to control precipitation in a closed atmosphere within a vessel during the manufacturing process, and as such, they're very similar to climate models except that all the variables are controlled because they can be: it's a much smaller universe. The number of variables is way, way smaller, but even then, these models that use atmospherics to manufacture semiconductors are not reliable because they have so many limits.

He goes on to describe some of the things, factors that have to be included in a computer model of climate change -- and this by no means scratches the surface. He mentions things like solar flux and gravity and pressure, temperature, density, humidity, the rotation of the Earth, the currents in the ocean like the Gulf Stream, greenhouse gases, CO2 dissolved in the oceans. His basic point is this. He quotes you as writing that “the role of precipitation is not fully accounted for in global warming models, and unless we know how greenhouse limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there will be, either.” Of course it was only back in the seventies that everybody, TIME Magazine, Newsweek, was warning us about global cooling and the coming of a new ice age. So people are confused about this but they're being scared to death. Kids are being told that they're destroying the animals; their parents are not doing enough, and they're having trouble sleeping at night! I know you look at this on a scientific basis, but how does all this impact you as a human being in addition to being a scientist?
DR. SPENCER: Well, it does bother me that so many people are worried about it, and I wish more meteorologists, atmospheric science types that really do have major reservations about how serious global warming is going to be, I wish they would speak up. The trouble is scientists are human, too, and there's this groupthink amongst climate scientists that global warming has created careers. It brings in money.

RUSH: That's the key.

DR. SPENCER: Well, that's part of it. Let me give you an example of the bias. Scientists have no way to be totally impartial, and let me give you an example of the bias. You've probably heard the phrase that the Earth's greenhouse effect keeps the Earth habitably warm. Have you ever heard that?

RUSH: Yes.

DR. SPENCER: Okay. In fact this is one of the very first things that was figured out about the climate system back in the 1960s, so I'm not making this up. It turns out that there's a actually a more accurate phrase than that related to the greenhouse effect, and that's that weather systems help keep the Earth habitably cool because they short-circuit 60% of the greenhouse effect warming that the greenhouse effect is trying to make on the surface of the Earth. If it weren't for the cooling effects of weather, the average surface temperature over the whole Earth would be about 140 degrees Fahrenheit.

RUSH: Wow.

DR. SPENCER: So, now, why is it that we only hear about the greenhouse effect and how it keeps the Earth habitably warm?

RUSH: Because the United States is being blamed for this. The people of the United States are being blamed so they'll be taxed.

DR. SPENCER: Yeah, but we never hear the fact that's more quantitatively accurate, that weather systems actually keep the Earth habitably cool. It's an inherent bias in the way people think, including climate scientists.

RUSH: About science, Michael Crichton once wrote that any time you see the word "consensus" associated with science that there cannot possibly be science, and his point is that we have all these UN scientists and others who are getting funding from various nations and institutions to do their work, and, of course, they produce results favorable to that desired by those who are making the grants. Then you have scientists like yourself who don't buy into it at all, but yet we're told "a consensus of the world's scientists believe X." That doesn't make it science, correct? There is not science here that has confirmed any of this.

DR. SPENCER: Well, that's absolutely true. Scientific truth isn't determined by a vote. You're reminding me of two Australian medical researchers who, for ten years, had to put up with ridicule over their theory that there was a bacterial basis for stomach ulcers. Bback then they were known as nitwits, and now they're known as Nobel Prize winners in 2005. So there's an example.

RUSH: Let me ask you about this. Again this is from Jerry Schmitt’s piece in the American Thinker. This I didn't know. You ever heard of somebody named Vannevar Bush?

DR. SPENCER: No.
RUSH: Well, he writes, “Vannevar Bush's seminal 1944 policy paper unleashed the Federal government's unprecedented post-war investment in R&D in the hard sciences and engineering. Science was seen as the way to avoid (or at least win) another catastrophic war.” Apparently the federal government getting involved in funding science research and development for the purposes of winning and not losing a war led to the whole concept here of governments funding various projects that they like. When you mentioned the money of many of these global warming scaremongers, I just wondered if that was not the origin of this. But since you've not heard of this man I'll leave that for another time.

DR. SPENCER: Well, from a scientific standpoint I have to admit that global warming is a legitimate area of study. I mean, I could be totally wrong. I don't think I am, and I understand why some scientists are really concerned. But like I told you earlier and what you've said before, it comes down to how much faith you have that you know enough about the physics to be able to model it accurately. Like you said, the problem is with models.

RUSH: You used the word "faith," and it's a religion with these people. It has replaced a religion to so many people. “We're destroying the planet. We've gotta do something about it. It's our fault.” The parallels to this belief system and so many others which require faith are incredible. But the whole thing about this that is disturbing to me. You could be wrong, you say. They could be wrong, but they won't admit that they could be wrong. They have this knocked down, and they're using 150 years of research, Roy, when we cannot study... Well, we do know. We do know there have been ice ages without manmade input to global warming. We know there's been warming and cooling as natural cycles of the Earth. The presumptuousness and the arrogance of people today who think that we, human beings, in the twenty-first century are destroying the planet is something that offends my sensibilities. The vanity that these people have to think we have that kind of power over this massively complex creation is one of the things that I just instinctively use to disbelieve them.

DR. SPENCER: Yeah. I can understand that.

RUSH: All right. I know you don't want to talk about it because that's not in the area of science.

DR. SPENCER: (Laughing.) Well, there's a lot more faith involved in science than people realize.

RUSH: I appreciate that. Look, I really appreciate you letting us get back to you. This has been a tremendous opportunity for me to talk to you. I'm glad you called yesterday.

DR. SPENCER: Well, thanks. And we also made a special page for you. I have a weather website, and if you Google EIB Southern Command Weather, you'll find your weather page.

RUSH: Thank you. We'll find it!
BREAK TRANSCRIPT



There's also a great passage from Michael Crichton in his novel, Jurassic Park that puts all this global warming balderdash into perspective. I'll see if I can find it, and post it later.


Here's more

As if what we already have isn't good enough...

Ruth Rimm gives us yet another bible-- "The Lost Spiritual World". Ms. Rimm however isn't content to merely RE-translate the Word of God; she's decided there needs to be more, and crafted from her own twisted imagination no less!

With titanic hubris she ignores Revelation 22:18-19 and jokingly admits she's a heretic. Whatever she is, she's as deluded as every other child of the devil. And I don't say that lightly, because no child of GOD would do what she has done. Since there are only two camps in this war, she has managed to show her hand; a hand that no God-fearing congregation would accept or condone.

Here's a short excerpt from one of her additions, called, "The Parable of the Gorilla"

He was born in a manger a long time ago – not to a virgin – but to a gorilla. What's so funny? Who did you expect his ancestors to look like, Tom Cruise?

But wait. I'm not making fun of Jesus. I'm not mocking religion. In fact, from the deepest wellspring of my heart, I'm despairing something we've lost in our scientific culture.

Yes, if Jesus was alive today, he would understand that his ancestors, just like ours, were beasts.

No, he wouldn't run around claiming he was born of a virgin.

And, brilliant rabbi that he was, he would likely ask us to understand the miracle stories metaphorically – as morality tales – but certainly not as literal truth.



Jesus was not born of a virgin, heavens no! He was born of a gorilla...

Blasphemy!

The Muslims will eat this up. They already teach their children, and believe themselves, that Jews are Apes.


There's more at the link above...


Here's more

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Terrorist Appeasers Try Again

From Nealz Nuze, March 1, 2007

Democrats aren't giving up yet on their anti-war proposals...now they have a new one over in the House. The latest piece of legislation would not cut off funding for the troops, but would require the president to acknowledge the military is overburdened. Huh? These people don't know when to quit, do they? How about passing a resolution banning anymore resolutions about the war? One thing's for sure, if Osama really is alive and living in Pakistan...he must be pleased with his Democratic supporters.

What is the point of all this? There isn't one. When it comes to war, the power of the House of Representatives is clear: they hold the purse strings. Again...if the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill really believes that the war in Iraq is a mistake, then cut off the funding. Otherwise, sit down and shut up. While they're doing everything they can to undermine the commander-in-chief, this country is trying to win the war on terrorism.

It sure makes you wonder just whose side some of these liberals are on.




Here's more

More from the Unhinged

Joy Behar of The View...

"...I don't know what it’s going to take for people to really wake up and understand that they are liars and they are murderers. I’m sorry."

Elisabeth Hasselbeck responds...

"...I also feel as though some, you know, fringe liberals are taking this to a place where we're almost losing sight on the issue here."

And now the money quote...

Ms. Behar: "I don't consider myself a fringe liberal.... I don't even like the use of terminology like that, a fringe liberal. That's like name-calling." [emphasis mine]


Apparently she doesn't see the hypocrisy in that last statement. Nor, in the greater sense, does the Unhinged Liberal Left.



..::Read the full portion of transcript for full context::..


Here's more

Seeds of Propensity


Two Letters to Mary Angel
(taken from my personal journal)


January 11, 1998 1:10am


Dear Mary Angel,


I wrote a letter to the President a few weeks ago and I'm still debating on whether or not to actually send it. It's a harmless letter. I don't know why I even bothered to write it as I don't particularly like him and I sure didn't vote for him. I guess my main concern is a sense of hypocrisy lying just below the surface of my apparent intention to write him in the first place. For example, there are undoubtedly a great number of persons who privately curse the President but when standing face to face with the man will smile, shake his hand and tell him to keep up the good work. A good portion of these same people would probably even frame a picture of themselves shaking hands with the man and give a prominent place to it on a wall or mantle in their homes and brag to the same people before whom they had bad-mouthed the man in front of just days or weeks before. I don't want to be one of those people.

It's true, I don't really like Mr. Clinton. I don't agree with at least ninety percent of his policies, and I feel he is the least sincere president we've had since Nixon, but that's neither here nor there. The fact remains that despite all the crap this man has had slung at him he has remained focused, eloquent and steadfast in his belief that he is doing what is best. I must admire him for
that if nothing else.

Last month Mr. Clinton held one of his notorious town hall meetings where the deck was stacked invariably in his favor. The topic? Racial intolerance. This just happens to be a sore subject with me because I am so tired of being hated because of the color of my skin.

I can hear them now..."Hey whitey! How's it feel now the shoes on the other foot?"

It's not my fault that millions of native Africans were stolen from their homeland and sold into slavery thousands of miles away. I wasn't raised to view black people as inferior. My father was not a southerner by birth or lineage. None of my direct descendants ever, to my knowledge, owned a slave. They were all dirt-poor farmers in the mountains of West Virginia.

As a man in the military, my fathers children were bussed to predominantly black schools as a matter of policy. What I learned at these schools is that the hatred of color is not exclusive to whites. The black culture is just as guilty, and that is what my letter to the President was about.

I felt that if he was serious about wanting to see an end to racial intolerance that there were a few things he needed to do to ensure that goal. There have been enough martyrs on both sides of the issue. God is not concerned with color and neither should we.

At the heart of this issue is Evil. In the letter, I described this evil as a "Seed of Propensity," as it is inherent in every human heart. In the "Gulag Archipelago," Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, "Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties - But right through every human heart - and through all human hearts."

Given ten more generations and we'd still be no more nearer to wiping out the negative memories of slavery from our social consciousness; not if we continued to allow the seedier elements of entertainment and culture a welcome seat at the table. But America courts bad behavior because it's 'sexy'. So to erase the memory of racism we must endeavour to remember the past, and begin to reeducate this nation. It must begin tomorrow, with Kindergarten. It should be continually reinforced day in and day out to war against the effects the uncouth will have on their children outside the classroom. Such an endeavor would take a minimum of three generations provided the nation approached it with the fanaticism of a Communist Bloc nation, as well as eradicate the teachers unions, and put God back in the classroom. When the days of segregation and intolerance are as beyond physical memory as the Civil War, perhaps then our children's children's children will be truly free.

...and I am so tired. Till next time.

With love,


Eric



-----

May 1998 12:37am


Dear Mary Angel,

When we younger and learning to love and care for one another, our minds were yet filled with the views and dogmas handed down to us by our parents. Regardless of what we may believe to the contrary we were nonetheless guided by the ideals of those who raised us. For good or ill we were what our parents made us. For most people these belief systems will be with them their entire lives; very few can honestly say that they have broken away and learned to think for themselves.

When I was young and growing up as a military brat, I was not, for the most part, exposed to people of different skin colors, nor was I taught to call black people 'Niggers.' Regardless of my parents personal opinions, color was a non-issue-- The military demanded it. That's just the way it was. I would have been beaten if that word had slipped past my lips, and rightly so.

Upon entering Jr. High, I was suddenly surrounded by black children. If I was frightened at all by this it was because of its strangeness. Suddenly I was among people who hated me; not because I stuttered, but because of the color of my skin! By the time I graduated from High School I had picked up a measure of prejudice, and the measure acquired was of equal parts peer pressure, and retaliatory response.

It's easy to hate someone who hates you. It goes back to what is taught in the bible; you reap what you sow. Some eastern cultures call it Karma. Well, I don't want to be burdened by another person's perceptions of what the color of my skin means to them... It isn't fair to me. It isn't fair to them.

I can somewhat understand the black man's point of view and, to that point, reluctantly share it, for our nation has not been kind to him, and how black perceives white is understandable, if not wholly justified. I tell myself I can't look at persons of African descent and say 'Nigger,' and yet I have, to my own shame. Neither he nor I deserve to be judged by the color of our skin.

I have never owned a slave, but I'm blamed for it every day. I've never deliberately tried to hold a black person back from achieving his dreams, but I am blamed for it nonetheless, and made to feel guilty for what I am innocent of.

He and I are both helpless to change it. I will try my damnedest not to teach my children prejudice but they will learn it anyway. No matter how hard he tries to do the same, his children too will learn. It is in our nature to demonstrate prejudice, for each of us carries within us that seed of propensity, which is Evil... All thanks to Adam.

Today, I can thankfully say that I don't dislike blacks anymore than I do whites, or anyone else for that matter. I am an equal-opportunity despiser; trash is trash regardless of it's origin, or its coat of paint; and in my own defense, I am only human. I have a seed of goodness within me as well. But it all boils down to this: "Which seed do I nurture?"

The world isn't getting any smaller and with racial tensions as they are, what chance do any of us have at living full, productive, and genuinely loving lives when we, by nature, pass our fears on to our children.

For which they pay the price.


With all my love, sweet Mary Angel,


Good night,


Eric


Here's more