One of My First "Debate Style" Responses...

... Memory Lane

Question Posed To Me In A Previous Debate

(Gene90 said) “Do you deny that some mutations are beneficial? (Such as, antibiotic resistance in a bacterium).”

My Response

What about this example of bacteria resisting antibiotics? Actually, some bacteria possess a natural genetic capacity to resist certain antibiotics; mutations are not involved in these. Mutations cause a structural defect in ribosomes – the cellular constituents that antibiotics like streptomycin attach to. Since the antibiotic doesn’t connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant.

Spetner: “We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein, and that means losing genetic information… Rather than say the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, we would be more correct to say it lost its sensitivity to it. It lost information. The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is suppose to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution… Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.”

In other cases, some mutant bacteria, because they have defective membranes, don’t absorb nutrients well. Fortuitously for them, that inefficiency also prevents their absorbing antibiotics. And so, in this instance also, they survive better than their normal cousins. But the mutation did not make them stronger or create new information, or “evolve” to a higher state. Likewise, if the world’s light suddenly disappeared, blind people might have an advantage over others, since they were already accustomed to operating in darkness. Nevertheless, we cannot then interpret blindness as positive, or representing new information or evolutionary advance.

C.P. Martin, writing in American Scientist, made a similar point when he compared x-rays’ effects on the body to being kicked and beaten [nice family publication]:

“It is quite possible that violent knocking about might dislocate a man’s shoulder, and that continued knocking about might actually reduce the previous dislocation… no sane person would cite such a case as this to prove that the results of knocking a man about are not injuries; nor would anyone refer to the result as evidence that knocking a man about can produce an improvement over the normal man. For a truly progressive or evolutionary-apt mutation must result in an improvement over the normal condition. The truth is that there is no clear evidence of the existence of such helpful mutations. In natural populations endless millions of small and great genic differences exist, but there is no evidence that any arose by mutation.”

Second Question Posed

(Gene90 said) “Do you deny that parents pass traits to their offspring?”

Second Response

This statement and the evolutionary implications get into what Darwin himself believed while writing his manifesto, that is – Lamarckism. Lets see what some evolutionary scientists had to say (excerpted from my vestigial organs post).

"…Two of the most powerful causes of mutation are mustard gas and x-rays. A moments reflection on the horror of Hiroshima children born with deformed limbs and bodies, or blood disorders condemning them to premature deaths, is enough to show that they were unlikely candidates, to say the least, to win the struggle for existence in a life-game where survival of the fittest is the governing rule.” (British science writer Francis Hitching)

"…To postulate, as the positivists of the end of the last century and their followers here have done, that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts… These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Biochemist Ernst Chain, who shared a Nobel Prize for his work on penicillin)

"…Simultaneous appearance of several gene mutations in one individual has never been observed, so far as I know, and any theoretical assertion that this is an important factor in evolution can be dismissed… the probability that five simultaneous mutations would occur in any one individual would be about .0000000000000000000001. This means that if the population averaged 100,000,000 individuals with the average length of generations of only one day, such an event could be expected only once in about 274,000,000,000 years - a period about one hundred times as long as the age of the earth.” (George Gaylord Simpson [R.I.P.], Professor of vertebrate paleontology at Harvard, and, perhaps, the twentieth century's foremost paleontologist)

(Referring to a previous statement about the Panda) – were you there to see the Panda’s thumb change? Is there fossil proof for it (that could pass the Smithsonian Institutes tests [referring to the virulent rejection by the Smithsonian of the recent “feathered dinosaur” published by Natural Geographic])? Do genetic mutations back up the hypothesis?

I could equally say that an alien race came to earth and "tinkered" with rat till they got a Panda. I would have just as much proof as do evolutionists for the Panda evolving from a lower species, or higher (i.e. fish left the water to eventually become a cow, who, eventually went back to the water to become a whale – this is what evolutionary textbooks teach). I see all this as crazy! I say that I came from a cause greater than the universe and myself. Evolutionists say I came from a rock.

"…It is easy to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” (Colin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum)

"…Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are famous for their facility in devising plausible stories; but they often forget that plausible stories need not be true.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard's famed paleontologist and probably evolution's leading spokesperson today)

Take the human body, as a total system, is irreducibly complex. It is difficult to change one part without influencing others. The liver for example: it manufactures bile; detoxifies poisons and wastes; regulates storage and use of glucose, proteins, fats and vitamins; synthesizes blood clotting and immune system factors; and processes breakdown products of old blood cells. Or take the kidneys: they remove wastes through urine production; regulate the body's water content and electrolytes (sodium, calcium, etc.); and support the adrenal glands, which secrete hormones such as adrenaline. Or the human heart: blood is pumped to from the right side of the heart to the lungs, where it receives oxygen; then back to the heart's left side, which propels it to the rest of the body through more than 60, 000 miles of vessels. The heart has four chambers; a system of valves prevents backflow into any of these; electrical impulses from a pacemaker control the hearts rhythm.

Rarely, babies are born with congenital heart disorders, making blood shunt to the wrong place. There is no known case of mutations improving circulation! Hemoglobin – the blood's oxygen-carrying component - has over 40 mutant variants. NOT ONE transports oxygen as well as normal hemoglobin! Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the twentieth centuries leading Darwinists, acknowledged this:

"And yet, a majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations, produce deteriorations of viability, hereditary diseases, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."

Mr. Hitchings: "On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change: to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form of response to altered conditions, and if at all possible to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one; to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the species."

Goldschmidt said: "It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has ever produced even a species by selection of micromutaions."

Goldschmidt would have known - he bread gypsy moths for twenty years and a million generations in various environments. All he ever got was more gypsy moths. Anyone who thinks that an accumulation of mutations (information-losing processes) can lead to Macroevolution (a massive net gain of information) “is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.” (Spetner)

The Debate Was Great (my "weak-sauce" question wasn't)

Debate Update

It went well. The two sides were equitable, loving, and most importantly… focused on Christ.

That being said, I couldn’t get past the marrying of the “First book” – e.g., Scripture, with the “second book” – e.g., Nature. I believe that this marriage is a good one, but when one imposes empiricism that has embedded itself within modern science, and thus how they view this “magisterium” (Gould). Saying that this “book” (“scientism”) should be wedded to Thee Book just because you (insert here Kenneth Samples) look at nature differently than most of the science/scientists do is, well, not very heartwarming to the followers of Thee Book.

There were lot of things running through my head, ocean pressure as well as inner earth pressures and the effect they have as you go deeper on uranium leakage, etc. So I figured I would ask a question about a book written by two atheists called Forbidden Archaeology. I explained that they have good evidence to show man lived during the many epochs of geological time. After mentioning man-made items found in the 2.8 billion year old layer, I stressed the point that I was a young earth creationist, how then should a Christian theist look at this evidence.

I was hoping that Dr. Reynolds would pick up on the fact that I didn’t support the 2.8 billion years old “factoid” I had just mentioned and he could have mentioned that a worldwide flood would be a better explanation of that type of evidence than that of a local flood.

You see, you have two models, one says that man-and-dinosaur were separate by millions of years, thus no evidence of man-and-dinosaur coexistence should be expected to be found. However, if the earth is young, this co-existence should be found. Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson shows this evidence to be quite dramatic. However, Cremo and Thompson do not believe in God or a young earth, thus challenging the empiricism imbedded in the naturalistic sciences, they – that is Cremo and Thompson – believe man (at least on earth) to be about 3-billion years old, but maybe even older than that.

I was hoping my quoting a 2.8 billion year old manmade item, and then saying I am a young earth creationist would spur a response outside of the Augustinian debate that ensued. That aside, many of the evidences for man’s “old-age” (really a young age when the assumptions behind the dating methods are realized) are rock solid. The man-made items coming from the mines in South Africa come to mind:

Or the 1000[+]-yr-old carving in the Ta Prohm temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia:

I should have worded my question a bit different, but even then I doubt that would have dissuaded them from discussing the church fathers.

Dr. Reynolds had one heck of a finish when he started to talk about the animal issue (the “don’t slaughter an animal before you kill” it part). I would have liked to go over the audio on that so I could unpack it more. Very deep moral philosophy there, I loved it.

I think the only person who got my question was my fellow compatriot in the young earth faith,

Oh Well, I will have that question polished the next time I ask it. He probably got all the straw-men arguments as well, like the fossils being placed in the geological column by God rather than a world-wide flood/catastrophe.

My First Boycott I Support

The Anti-Troop Movie

The movie Redacted is a propaganda film like no other. It takes an isolated incidents and makes it seem – in Moore fashion – like it is a bigger problem than it really is.

I wonder if any of the lefties out there think no American soldier rapped a woman during WWII? What would you say about a film maker painting the entire cause as well as our troops in the light of this isolated incident. “Right On!”? “Way to go free speech”? “The truth should be known”? If your answer was similar in the affirmation of such thoughts… you need help. I’m here for you.

Keep in mind that the financier is the owner of the Dallas Mavericks. Below is a link to a boycott site. They will have times and places the movie will be shown, what you can do to help the boycott, as well as information to combat lunacy. Enjoy.

http://www.boycottredacted.com/home

Blockheads for Allah

Jihad Brown

A very funny Charlie Brown clip. The end is hilarious.

9/11 Truthers Editorialized

Rex Murphy

A Canadian who makes sense. Enjoy his short commentary of the knuckleheads who see conspiracies everywhere.

Impeach Cheney Table @ Work...

Impeach Cheney

A blurry photo of the “Impeach Cheney” booth that camped outside my work the other day.

We were lucky enough to get this booth at Whole Foods the other day. I want to premise up front that if they could have, the management of Whole Foods would have asked these people/activists to leave, however, because they were officially representing a state ballot measure, the store had to allow them to stay. All you need to know is the state ballot measure was put forth by Lyndon LaRouche.

Who is Lyndon LaRouche?

Views of Lyndon LaRouche

(of which excerpts are taken from below)

Well, he has quite a past, LaRouche was a former member of the Socialist Workers Party and is a former leader of a reportedly violent and disruptive cult-like group entitled the National Caucus of Labor Committees. He was imprisoned for 15 years for conspiracy and mail fraud related to fundraising and tax code violations and for conspiring to hide his personal income. This would explain the act he is trying to get passed called The Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007 (PDF), if you know anything about socialism and the like, the graph on his flyer says it all. In fact, to give one last hint, LaRouches history has made one critic call him an “unrepentant Marxist-Leninist.”

He is also a huge conspiracy freak. He thinks that we (the U.S. government/British government) took down the Twin Towers in order to further this grand-conspiracy. The following is a small clip of him saying such.

I will also document some Wikipedia comments on LaRouche that will elucidate the readers into the mind of this nutball! (Take note… if you wish to read an excellent article on LaRouche, I highly recommend a long but thorough article (1985) from the Washington Post’s “Cult Controversy” archives entitled “Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right.”)

I personally hope that table comes back to our store, because now that I know that these are the LaRouche Youth Movement, or, LaRouchites, I have a better tactic to engage them on their own grounds. Well, let’s dive into a few of the conspiracies that seem to follow LaRouche. The first is a theory that the British government is the mastermind behind world domination, Skull & Bones, the collapse of the Twin Towers, and the like. As you can tell from the graphic from his site, Britain is seen as the villain:

The "British" conspiracy

According to Chip Berlet and Dennis King, LaRouche has always been stridently anti-British and has included Queen Elizabeth II, the British Royal Family, and others, in his list of conspirators who are said to control the world's political economy and the international drug trade. In addition, "The Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism" (2004) names the British Fabian Society as a potential source of international conspiratorial authority, citing the membership of prominent British democratic socialists and social democrats, especially within the Labour Party and the British government.

LaRouche is known for alleging conspiracies by the British. This is based primarily on three books authored by members of his organization:

Dope, Inc. by David Goldman, Konstandinos Kalimtgis and Jeffrey Steinberg, 1978 (ISBN 0918388082): this book discusses the history of narcotics trafficking, beginning with the Opium War, and alleges that British interests continued to dominate the field up to the modern era, for example through money laundering in British offshore banking colonies. The heart of the conspiracy, according to LaRouche, is the financial elite of the City of London. In an interview, LaRouche asserted that of the Queen, "Of course she's pushing drugs…that is in the sense of a responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it is happening and she isn't stopping it."

The Civil War and the American System by Allen Salibury, 1979 (ISBN : 0918388023): alleges that British interests encouraged and financed the secession movement and supported the Confederacy against the Union in the American Civil War, because they preferred North America to be a primitive agrarian economy that they could dominate through policies of free trade.

The New Dark Ages Conspiracy by Carol White, 1980 (ISBN 093348805X): alleges that a group of British intellectuals led by Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells attempted to control scientific progress in order to keep the world backward and more easily managed by Imperialism. In this conspiracy theory, Wells wished Science to be controlled by some kind of priesthood and kept from the common man, while Russell wished to stifle it altogether by restricting it to a closed system of formal logic, that would prohibit the introduction of new ideas. This conspiracy also involved the promotion of the counterculture.

LaRouche publications have also frequently referred to a speech by Henry Kissinger made at Chatham House in 1982, as evidence for a theory that Kissinger was a British agent. In this speech, Kissinger said that he preferred the post-war policy of Churchill over that of FDR, and stated that "In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department."

An article published in 1998 by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard claimed that LaRouche had said the Queen was involved in the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. The LaRouche publication EIR responded that Evans-Pritchard's article was "pure fiction", written in response to author Jeff Steinberg's appearance on the British ITV television program about the Diana controversy. Steinberg, however, "refused to rule out" the possibility that Prince Philip had ordered an assassination of Diana.

In 1999, an article in the LaRouche-controlled Executive Intelligence Review accused senior advisers to the Royal family and MI6 of threatening to assassinate him, after a British women's magazine called Take a Break published an article about him entitled "Shut This Man's Mouth." On August 2, 1999, Debra Hanania-Freeman, national spokeswoman for LaRouche, issued the following statement about the alleged threat: "After consulting with security experts familiar with the modus operandi of British intelligence networks, we are treating the piece as a cover for an MI6 order, probably with direct backing from someone in the royal household, to assassinate Lyndon LaRouche…. The inflammatory article … reflects a growing hysteria around Buckingham Palace, over the growing global influence of LaRouche's ideas and his continuing exposé of the British oligarchy…

"We are also passing the information on to the White House so they can assess whether the article also constitutes a threat to the security of President Clinton."

His director of counterintelligence, Jeffrey Steinberg, has said that he "could not rule out" that Prince Philip was behind the death of Princess Diana.

Another conspiracy from the depths of LaRouches mind is the “Children of Satan” hypothesis.

Children of Satan

Beginning in 2003, LaRouche's presidential campaign committee distributed a series of pamphlets entitled "Children of Satan", which were later consolidated into a book by the same name. The pamphlets charged that there was a conspiracy dominated by what are called Straussians (followers of Leo Strauss) within the Bush administration, and that the dominant personality in this conspiracy was Dick Cheney. LaRouche claimed that these conspirators deliberately misled the American public and the US Congress in order to initiate the US invasion of Iraq. They claimed that the Straussians created the Office of Special Plans in order to fabricate intelligence and bypass traditional intelligence channels.

An important part of this theory was the LaRouchian analysis of the ideas of Leo Strauss, which borrowed heavily from the writings of Shadia Drury. Neoconservative commentators, led by Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, have condemned LaRouche's views on this subject, and worry that it may have influenced other commentators who subsequently published a similar analysis, such as Seymour Hersch and James Atlas of the New York Times. Bartley quotes the pamphlet's assertion that a "cabal of [Leo] Strauss disciples, along with an equally small circle of allied neo-conservative and Likudnik fellow-travelers" have plotted a "not-so-silent coup."

Alleging that "Mr. LaRouche has chosen an Aryan-nation phrase for Jews (descendants of Cain, who was the result of Satan seducing Eve, in this perfervid theology)," Bartley terms the "Children of Satan" title "overt anti-Semitism." He also suggests that the use of the terms "Straussian" and "Neo-conservative" may be coded anti-Semitism when used by LaRouche and other writers.

The Encyclopedia Judaica interprets the title "Children of Satan" to be a form of "masked anti-Semitism." An entry in the encyclopedia includes this passage: "A series of LaRouchite pamphlets calls the neoconservative movement the "Children of Satan," which links Jewish neo-conservatives to the historic rhetoric of the blood libel. In a twisted irony, the pamphlets imply the neoconservatives are the real neo-Nazis."

LaRouche also has paranoid schizophrenic thoughts of a grand-conspiracy not only against humanity, but against his personal well-being.

Conspiracies directed at himself

LaRouche has asserted that he is a target for assassination. He sued the City of New York in 1974, saying that CIA and British spies had brainwashed his associates into killing him. In leaflets supporting his application of concealed weapons permits for his bodyguards in Leesburg, Virginia, he wrote:

• "I have a major personal security problem…[Without the permits] the assassination teams of professional mercenaries now being trained in Canada and along the Mexico border may be expected to start arriving on the streets of Leesburg…If they come, there will be many people dead or mutilated within as short an interval as 60 seconds of fire."

According to the Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, LaRouche says he has been "threatened by Communists, Zionists, narcotics gangsters, the Rockefellers and international terrorists." LaRouche made a speech in 1983, stating that,

Since late 1973, I have been repeatedly the target of serious assassination threats and my wife has been three times the target of attempted assassination…My enemies are the circles of McGeorge Bundy, Henry Kissinger, Soviet President Yuri Andropov, W. Averell Harriman, certain powerful bankers, and the Socialist and Nazi Internationals, as well as international drug traffickers, Colonel Gadaffi, Ayatollah Khomaini and the Malthusian lobby."

Regarding LaRouche's paramilitary security force, armed with semi-automatic weapons, a spokesperson said that they were necessary because LaRouche was the subject of "assassination conspiracies". LaRouche testified 1986 that "I have been 'safe-housed' by friends and associates in many different places because of threats to my physical security". Later that same year his "heavily fortified" estate was surrounded by law enforcement officers during a search of his offices. While surrounded, LaRouche sent a telegraph to President Ronald Reagan saying that an attempt to arrest him "would be an attempt to kill me. I will not submit passively to such an arrest, but . . . I will defend myself." During the subsequent federal trial he was driven to court in an armored limousine, and a bodyguard accompanied him into the courtroom, while another guard stood outside the door. When convicted he predicted that he would be assassinated in prison. A cellmate, televangelist Jim Bakker, later wrote, "To say that Lyndon was slightly paranoid would be like saying the Titanic had a bit of a leak."

In his 1988 autobiography, LaRouche says the raid on his operation was the work of Raisa Gorbachev, whom he describes as outranking her husband Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev in the nomenklatura due to her leadership of the Soviet Cultural Fund. LaRouche asserted in 2004 that the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme was "used, and therefore probably intended, to set into motion an environment for what would later pass as a 'justified, retaliatory'" killing of LaRouche." In an interview the same year, he said that the Soviet Union opposed him because he invented the Strategic Defense Initiative. "The Soviet government hated me for it. Gorbachev also hated my guts and called for my assassination and imprisonment and so forth." LaRouche asserted that he has survived these threats because of protection by unnamed U.S. government officials. "Even when they don't like me, they consider me a national asset, and they don't like to have their national assets killed."

LaRouche has charged that much negative press coverage during the 1980s, as well as aspects of his trial, was orchestrated by powerful persons from outside the journalistic community. In particular he names John Train, who he says "took charge of key aspects of the propaganda and witness tampering." He also names Richard Mellon Scaife as a financier of the efforts against him. More recently, he has claimed that negative coverage in the British press was orchestrated by Baroness Elizabeth Symons.

I could go on, but you get the point. This guy has a loose screw or two! Those activists with the table in front of our store, then, aren’t all there in their critical thinking skills as well. Its people like these that think that either the CIA or MI6 were in those ski masks cutting off the heads of people in Iraq. Larouche in the video I posted with this blog mentions that he predicted the attack on New York before it happened. Give me a break. I have been into and out of the conspiracy movement for a long time, I know how these crack-pots think. One of the conspiracy writers I was heavily into was Gary Kah, in 1991 he published a book seen below:

I want the reader to see what type of predictions have been made about New York for years. And by the way, to predict that New York would be a place for an attack from terrorists isn’t a leap of faith, its a logical guess.

Click on image to enlarge

That is almost like predicting that Paris will be hit, Los Angeles, etc. You could fit many aspects of these cities, “once hit,” into the Revelation record. I am not here discounting the possibility that New York is the city mentioned in Revelation. What I am discounting is that this attack needs a grand-conspiracy guided by American, Jewish, or British hands (or any combination thereof). I am arguing even if parts of Revelation are meant for this event, that this event -- because it may be mentioned in Revelations -- can fit into eschatology just fine with actual Muslim extremists behind the attack led by a radical ideology and not “Cheney” or anyone or anything symbolizing what Cheney does to many. Understand?

Young or Old Earth? Debate in the SCV on the 14th

The Great DISCUSSION: Old Earth vs. New Earth!

Come hear from two top Christian thinkers, both adhering to a biblical creationist worldview, as they engage in a conversational discussion taking opposite views on the issue. Kenneth Samples, philosopher and professor with Reasons to Believe, will make an argument for an Old Earth view while John Mark Reynolds, founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute, will make an argument for a New Earth.

The event will be held on November 14th at 7-9pm, at Church on the Way - North Campus at 23415 Cinema Dr. Admission is $5 at the door but please RSVP to the school office at (661) 296-2601 or for more information.

Hillary Caught Spamming

Not the Only One

This is the biggest – in my book at least – Election 2008 blooper reel.

.

Armitage and Leaks

Plame Finally Quits the Game

Is the media FINALLY catching on? I have written on this as well as imported articles monstrously on this issue… and once again I am vindicated by the “horses mouth.” Watch Kimba’s of the world and weep!

Make sure you follow the tag below.

Ron Paul Endorsments

Ron Paul… the Grandest Wizard of Them All?

A co-worker told me about his adventure over at the Ron Paul website. The “Paulites” were all up in a bunch about David Duke supporting – officially? – Ron Paul and his run for the presidency. This info has unleashed a torrent of leads that many of the white-racist organizations are pushing for Ron Paul. An example is below. It comes from “Stormfront Radio,” a racist radio program.

A great blog on the matter can be found at Adam Holland’s Blogspot (props). He does a good job at connecting the dots, of which I will post a small portion of below:

The Lone Star Times has revealed that the Ron Paul campaign has received at least one contribution from neo-Nazi leader Don Black, who heads an internet-based group called Stormfront. (Read the Lone Star Times piece here)…

It seems that one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka "White Will"). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S. (for more on Williams' role in the National Alliance Pary see "Beyond A Dead Man’s Deeds: The National Alliance After William Pierce", page 7 [pdf], for general info on the National Alliance Party, read here) For those fortunate enough not to know, Pierce was the author of The Turner Diaries, the bible of American neo-Nazis and inspiration for this country's worst case of home-grown terrorism, the Oklahoma City bombing (read here)….

Other National Alliance Party leaders or former leaders are actively promoting the Ron Paul campaign on neo-Nazi websites. One such is Ron Doggett, currently of a group called Viginia EURO, a local branch of a national group started by David Duke (read here and here, photos here [CAUTION: Hate-group site])….

At any rate, this may be the death knell for Paulio!

Guy Owes Life to a Fire

A Miracle of Fire

Crazy true story.

The Honor of Islam... or Lack Thereof

Honor Killings/Suicides

What a riveting story of Islamo-Fascism.

Hanging? Jumping off large buildings? No one else is tying the nooses or pushing/throwing these girls off a building? Please. And only because of pressure by Europe it seems that Turkey is cracking down on this “ritual.”

Watch how political correctness, or the mere belief that Sharia Law isn't in their country plays out in this crime:

Nuts!

Marine Gets a Contract

Yes, Thank You

I am one of those 100,000’s sitting at home saying thank you not only to this hero, but the many other heroes that serve this country daily. THANK YOU! I posted this a while back, Lyrical marine -- HOoooraH, but below is a follow up… which will make the “thank yous” make more sense.

Moderate Muslim (Reform) Site -- YES!

Support - Pray

I may be late to the loop, but I would like to say – ABOUT TIME!! Moderate Muslim’s are a group that need support as well as prayer. They are targeted in other countries the same as infidels. Death, torture, dhimmitude often follows a moderate position on the Islamic faith in Muslim countries. Death threats aren’t too far behind these folks even here in the West.

Check out this site; add it to your blog roll. Below is just a taste of what they write:

Emerson, a Jew who gets it
A perspective of a moderate Muslim

At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I want to say this: either American Jews are completely clueless about the internal struggle inside Islam or they are so cowardly, that they are even afraid to voice their opinion. Or maybe it's a combination of both.

Every time there is a development that involves radical Islam, be it a Mayor of New York attending an Islamist parade, DOJ's officials attending an Islamist conference, or a protester being sued for having the balls to expose an Islamist-sponsored event at an amusement park, the American Jewish community is as quiet as a church mouse. It's like it is not even there.

The effect of this silence is devastating. Not for the Jewish community, not yet. That time is still to come. The silence affects the American Muslim community. Every time moderate Muslims are ignored and Islamists are legitimized (by either direct support from government representatives or silent support of the ADL), radicals gain ground. In the current PC climate, moderate Muslims have pretty much no choice but to keep their mouths shut.

Luckily for us, not everyone in the Jewish community is like that. There are some Jews that are speaking out. One of them is Steven Emerson, who has been warning the West about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism since before PanAm 103. Most of his current work is focused on exposing the radicals masquerading as the moderates – those radicals who are embraced by the DOJ and the Pentagon, by the mayor of New York Bloomberg (Rudy would never get into bed with terrorist supporters) and the Treasury Department, by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, by the Congress and the White House.

There is a war of ideas within Islam, and moderate Muslims are losing. Most of Muslim clergy and Muslim establishment are paid for by the Wahhabis. Moderate Muslims are being run out of Mosques and community centers, and in many cases are physically threatened. Moderate Muslims have no place in the media or public debate, because the place reserved for Muslims is filled by Islamic radicals, who attempt to make criticizing anything Islamic a taboo. According to the Islamists, a Muslim can do no wrong.

1. When a non-Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslims, he/she is an Islamophobe.
2. When a Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslim, he/she is not a real Muslim, therefore see #1.

This is a tactic used by "moderate" Muslims, the darlings of the government and the media. But how can you call someone who praises bin Laden, or has ties to Hamas, or calls for the elimination of Israel, or wants to replace the Constitution with the Koran a moderate? They are anything but moderates, however nobody except for a few people like Steven Emerson seems to notice that. But even when the Emersons of America appeal to the public, they are often being dismissed as alarmists and racists. Well, they are anything, but. You don't have to be a clairvoyant to predict the future when it comes to expansion of radical Islam and extinction of moderate Muslims. All you need to do is get your heads out of the sand.

Why our government is so forgiving and forgetful when it comes to individuals or organizations with known terrorist ties and anti-American views is beyond me. Why the Jewish leaders are so timid when it comes to the subject of radical Islam is incomprehensible.

I thank God every day for people like Steven Emerson, because they are the last glimmer of hope for moderate Muslims.

K.M.

Doing What Comes Natural

God Bless the Troops and Their Cause

Islamo-Fascism Week Re-Dux

Islamo-Fascism Week

This is a decent commentary and interview David Horowitz. Who was a leader once in the “peace movement” of the 60’s. Colmes makes an ass out of himself.

Glenn Beck

Hannity & Colmes

John Gibson

.