The
pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual
liberty
"There is but one straight
course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Horowitz: Benghazi Was The Most “Un-American Act By An
American President”
If you have been
confused about Islam and its role in on the world stage AND its role in the
U.S. this is a must watch. Watch here
~~~~~~
Obama, Martin Luther King’s Worst Nightmare
Obama and the
Democrats have ruined the dream of Martin Luther King. Watch
~~~~~~
Rush Limbaugh Mocks 'Brainiac' GOP Consultants over Pat
Caddell's CPAC Rant
On Friday,
conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh praised Pat Caddell, the frustrated
Democrat who has often spoken out against the political establishment, for his
thunderous speech at CPAC on Thursday condemning the Republican consultant
class. Caddell
accused GOP consultants of caring more about money than winning elections or
principles and engaging in acts that could border on racketeering. Limbaugh
said Caddell "launched both barrels at CPAC" and let the Republican
consultant class "have it" while blowing "the lid off of
CPAC" with what Limbaugh described was a message that "The Republican consultant class is taking the party
down the tubes, that they're making filthy amounts of money--$150 million a
campaign--whether the candidate wins or loses." Listen!
~~~~~~
When The Political Class Speaks:
The most successful tempters and thus the most dangerous are the deluded Deluders
-Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
~~~~~~
Harvard Studies the Tea Party Todd Cefaratti
A recent Harvard
study entitled, “Do Protests Matter?
Evidence from the Tea Party Movement,” examined the effect that protest has on
political change. The study found that, “[P]rotests can build political
movements that ultimately affect policymaking, and that these effects arise
from influencing political views rather than solely through the revelation of
existing political preferences.” The study was conducted by a team of
researchers from around the world.
For all the talk on the left about how the Tea Party has
splintered conservatives and been a drag on the Republican brand, the Harvard
researchers discovered the opposite. Amongst the
conclusions derived from the exhaustive study, the report found that the Tea Party protests in 2009,
“[I]ncreased turnout in favor of the Republican Party in the subsequent
congressional elections and increased the likelihood that incumbent Democratic
representatives decided to retire prior to the elections.”
The study continued, “Incumbent policymaking was also
affected, as representatives responded to large protests in their district by
voting more conservatively in Congress. In addition, we
provide evidence that these effects were driven by a persistent increase in the
movement’s strength.” Most stunning,
Harvard found that the Tea Party protests had a significant multiplier effects:
for every protester, Republican votes increased by seven to fourteen votes.
It’s easy to
get discouraged when you work in politics. Writers, politicians,
organizers- ask them and if they’re being truthful they will tell you that
while most of the time they get out of bed, encouraged by the prospects of a
new day, sometimes
it can be tough to see one piece of bad news after another scrawled out on the
web or in the morning newspaper. I often feel the same way. It can demoralize
for a moment; but after a brief sigh, I think back on the ground the Tea Party
and our push for conservative principles has covered.
The Tea Party
Movement has matured. It began, as the original Tea Party in the Boston harbor did,
with an idea- a collusion of patriots voicing their contempt for a government
that no longer seems to listen to the people. We waved flags and we spoke of
concepts that were important to us but, shamefully, punch-lines to the liberal elite
who found our admiration for concepts such as “freedom,” “liberty,” "independence,”
and “self-reliance” archaic and obsolete. We kept on and that unsubtle eye-rolling and gest from the left turned
to legitimate fear and as our movement took hold in Congress and in state
governments, the smirks and laughter stopped. The smears began.
In liberals’ eyes, our movement had graduated from a minor annoyance to a
dangerous purveyor of a counter to their leftist narrative that big government
was the answer. The Harvard study now
confirms that their fear was well-founded. We do not, necessarily, identify
with the Republican Party; we advance conservative ideas and it happens that
conservatives are more likely to be found within the Republican Party rather
than the Democratic Party. The study
offered the conclusion that it is not merely the spreading of relevant
information at rallies that increases the effect on policymaking, but that the
network of interactions can spur on a feeling of political efficacy.
In short: getting together with fellow patriots to demand
change can provide a realization that despite what the leftist media might say,
we are not alone in our beliefs that government has gotten too big and too
unaccountable to the citizens. The
release of this study comes at around the same time as the release of a poll
recently conducted by NSON that found that out of 500 American
respondents, 47.8% identified with Tea Party principles while only 20.6%
identified with progressive principles and 22.8% identified “neither.” When
we examine the apparent popularity of our message mixed with the effectiveness
of our protests, it
appears that the relentless smear campaign and cheap-shots aimed at the Tea
Party from the left serve to try and undermine a very real threat to the left’s
social and economic agendas. We all get
discouraged from time to time; but it is the relentless pursuit of government
that respects the rights of the people that keeps us going. With strength in
numbers and the knowledge that our calls for freedom are having an effect, we
are taking back America piece by piece. Never give
up or quite, not matter what. Find
others like you and join them by getting into action to preserve this great Nation!
~~~~~~
Did Crocodiles Dine on Dinosaurs? By
R. L. David Jolly
According to
evolutionary theory, crocodiles first evolved about 240 million years
ago. Dinosaurs first evolved around 230 million years ago. Over the
next 165 million years, dinosaurs experienced a fair amount of evolutionary
changes, while crocodilians, on the other hand, experienced relatively little
evolutionary changes. When the supposed asteroid struck earth some 65
million years ago, the dinosaurs were wiped out and the crocodilians survived
virtually unchanged.
Based upon this
basic myth, evolutionists try to piece together a past that never
happened. They take good scientific facts and then plug them into their
flawed evolutionary program, which then spits out interpretations that are no
better than those of a gypsy fortune teller. For instance, a recent report from
researchers at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, that looked at
the possibility of crocodilian predation on young dinosaurs. A number of
predators and scavengers leave teeth marks in the bones of their prey. In
many instances, those teeth marks can be identified, letting the researchers
know what animal either killed or scavenged on the animals belonging to the
bones. The South Dakota researchers used that information to examine dinosaur
bones that were unearthed at the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in
southern Utah. On the thigh bone of a small herbivorous dinosaur known as a
hypsilophodontid, the researchers discovered a small conical tooth actually
embedded in the bone. The tooth
measured less than 0.1 inch in diameter. It matched the teeth of a small
crocodilian found in the same strata. They determined that the dinosaur only
weighed about 28-46 pounds and the crocodilian measured between 3-6 feet
long. Clint Boyd, a vertebrate paleontologist at the South Dakota School
of Mines and Technology commented about the findings, saying:
“I
was very surprised to find such clear feeding traces on such small bones.
It shows the importance of carefully evaluating all the fossils collected from
an area, and not assuming that some fossils won’t be important just because
they are very small or not completely preserve. Usually people tend to focus on
the dangers that big, adult dinosaurs were having to deal with, but this study
shows that even though dinosaurs were the dominant animals during the
Cretaceous, they still had to worry about predators as soon as they were born.”
Good evidence and
good science conducted on the bones. The
problem is that they dated the bones to around 75 million years ago during the
Cretaceous. They also refer to the crocodilian as an ancestor to modern
crocodilians.
So often, I’ve seen
good science ruined by erroneously trying to plug it into the evolutionary
paradigm that may be accepted as fact today and changed tomorrow. On the other
hand, I interpreted the evidence as having taken place during the flood.
I view the Cretaceous not as an ancient time period but as an ecological zone
that was created as the Genesis flood rose and covered different habitats.
The dinosaurs and crocodilian occupied the same ecological life zone which was
subsequently covered up at one point during the flood. Prior to the
flood, the crocodilian fed or predated upon the small dinosaur and evidence was
preserved by the rapid siltation of the Flood.
Same evidence and same science, different interpretation based upon a
biblical foundation instead a godless evolutionary foundation.
~~~~~~
Rocks,
Fossils, and Dinosaurs
It is interesting to note that absolutely no transitional
forms have been found in the fossil record connecting any of the major groups
of living creatures before or since Darwin for which peer reviewed support can
be offered. Most fossils appear very similar to their living counterpart. It is as if they were created yesterday. Rocks, Fossils and
Dinosaurs is a fresh look at this age-old controversy, written in a
nontechnical way. “Dr. Tom Sharp has
captured a mighty evidence for creation and he has accomplished this task in a
highly readable fashion. The fossil record emphatically does not provide
support for evolution, but instead points to creation – not very long ago, and
by a Designer like the One we read of in Scripture. Students confronted with aggressive evolutionary claims would greatly
benefit from reading this book. ” Dr. John Morris, President of the Institute
for Creation Research.
~~~~~~
God Particle is Really God’s Particle by
Gary DeMar
Physicists say they
may have found the so-called God Particle that they claim made stars, planets,
and eventually humans. The Higgs Boson
particle and field is named for British physicist Peter Higgs “who predicted
their existence 50 years ago.” Here’s my
question: “What is the source of the Higgs Boson particle and field?” More
fundamental is this question: “Where did the necessary organized information
come from that guided the evolution of everything evolutionists claim evolved
from it?”
It’s not enough to
have matter and space; you’ve got to have intelligent matter to make it work.
Not only is the alphabet necessary, but there needs to be an intelligence to
organize the letters to make words and sentences that communicate something.
Not even a trillion God Particles typing for 13.7 billion years on a million
cosmic typewriters will ever get us the works of Shakespeare.
Start
with nothing . . . absolutely nothing. No air. No matter . . . not even
an atom. No energy. No space. No thought. No time. Just a long dead silence.
This is the evolutionist’s reality before the dawn of something becoming
everything. At some infinitesimal moment in time all the stuff that makes up
our world came into being.
Even the discovery of the Higgs Boson God Particle can’t
save the evolutionary theorists since it’s something rather than nothing.
How did the Particle get here? Why does it act the way it does?
In 2010, the
darling of everything materialistic, Stephen W. Hawking, argued that the laws
of physics allow for the universe to have created itself . . . from nothing. In his book, The Grand Design,
Hawking states:
“Because
there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from
nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than
nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”
The
first thing a budding scientist learns is that spontaneous generation does not
happen. That’s like third-grade science stuff.
Hawking is theorizing. But because he is a
noted scientist whose speculations fit what atheists want and need to believe
in order to make their theoretical worldview work, many people are willing to believe him over against what they know to
be true in everyday life. “Stephen Hawking said it; I believe him; that settles
it.”
The religious
component is evident when you listen carefully to the high priests of the
system. Stanley Fish observed something remarkable in the way Richard Dawkins
explained how scientists do science:
“[W]hen
we accept the conclusions of scientific investigation we necessarily do so on
trust (how many of us have done or could replicate the experiments?) and are
thus not so different from religious believers, Dawkins and [Steven] Pinker[
asserted that the trust we place in scientific researchers, as opposed to
religious pronouncements, has been earned by their record of achievement and by
the public rigor of their procedures. In short, our
trust is justified, theirs is blind.”
It was at this
point that Dawkins said something that’s not often admitted publicly. “[I]n the
arena of science you can invoke Professor So-and-So’s study published in 2008,
‘you can actually cite chapter and verse." An odd choice of
words: “chapter and verse.” Scientism is
a religion with its own inspired books and scientific authorities.
It
doesn’t matter if there isn’t any empirical science behind anything what
Hawking says on the subject, as long as they hear him say, via a voice
synthesizer designed and created by someone, “I think Science can explain the
Universe without the need for God.” Even some liberals
aren’t buying what Stephen is hawking:
“In
saying this, Hawking doesn’t speak like a scientist: he speaks like a
(speculative) philosopher. . . . To say that [the
universe created itself] spontaneously is not an answer: it’s an excuse for an
answer. When Hawking says that the spontaneous self-creation of the
universe “out of nothing” is evidence that a creator was not involved, he is
not speaking as a scientist. He is not making a scientific statement. His statement is pure theology — of the negative kind
typical of atheists.
Higgs Boson isn’t “The God Particle”; it’s God’s particle
that can’t do anything on its own.
~~~~~~
Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Want You to Know About
Pregnancy Resource Centers
Planned Parenthood
certainly blusters a lot about helping women in need, but the truth is they
make an awful lot of money off the grisly business of abortions. Their most
recent annual report shows nearly $1 billion in assets and $997 million in
revenues distributed to their local affiliates, plus another $177 million in
revenues to the national office. By
conservative estimates, abortions constitute 37% of Planned Parenthood’s
revenues. Fair enough, I suppose, but isn’t it a little disturbing to think they
have a business model (and a profit motive) that requires getting women onto
the abortion tables with their feet in the stirrups?
~~~~~~
"In the first
place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged
with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is
limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the
republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of
any."
--James Madison,
Federalist Paper XIV, 1787
~~~~~~~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment