AJ's Blog | Theology, Politics, Culture

God's Not Dead

2012-01-12T20:05:00.000-08:00

If an atheist simply surrendered himself to God, humbly, in faith, he too would have God roaring on the inside. Believe it or not.

Drive-Thru Politics

2012-01-05T11:55:00.000-08:00

It's amazing how much has happened since the Iowa caucuses two nights ago. Santorum lost by eight votes after some mishap (probably people cheating for moderate Romney). It didn't matter though. Santorum won in essence. He's raised millions in the last 24 hours.

Newt came in fourth after Paul who doesn't count. Perry is apparently in, and Bachmann is out.

What does all this mean?

Newt is mad at Romney, and the gloves are on. Newt doesn't want Romney to win. I think his motives are pure. I don't think Newt would mind if he lost to Santorum. But he would mind if moderate Romney won because there is no way in a million years Romney could beat Obama because Romney isn't going to swing the evangelical and republican vote. The republican base isn't going to come out and vote for him; and the church, which is a huge force in this country despite what the media says, won't come out either. (Almost exactly like McCain, who, as it so happens, has just endorsed Romney).

Meanwhile, Santorum has raised millions and has lurched in the polls. Meanwhile, Bachmann's support is going to spread to Newt, Santorum, and Perry. I have no idea what's going to happen. But I can't wait to find out.

Next, Cain announced a 9-9-9 bus tour. I'm wondering how this will affect the race, if at all. Moreover, to be honest, it doesn't seem like the greatest plan. A federal sales tax seems a little dangerous and unitarian. The states need the sales tax so they don't have to collect federal money to pay the bills. At least that's how it's supposed to be.

Perry's twenty percent flat tax is the best plan--with state and local tax deductions. It's also Biblical and precedented to work. (Remember Joseph). Santorum has a good tax plan as well. Newt has already proved he would do a good job with a record of five balanced budgets and welfare reform, among other things. All in all, these three candidates, despite what even Fox says, would do great. And they can beat Obama. Because they ARE CONSERVATIVE.

Oh, and Obama has pulled yet another extra-Constitutional scheme. But why should any of us be surprised? How can we beat him? Elect a conservative in the primaries. Obama will be beat in 2012 as long as people are constantly reminded of everything he's done (and not done) in the last four years.

Stay tuned.

That's Politics

2012-01-03T16:08:00.000-08:00

Six months ago Sarah Palin was teasing a run. Later, despite what Chris Christie says, he teased a run. It took some time, but the Presidential race-field got set, including Johnson, Huntsman, and the then-popular Perry, and Herman Cain. Pawlenty was already out by this point.

But there was no not-Romney. Evangelicals fervently searched for a not-Romney, and they found Perry. Then he gaffed time and again. Perry's support jumped to Cain. And then the media tore him apart (the machine). Cain's support jumped to Newt. Immediately, Romney ran tons of ads against Newt (ahem… his superpac), and now Newt is down in the polls in Iowa.

By this time, Bachmann was abducted by aliens. She'd originally won the Iowa Straw Poll, but has since plummeted to no man's (ahem… woman's) land.

Moving on, the Tea Party couldn't find anyone to endorse. Ron Paul, though he's anti-war and racist (among other things) got support in Iowa because of a good debate performance. Yes, performance. He's a joke.

From what I've read, this race has seen the most fluctuation in a primary since Rockefeller, Nixon, and Goldwater. What's going to happen today? I have no idea. What's going to happen after today? I have no idea.

Conclusion: No one has any idea.

Second Conclusion: Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, or Bachmann would be great Presidents. Romney, Paul, and Huntsman--not so much.

180 Movie (Ray Comfort)

2011-11-30T10:51:00.001-08:00

Have you seen 180 movie yet? A powerful documentary that just may change your mind about abortion. Enjoy. And think.

Newsboys

2011-11-30T10:49:00.000-08:00

I saw Newsboys for the second time. This time, Michael Tait was lead singer. Still awesome!

GOP Candidates

2011-10-07T10:26:00.000-07:00

Now that the field seems to be mostly set, I have a few thoughts.

Firstly, I'm broken by the fact that Sarah Palin isn't running. I can live with Chris Christie not running because, from what I can gather, he's a social moderate. Though his initiative to fix New Jersey's fiscal problem's is compelling.

And he's obviously better than Obama.

Since Palin isn't an option, I'd have to go with Cain. Herman Cain is strong on all conservative issues. He isn't a politician. He's happy, easy-going, clear. Stark difference from most of the other candidates.

- Newt has a bad personal history, so I'd have a hard time backing him....
- Romney seems to moderate to me, though he denies that.
- Bachmann would be great if she could get her poll numbers up, which seems kind of unlikely.
- Perry needs to articulate his answers better, but otherwise, I think he's great.
- Sanctorum is, as Herman Cain put it, "stressed." Some of the stuff he said in the Google debate scared me though. The education stuff.
- Johnson is going to balance the budget. I'm laughing because he said that every time he was asked a question. They asked him about education, and he said, "We need to balance the budget..." He's definitely smart, though. After all, he listens to Rush Limbaugh; he even used one of Rush's jokes in the debate. In Gary's defense, he later tweeted that he did get the joke from Rush's show.
- Huntsman--no way.
- Paul--no way.

That covers most of the candidates.

It's definitely going to be an exciting election. The primary, though I'd rather just get through it to the main event, will be critical to the main event. Obama's approval rating is slipping, but the man is clever, silver-tongued, and scary. He does a good job at swinging the poor vote (you know, promising to give poor people all the rich people's money).

Thus, if we don't have a strong fiscal and social conservative I don't think we can beat Obama. Which is why I like Herman Cain. Or Bachmann.

All this is why the primaries will be exciting. I can't wait. And until then, you know I'll be praying...

Palin and Rice

2011-09-15T22:26:00.000-07:00

Seriously?

It would take a sufficiently talented idiot to believe that rumor.

Unfortunately, democrats do exist.

Palin in Iowa

2011-08-20T14:34:00.001-07:00

Astronauts and Asteroids

2011-08-02T16:04:00.000-07:00

Say that five times fast.

I just read an article in the news about NASA considering sending astronauts to an asteroid. The old-school astronauts say it would be more beneficial to go to the moon again. Maybe. An asteroid mission seems pretty daring to me.

One of the main lines of the article (I can't remember the wording exactly) said we may learn something important that can protect us from asteroids later. Maybe. It continued to say something about us doing better than the dinosaurs.

I can see the conference now: A broad-shouldered man in a blue suit, front pockets shining from hard-earned flashy medals, is walking alongside a long table and says, "Men, we are sending you to an asteroid. You may die. You may never see your families again. But we might learn something important. Something that might save humankind. Men, we are going to outsmart the dino's."

That's right. Barney is going down.

Okay, you're right, that was dumb. But the point is whoever wrote that article might want to research his dinosaur history. Because evolutionists have no clue what happened to the dinosaurs. Asteroids? Please. A kindergartner probably came up with that one.

Another Update...

2011-07-17T15:21:00.001-07:00

Wow, I forgot to post on 4th of July. Hey, at least I tweeted. This summer was much busier than I ever expected it to be. Just finished a week of VBS, in which I helped out with tech stuff. And you know something weird; it was my first VBS, which is surprising considering I've grown up in church and been a pastor's son for most of my life.

Anyway, I should get posts up sooner than later. Things in the world are quite exciting... and depressing. But in my corner of the world, exciting.

More later....

Sarah Palin Emails

2011-06-10T19:13:00.000-07:00

So they came out today. Or was it yesterday? I personally don't have time to sift through 24,000 emails, fortunately many liberals are doing and have done exactly that. I'm sure the ones that are are getting paid, too.

Anyway, now that they've done the work...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56705.html

Conclusion of the emails -- Palin was a dedicated, hard-working governor.

O'Reilly, NBC, and Palin

2011-06-09T19:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.billoreilly.com/b/NBC-Nightly-News-addresses-Palins-Paul-Revere-gaffe-three-nights-in-a-row/280274578091338194.html

O'Reilly points out some great facts in the article above. For example, why is Palin's comment on Paul Revere's ride such a big deal to NBC who reported it three days in a row even though she's a non-candidate. Especially considering the fact that they didn't cover any of Obama's flubs when he was a candidate. That's liberal bias. He also points out that they haven't pointed out in the last three days what historical flub she's made.

Also, it bugs me that the Palin quote never has any punctuation. It does sound like a rambling jumble of clauses because without punctuation that's what it is. Since when are quotes not punctuated? (When the liberal media wants to make a force that can beat Obama look dumb). There're no commas around the "uh's" if you read the liberal news articles. And there are no commas between the independent clauses.

People naturally speak very sloppily. In novel writing, people (even critical reviewers) who don't know what they're talking about say that you should make dialogue real, like, how people speak. But writers will tell you that's not true. Readers would get bored to death if novel dialogue was sloppy, repetitive, and wordy. Writers have to write snappy dialogue that gives the illusion of actual conversation while keeping the story moving and driving toward the climax. In fact, in screenwriting there's a rule of thumb to try to keep character's dialogue to 4 lines. And I'm not talking 4 lines on, say, Word. I'm talking 4 lines on Final Draft, which are very short lines.

The point is this. Often times, when the media quotes people, they summarize the quote, edit the quote, make it understandable. Sarah Palin answered the question kind of sloppily. Can't blame her for that. This is all she really was saying:

He... warned the British that they weren't going to take away our arms. He warned them by ringing those bells, riding his horse through town, and sending those warning shots. He was saying, hey, we are going to be secure, and we are going to be free.

So, you might ask, why do us conservatives get mad when Obama makes mistakes? Well, his mistakes speak very bad of his character. Like, when he said he was going to win the 56 states. Or addressing a man in the military by the wrong title. Or making mistakes with the Queen of England though he bows to the Saudi King.

That's not even the important stuff, like the seven times he misquoted the Declaration, leaving "Creator" out. Or the fact that he wants to give our missile defense secrets to Russia. Or the fact that he doesn't like America. Or the fact that he sat under a racist preacher for over 20 years. Or the fact that he listened to a racist pastor with his family on Easter Sunday. Or the fact that he didn't release an official Easter statement. Or the fact that he doesn't have a birth certificate (an original). Or the fact that he snubbed the Boy Scouts. Or even the first baseball pitch, for that matter.

And those are just a few of Obama's atrocities against America. And those were just a few of the ones off the top of my head.

Palin Exploiting Park Services?

2011-06-08T18:40:00.000-07:00

The Palin bashers have found something new against her. Unfortunately it's not something like an association with a terrorist (like Obama and Ayers), or the pushing through of an unconstitutional bill (health care), or misquoting the Declaration 7 times, or not having an original birth certificate.

But it is something. You can tell they're desperate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20069807-503544.html

They are also liars. Sarah Palin got a private tour at Mount Vernon, big whoop. I was just there and, FYI, Mount Vernon is privately maintained by the Ladies Association. No tax dollars. That's what they advertise on the pamphlets when you first walk in.

While Sarah Palin says "uh" three times, goes on private tours (like anyone with money is entitled too), and makes sure security is tight, Obama wants to rewrite the Constitution and make America a socialist nation. While Palin is going around flaunting America's greatness, Obama says things like medicare and medicaid made America great. And so on...

While Sarah Palin is going on a bus tour, democrat rep Weiner is lying and doing things I'd rather not even mention; at the same time, John Edwards (dem) is on trial for using campaign funds to cover up an affair he had during his campaign against Bush.

But all that stuff is okay. Let's pick on Palin instead; after all, she only loves America and wants what is best for it. She only brilliantly fought Big Oil. She only believes in free enterprise and the Constitution.

Fortunately, though, the Palin story never really stuck. Though the media continually blasts her, she is the leading contender in the GOP primary. For the last few months the media has lied and said she was at the bottom in the polls. But that isn't true. Now they're saying she can't beat Obama.

I wouldn't be so quick to believe that.

Conservatives against Palin - Example 1

2011-06-02T13:39:00.000-07:00

There are so many people against Sarah Palin it's incredible. Conservatives and liberals.

There are a lot of people for her, though, don't forget that.

It seems to me, though, that people don't have any good reasons for being against her. Liberals are against her because of her policy and traditional values, ect... That doesn't make sense because liberals don't make sense. But conservatives are against her, and that makes even less sense.

So every once in a while I'm going to post things people have said against her that have no grounding, and are only said against her from that person's personal opinion and not from fact. There're many reasons people (conservatives) don't like her and among these are jealousy, the decision to dislike a fellow conservative because that's cool (old and young people fall prey to this believe it or not), dislike of her voice, speech, or use of jargon, dislike of her upbringing in Alaska, dislike of her family, and things of this like. Most people won't admit this, however, but it is very, very evident.

The majority of these people haven't read her autobiography. They don't know anything about her, and yet they make judgements. I'm not one to quote the "judge not lest you be judged" verse very often, but I think it would apply in this situation. There is not one credible reason for a conservative to dislike her, and I'm going to prove it. By showing you lame things said against her that most people automatically believe and give no thought whatsoever, because they want to believe it (many reasons for this, some listed above).

One small example of this is how conservatives bash her for picking on liberals all the time. First, she doesn't pick on people that much. I wish she did more. Up until now, Palin's FB posts were few and far between. Second, the people who make this statement violate their own criteria. If that's why they dislike Palin, they should dislike themselves. I don't understand how you can bash on someone for bashing on others??? Judge not lest you be judged.

Here's the first of many examples. This comes from a news article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/palin-rewrites-the-rules-but-is-that-enough/2011/05/31/AG0KMYFH_story_1.html

The man quoted below is a GOP strategist. Here goes.

“She just repeats what Republicans already believe, in an emotional and energetic way, true,” Castellanos said in an e-mail message. “But when she leaves, republican voters are left right where they were standing when she entered the room. She doesn’t take us anywhere. Until she does, her stature will continue to diminish, not because she is not running, but because she is not leading.”

This is a great example. If you ask someone why they don't like Palin, these are the kind of examples they come up with. Nothing on policy or traditional values. No, hers are too dead on. Nothing on past bad decisions, she hasn't made many, she's mostly done what's best for the country.

Instead, the reason is something against her... speaking?

Yes, folks, against her speaking. The same old mantra repeated in an emotional way. She doesn't take us anywhere. She's not a leader.

Most people who read this quote can't think for themselves. They're too tied up in themselves to be critical enough to see the ignorance of the quote.

Think back to all the great leaders of the past. Did they lead simply by coming up with new material? Absolutely not. They used the same old material (there is nothing new under the sun) and applied it! That's what makes a leader. Someone who, by definition, leads. They take old principles that work, that have been demonstrated to work, and make them work. George Washington did it, all the other founding father's did it, Reagan did it. What, after all, made George Washington one of the greatest leaders of all time? He had principles and he applied them. Did he invent new material and take people to new places? Not at all. He simply trusted God, and led. How about Winston Churchill? One time at a speaking engagement the only thing he said was "never give up." Then left. But no one can deny he was a good leader. He left the people in the same room without anything new. But they were inspired. They were passionate. They were roused to fight off the evil attacking their country.

Moreover, Obama is viewed as such a great leader--does he invent new material and take us to new places? No, it's the same old liberal ideas that don't work, delivered in the same old boring way. Give women a choice. Feed the starving children. Spread the wealth around.

I hope you can see the folly of this strategists comment. It would be best if he stopped talking to the press and started strategizing. And as for the rest of the Republican party, it would be best if they stopped griping against Palin for baseless reasons like the one above. (I know people who don't like her just because the media doesn't. Of course, they word it differently than this. But, still, that's what all these reasons are: dumb)

More examples to come.

Welcome to my World

2011-05-31T23:57:00.000-07:00

Just like the next person, I am plenty interested in pop culture, and culture in general. Unlike many, I am interested because I love seeing Christian songs, books, movies and the like rise above all the other stuff. Which is one of the many reasons I love the Narnias--it's great to see works like that flourish and become the biggest books and movies in history. I also enjoy seeing decent family movies and such.

So for this post I will welcome you to my world. Here are just a few things--apart from my personal life--that excite me.

Definitely at the top of the list would be politics. The conservative revolution. Finally, people realizing what makes sense. You know that feeling when you're trying to teach someone something, and they just don't get it, and you feel like you're getting nowhere until all of the sudden--bam!--they get it. It's kind of like that. Atheists (a minority) and secularists with agendas (ACLU) who have a lot of spending money cast long shadows. Liberal political commentators cast long shadows. Late-night TV comedians cast long shadows. But that doesn't change the fact that there has been a conservative revolution. Common sense, easy-to-understand, historically demonstrated truths are finally being understood. This makes me very happy. Of course, we'll see how long this revolution lasts. History has shown people to be fickle. It's as if the American people only need to hear a Mark Antony and they're far left again. But we'll see. Anyway, the current change over as demonstrated in the last congressional election has made me happy.

More recently, all the strong and passionate conservatives running (possibly) for President. I like most of them. But especially Palin. And if not her Bachmann. And if not her, perhaps Pawlenty. It seems like we can't lose. And as long as a strong conservative, and not a moderate, takes home the primary victory, I'll be excited. I'll also be excited because I get to vote in the next election.

In the world of books, I can't wait for Ray Comfort's new Hitler book. I haven't seen any other nonfiction books that I want. I already have a lot of those to read. But a new Ted Dekker book is coming out, and I've recently become a huge fan of his books; I've read most of them. http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Books-Mortals-Ted-Dekker/dp/1599953544/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306908958&sr=8-1

Also, recently his book "The Priest's Graveyard" came out and hit #8 on the New York Times bestseller list. http://www.amazon.com/Priests-Graveyard-Ted-Dekker/dp/159995334X/ref=pd_sim_b_1 It isn't a Christian book, particularly, but he is a Christian. Most of his previous books have been Christian, however, and his new ones are very clean though they aren't quite as didactic. Still, his influence is reaching new audiences and that is something that makes me happy. Here's a review from the New Yorker in an article entitled, "Fiction That Sells." http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2011/05/fiction-that-sells-another-world-1.html

Another novel is coming out near the end of this year or early next year, I'm not sure which, from Frank Peretti, my favorite Christian novelist whose novels have sold more than 15 million. Incredible and powerful stories. Here's his site: http://frankperetti.com/ I can't wait for his new book.

Then, of course, there is Kirk Cameron and the movie on America that he is working on. Monumental projects also make me happy. http://www.monumentalmovie.com/ On a slightly different note, Growing Pains season 2 came out. It's great.

Next thing in my world that excites me: New movie from creators of Fireproof coming to theaters in September. They always do a great job. Their movies are well filmed, and the stories are powerful without being preachy. At least, that's my opinion. Check out the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/courageousthemovie It has over 100,000 views so far.

USA Today on "Courageous"

On a lesser note, Kung Fu Panda 2 was a great movie. I'm sure kids and adults will like it. And those of us in between. Pirates 4 was okay, but not even close to the first one. Sad.

There is also Narnia. The new one is out on DVD, and I've already watched it several more times (I watched it four times in the theaters). Walden and Fox are working out what Narnia to make next, and I'm excited no matter there decision. Walden has done a great job thus far. "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" was one of the most profiting and game-changing movies in movie history, cashing in at $745 million dollars. Merchandise and DVD sales have brought that number past a billion. Isn't that exciting?!!

And last but not least, Ray Comfort. He's up to something, as most of you probably know. I can't wait to find out what it is. I'm also excited for his abortion/Hitler project and book (as I've said). (That's probably what he's up to).

There is so much more I can divulge into that excites me in the world of culture. So many bad things flourish; but so do many good things. It's those things I set my focus on. That's my world.

Maybe I'll let you know what I'm personally up to. Another time, though. It's very exciting. Life is an incredible blessing.

South Park Conservative Show?

2011-05-31T23:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=305553

Wow, I don't and wouldn't watch South Park, but it apparently takes a lot of potshots at liberals. Who knows what good it's doing, though, it certainly didn't help any of my friends in middle school who relayed every episode to me in vulgar detail. Which is why I won't watch it.

Anyway, the article also says the Cosby Show is very conservative. That's not news to me. Bill Cosby is conservative. The article also states that Hollywood has a left bias and agenda. That's not news to me either. There are some good developments in Hollywood as of recent, however. I'll go into this further another time.

Is the Birther Issue Dead?

2011-05-28T13:30:00.000-07:00

I don't think so.

[1]Especially when a new book called, "Where's the Birth Certificate," hits the New York Times bestseller list at no. 6. A month before release it was #1 at Amazon. And it has hit many other bestseller lists.

Interestingly, the book was released after the materialization (almost literally) of the long-form birth certificate. You know, if Obama really was born in the US, why not just get it over with and show the original certificate? The one that I and every other American citizen has.

1 - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=304117

Abandon Sarah Palin?

2011-05-27T16:32:00.001-07:00

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052711/content/01125111.guest.html

An Interesting Email

2011-05-20T09:51:00.000-07:00

I get a lot of emails on my Youtube. Most of the time I don't read these things, but this one caught my attention. Here are just a few excerpts. And when I say a few, I mean it. (The email was long).

Evolution is faaaact!

God cannot be proven physically therefore He doesn't exist.

Christians are gullible fools who believe anything they're told by manipulative, money-hungry men and women.

Christianity is man-made religion.

There are no absolutes, except that there are no absolutes.

Truth is relative and, like the morality of Right and Wrong, depends on your environment and situation...unless someone has wronged us, then EVERYBODY knows they deserve to pay!

There are a thousand and one contradictions in it [Bible], and no, two or three or more absolute truths can't co-exist (which would cancel out all such apparent contradictions) because, as we've already said, Truth is relative and NOT absolute.

I think he destroys himself when he says there are no absolutes "except that there are no absolutes." It almost seems like a clever response to the usual "are you absolutely sure" comeback. But there's no room for humor in truth. And by that I mean this: no matter how witty, clever, or progressive something is; whether it's broadcast from SNL, The View, or even Rush Limbaugh; its truth or falsity doesn't change. Repackaged garbage is still garbage (unless of course you recycle it, but that's another matter entirely).

Then, later, he uses absolutes and destroys his previous assertion. Either he is really stupid, or something's up. Fortunately, my mind is as sharp as things that are sharp. I scrolled to down the beyond long email... Turns out, the guy goes into a gospel message. It was a little weird how he got into it too. I also noticed it was a mass mailing. Duh, AJ, get with the game! (Don't pretend like you haven't been taken in by spammers. Hopefully you didn't get taken in far enough to send money to another country to get your inheritance because in an African country you are the grandson's nephew of an unknown prince. If I ever get an email similar, I won't fall for it. I'm being sarcastic here, by the way. Just want to make sure you know that, so... yeah.... Clears throat). Anyway, I've never heard the gospel presented that way before. If you're reading this, mass-Youtube mailer, I don't think your methods are very good.

Interesting, though.

Here's the point: Truth is truth no matter if it comes from an Atheist (seldom, but it happens), a Christian, or a Christian pretending to be an Atheist.

Is there a God Gene?

2011-05-14T13:11:00.000-07:00

Is there a God gene and, if there is, would it disprove God's existence? Surprisingly a lot of people are stumped by this question. The latter, not the former.

After all, Richard Dawkins says people are only Christians (or whatever other faith) because of where they grew up. It can be reversely argued that there are Christians in middle-eastern countries, and Hindus in America, and Atheists in America... None of these make sense considering the location of the child's upbringing. That can be countered, however. It may not be location, but parents, upbringing. That can also be countered. Many Christian parents raise rebellious children.

Blah, blah, blah.

Here's the article that got me thinking - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-belief-in-god-ingrained-in-our-human-nature-a-new-study-says-so/

It's the same with the God gene argument. First, a God gene hasn't been located. There's nothing physically in someone that would make them automatically believe in God. (Well, we have been given brains to think with, and thinking, in turn, should compel us to belief in God. But that's another matter.)

Above all of this back and forth arguing and idiocy stands one simple truth: The location, arising, or spawning of a belief can never logically disprove that belief. If I were indoctrinated into believing in gravity, does gravity therefore not exist? Of course, not. And vice-versa.

So, if a God gene were discovered, it wouldn't mean that we need to evolve it away. Perhaps God put it there. But whether He did or not, it wouldn't change the truth.

Dick Van Dyke

2011-05-12T00:15:00.000-07:00

Went to a Barnes and Nobles in LA and got to see Dick Van Dyke. Also got his autobiography signed.

We got a little more than we expected, too. Ritchie "Rosebud" Petrie, AKA Larry Matthews (doesn't that sound like Jerry Mathers?) showed up and I got his autograph. When it didn't seem like it could get any better, Rose Marie, AKA Sally, showed up. I wonder if she ever got married??? Only kidding (inside joke).

She was cracking jokes from her wheelchair like there was nothing to it. Example: As I was taking her picture, a man introduced himself, saying, "My name is John." Without hesitation, she replied, "Great! There're two rooms in this building named after you."

What a riot.

It was nice to see that bit of TV history before, you know, they pass away. Dick Van Dyke is 79. Sally is even older. Larry Matthews is in his fifties. Also, while I was away in Washington, my wonderful little sister got Barbara Eden's autobiography signed for me. You can imagine how I reacted when my eyes first saw the signature. I flipped. I first fell in love with Jeannie at the age of ten or eleven. She was only my biggest crush then and forever! (My future wife will just have to deal with Barbara Eden's poster on all the walls. Do you think she'll mind? Lol).

I wish shows were made like those old ones. Classy, clean, incredibly witty and hilarious. Most of the stuff nowadays is repetitive, boring, and obvious (not to mention extremely sickening, considering the utter filthiness of most of the shows). With few--just a few--exceptions. For those of you with Netflix, I'd advise you to watch Dick Van Dyke and Andy Griffith. Throw in a little Monk and Columbo for mystery--they are both usually clean.

And if you're a nut like me, collect Father Knows Best (my favorite), I Love Lucy, I Dream of Jeannie, Brady Bunch, Partridge Family, My Three Sons, Leave it to Beaver, and all those great classics.

For movies: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (my favorite), The Man Who Knew to Much, It's a Wonderful Life, Rear Window, Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, Marx Brothers, Abbott and Costello, Happiest Millionaire, Follow Me Boys, Snowball Express, Strongest Man in the World, The Computer that Wore Tennis Shoes, Now You See Him Now You Don't, and the countless others. You know which ones I'm talking about.

Who knows, maybe TV will turn around and serve the largest audience: the families. It's a proven fact that good shows have more viewers. Same with movies and the Box Office.

On another note, how I wish Mary Tyler Moore had shown up...

Narnia and the Box Office: Final Tally

2011-05-07T19:59:00.000-07:00

Guess what? Narnia wins.

Narnia beat Tron this December, even while Disney criticized its slow start.

When I last posted about Narnia, it had reached $337 million.

It's rounded out at the end of its run at $414 million, only a few million shy of its predecessor. It actually would have won, for it was showing strong numbers in Japan, except for the earthquakes and tsunamis.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader has been released on DVD and Bluray if anyone is interested.

Now, it seems that Walden Media is going to make the prequel to the series, Magician's Nephew, next. We should expect that in a few years. The next movie is also expected to make more than the last two, which didn't do comparatively as well as the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

We shall see.

Why Donald Trump isn't the Right Man

2011-05-07T11:56:00.001-07:00

Don't get me wrong, I'd take Donald Trump over Obama any day. At least he understands capitalism and has experience, however criminal that experience was.

But there's just a few things.

His profanity. His morality.

The fact that he's just recently become pro-life and conservative.

No, sir, he's not the right man. In fact, I don't think we should be looking for a "man" at all.

Catch my drift. More on this, later.

So Confusing...

2011-05-06T17:12:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Bin Laden news has circulated more than all past military events. Probably because of the social network sites that weren't popular or existent ten years ago, the blogosphere, and all the other new internet capabilities.

I wonder if the internet is the cause of the confusion concerning Osama's death and the surrounding events.

This should clear everything up:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/06/bin-laden-killing-white-house-pentagon-cia-botched-storyline/

Just in Case...

2011-05-06T00:16:00.001-07:00

You were wondering.

This report has recently come out:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cia-director-there-was-no-live-video-of-obl-raid/

So did Obama order the killing of Bin Laden like I said in the last post?

[1] Yes, apparently he knew of a lead to Bin Laden's hide out last August. He also ordered the operation to kill Bin Laden. And that was good decision he made.

He's very polarizing however.
Case in point:

-He would like to close Gitmo, yet kills Bin Laden.
-He would like to give terrorists trials as if they were Americans, yet kills Bin Laden. -He kills Bin Laden, then he won't release the photos.

Like I said, polarizing.

1 - http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0511/predecessors_informed_7f44d8d4-3361-4b18-ab81-8e58ec10fd94.html

Trump Gets Trumped

2011-05-04T22:57:00.000-07:00

It seems the news of Barrack Osama, excuse me, Osama Bin Laden's death has practically buried Trump, his profane speeches, and the birth certificate investigation.

He's been trumped.

But that's not the real reason for this post (I just wanted to say he was trumped, catchy). It seems all the GOP has been trumped by the news. In fact, just the death of this one man has sent Obama's approval rating up by 9 points.

I was leery of the birth certificate and, though it was presented, I'll admit that I'm not entirely convinced. I know republican's have now decided that the issue was dumb. But apparently the birth certificate proves Obama's father wasn't a citizen. Whether that's important or not, I'm not positive. Just, still, leery. On this note, still 24% of the nation believes Obama was born outside the US. (Don't get me wrong... the birther movement may be dumb. Still, Obama could have shown it a long time ago. He's sure using it to his political advantage).

However, I'll put that to the back of mind to make room in the front for all of Obama's real crimes. Like passing healthcare, not defending the law against homosexuals, ect, ect.. More on this later.

This new news of his approval rating jumping has caused me to doubt the American people's... brains, I guess. I mean, Obama didn't have much to do with it. He originally promised to take troops out of the war. He kept with Bush's policies, and that is what killed Osama.

Sure, Obama ordered the kill. I'm grateful to him for that. Keep in mind, however, he knows he's facing a conservative revolution and is going to have to act conservative in the next two years. Gunning a terrorist down is very conservative.

Obama's been especially conservative and humorous lately. And his rating has gone up.

Really, America? All he has to do is pretend to be conservative and tell a few jokes and, aha, he's the right man?

I for one won't change that easily.

Where're the Comments???

2011-05-04T22:54:00.000-07:00

If you're asking that, I'm going to have to apologize. It was I who turned off the comments. I am responsible.

Please, please, please don't get wrong, I'm not trying to silence you or anything of that sort. So I'll tell you why I've TEMPORARILY turned off the comments.

Well, I've found that when people comment I often feel obligated to answer. So, before I start up the comments again, I'm going to get in the groove of writing daily for a few weeks.

I promise, however, to turn the comments back on before the end of June. Probably much sooner. I'm just extending it out just in case.

Again, not trying to silence you.

So, just sit back, and read the posts as if it were the news or something. If you're an atheist, be careful because some things I say may make you mad. You may feel the need to comment. I understand; I feel that way when I read liberal news articles and the like.

But don't worry, I'm going to turn the comments back on soon.

If you don't want to read the blog until then, I understand.

Let's start with a video...

2011-05-03T16:33:00.000-07:00

Book Trailer.

Not in Vain

2011-05-03T16:12:00.000-07:00

I didn't change my header in vain. Definition: Changing blog header to look cooler then not posting anything.

And you can believe me on this.

And just to make sure, I pre-wrote many posts.

Many, many, many.

I can't wait to share them.

Update

2011-03-19T17:53:00.000-07:00

Wow, it seems amazing to me that I went so long without blogging. One post in January, missed February completely, and here we are in the middle of March. What's more sad is that it's not unprecedented--on my part, that is.

The last two and a half months have been reading, reading, reading, writing, writing, writing, watching, watching, and more watching.

Other than final exams, I finished high school earlier in January (I think) and have had nothing but time on my hands. Which is why I've been busy. In just a few more months I'll be in college and will probably be too busy (but hopefully not) to continue to be busy with the things I've been busy with lately. Did you catch all that?

To give a few examples, I've read countless books, watched countless mystery shows and movies, and have thus far completed four novels. Working on the fifth now. Other than watching the box office for Narnia updates and interning at Senator Anderson's office twice a week (and going to church two times a week, of course), I've sequestered myself in my room with a shoulder-load of projects.

Soon, I hope to finish a youtube video I've been working on since forever, but we'll see. Literally. In the meantime, I'll try--but most likely fail--to write posts. We'll see if this materializes as well. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, I might just never come back to the blog and hope that through random processes intelligent posts will form. On the other hand, that's scientifically impossible, so I'll probably return.

Of course, the last months weren't entirely tragic from the blogging standpoint. The Narnia posts have quickly become some of my highest-viewed, both registering together at 457 hits. I doubt this random update will do so well.

So whether this post, this vicissitude in my life, will inspire me to continue posting or not, at least you know I'm alive and always in Christ.

God bless...

More on Narnia

2011-01-09T20:54:00.000-08:00

Okay, another post on Narnia. If you're reading my tweets you may be getting sick of Narnia. However, I promise I won't go overboard with Narnia posts (pun intended). You may have guessed, by now, that I'm a big Narnia fan...

Anyway, I've been reading the box office, fan sites, news columns with reviews of the new Narnia, and so forth. There're a few issues I'd like to post on, mostly for those who will find this post via the search engine.

These are the issues:
- Faith audience vs. Mainstream
- Christian undertones in books/movies
- Failure of Prince Caspian compared to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
- Voyage of the Dawn Treader and the Box Office

So, first off, I've been reading many comments by very ignorant people (not on this blog) about the "failure" of the Narnia franchise. They said it was due to a small faith audience, and that only mainstream movies do well.

Two problems with their comments. First of all, the new Narnia hasn't finished its run, and with its three movies the Narnia franchise has made $1.5 billion dollars. Does that sound like a failed franchise? Moreover, the faith audience is huge. Bigger than the "mainstream audience." The only problem is that the liberals control Hollywood (for the most part) and the arts and so the mainstream audience appears bigger. It is all an illusion, mind you. Christianity is the biggest religion. And if you don't believe that, I'm sure you will believe that it is the biggest at least in America.

Christian undertones. So now that we know that the faith audience is huge, we can attribute that fact to the success of the films. While smaller Christian movies are often low-budgeted, cheesy, and poorly-marketed with shoe-string marking budgets, the Narnia's had the money and resources--that's why they became such an instant hit. It was Christian, well made, and well marketed (we'll get into the latter later).

In LWW (Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe) Aslan, the representation of Jesus, dies for Edmund, who betrayed his family and the talking animals and deserved to die (he sinned, as represented by the Turkish Delight and his craving for it). If Edmund wasn't put to death, then all of Narnia would be destroyed (that's the rules). So when Aslan dies in Edmund's place, he in effect saves the world.

In PC (Prince Caspian) the Telmarines have taken over Narnia (humans) and a dictator takes Caspian X's rightful throne. They must restore Narnia to truth and justice. The only problem is that they keep fighting and losing because they're not trusting in Aslan. In the end, of course, they trust in Aslan and all is made well. Afterward, we see Aslan talking to Peter and Susan but we don't hear what he's telling them. When the Pevensie's leave, Peter and Susan aren't as sad as you would expect (which always saddened me), but we find out in the next movie when we hear what Aslan tells Lucy and Edmund.

In VDT (Voyage of the Dawn Treader), Caspian, the two remaining Pevensies and their terrible cousin Eustace are in the search of seven lost lords. There is a long backstory, but the movie and book is about temptation, redemption, saving souls, knowing God and more... Basically it's about the spiritual walk as a Christian. In the end, before Aslan's country, and the most beautiful scene I've ever seen in any movie, Aslan tells Lucy and Edmund what he had told Peter and Susan (although we didn't get to hear that time). He tells them that He has another name. In their world. And it was quite moving. I won't say anymore than that, but there is a lot more to that scene and the whole movie that is moving as well.

Voyage of the Dawn Treader is my favorite Narnia film. And my favorite movie of all time.

Alright. Now what about the failure of PC compared to LWW. Well, it's all really simple. Many people have said it's because the Narnia's are too Christian and therefore repelling. Many more say because it is dark and has lots of fighting (both of which were Lewis's intentions). And many also say because it has no continuity with the first one like Harry Potter's do. Some even say it's because it's lacking momentum do to the number of years in the interim of releases.

None of these are true. I mean, look at the Spiderman's--same characters, different stories and villians (they also took long between releases).
There're plenty of large dark movies (The Dark Night), and movies with battle scenes that have been big.
So all these theories are wrong.

The real reason PC took a drop from LWW (though PC was still a huge blockbuster, one of the biggest of all time), is because they marketed to the wrong audience. Michael Flaherty, President of Walden Media, admits that they got "cocky." They didn't market much or in the right places. They used normal Hollywood standards and didn't work hard (like they did for the first movie) and pander to the Christian market. That is where they went wrong.

The result was less families and more teenage boys. Teenage boys aren't best for word-of-mouth. For one thing, they forget and don't care; and for another, most people don't take them seriously. I mean, would you see a movie if a normal teenage boy recommended it because of cool fighting scenes? I probably wouldn't. And I'm a teenage boy!

Anyway, this is why PC didn't fare as well as LWW.

So, finally, talking about marketing, Voyage of the Dawn Treader was marketed much better than Prince Caspian. Fox went for the Christian and overseas audience, which is why it's doing so much better overseas. It looks like VDT will do about as well as PC, for it is a matter of winning back the faith audience after being overlooked in the last one.

And I think VDT has done a great job at that. Though it didn't have the best opening weekend, it's fourth week did much better than PC. It held up better percentage-wise as word-of-mouth was more effective with this one. It also carried the Christian message well. It's going to do better overseas than Prince Caspian, but it seems the American people hold grudges better than the former, for it's not doing quite as well domestically, though it has held up very well, considering all the competition.

I think it was 19 days ago when I posted my review of Voyage of the Dawn Treader and I wrote that it had reached $165 million worldwide.

It has now reached $337 million worldwide, which is a very large number. The box office will make it look bad for VDT, as its main audience isn't domestic, but worldwide, it currently holds the top spot--and has been holding the second spot since it came out until it finally passed up Tangled, which had come out two weeks prior.

So as you can see, it is faring well. It isn't a failure. The Narnia franchise is I think the 16th biggest franchise, out of more than 100, and it is a colossal success and will be loved forever-after. The Christian audience is large and effective to market too (especially for these films), and VDT is #1 in the box office, looking at it internationally.

I think, if Fox continues marketing to the faith audience, the Silver Chair will make more money. And even if it doesn't, The Last Battle will be a huge must-see! I would think it would come close to LWW, or even pass it!

Disclaimer: I've never seen Harry Potter or the Dark Knight and will never see them. I personally believe Harry Potter is steeped in witchcraft, and the Dark Knight just looked dumb. Also I don't watch movies that have blasphemy in them. The Spiderman's are the only exception as I watched them before I made that rule for myself. Now I simply watch them on DVD and mute the blasphemy. But I still rarely do watch them.

This is why I've only seen a few movies in the theater this year. For some reason, I can't remember the first six months, but I've only seen Prince of Persia, Toy Story 3, Despicable Me, Tron, and Voyage of the Dawn Treader (I guess I have seen a few).

I saw Prince of Persia twice, and VDT three times (though I'm planning on seeing it more).

And Voyage of the Dawn Treader buries them all!

Voyage of the Dawn Treader Review

2010-12-21T14:12:00.000-08:00

It is a rare thing (well somewhat) to blog about the opening of a movie for which this site was named after. Of course, I could have always blogged about it, but notice I used the word "opening."

Dawn Treader Ship

This blog is called Pevensie, after the four Pevensie children in the Chronicles of Narnia children's book series. My favorite book series to this day, from the day my dad read the books to me when I was five years old. He's read many of them twice to me and my brother over the years, a kind of tradition.

Anyway, only three Narnia movies have come out, this new one being the third, and I get to write about it.

For starters, I didn't see it the opening weekend because we were waiting to see it the first time with our grandpa and uncle. So I saw it the second weekend.

A little background to that weekend. That Friday I saw Tron, and Tron was incredible. The visual and special effects were stunning. The premise was okay, and it was very suspenseful. I must admit, although I knew I would like Narnia more, I was skeptical as to how it would beat out Tron.

For me, that is.

Sunday after church, still excited and mumbling about Tron to many people, we saw Narnia. The moment the movie started, I was practically trembling out of excitement. This is because I'm sentimental about it, not because it was good at this point; for it hadn't gotten past the Walden Media logo.

Long story short, it was by far my favorite Narnia film, the most powerful of them all, in my opinion. It started slow and built; and having a perfect blend of humor, build, and suspense, I was blown out of the Narnian water's.

I won't spoil anything, but the movie is basically a journey aboard a ship called the Dawn Treader, owned and run by the now King Caspian. Their mission is to find the seven Lord's of Narnia and recover their special swords given by Aslan himself. All the while, the crew must battle the seas, slave traders, dangers on many islands they visit, and evil itself, presenting itself as a green mist, an alluring vapor of temptation. In the end, the group will have to battle the evil inside themselves, before defeating the evil in Narnia.

There is much more to the story, as it deals with characters and such, but of which I couldn't go into without spoiling the movie. All I can say is that it was incredible.

Visiting Aslan's kingdom is what I'd like to do forever and always. And I can say I've had an early start, having fortunately been brought up in a Christian home.

Box Office

For those who read the box office, the opening weekend did comparably worse than its predecessors, LWW, and PC. LWW opened to a whopping 65 million. PC opening to a whopping 55 million. But that 10 million sequester caused Disney to drop the next film. Odd.

Anyway, this one, after the last one was received to be dim, dark, and grim, only opened to 24 million. This is because, accordingly (and polarized to myself), people didn't like PC very much for it was dark. But I think having darkness in a Christian movie isn't bad, for it makes it all the better when the light enters in the end.

However, Fox knew this and advertised the new Narnia as a return to magic and hope and so forth. And it certainly did. And although the film had a slow start (although I wouldn't call 24 million slow myself), word of mouth has been spreading. The next weekend did better percentage-wise than the last two Narnia's, as promulgated by the critical, and I would say skirting on liberal, box office mojo.

The boxoffice.com is a lot more optimistic.

Tron came out Narnia's second weekend and therefore, as would be expected from most movies, it pulled ahead. Narnia dropped into the third spot, although the expected spot was the fourth, behind Yogi Bear. However, Narnia, because of word of mouth, will pick up ahead of Yogi Bear, and perhaps, in a week or two, ahead of the much-advertised Tron.

So far, worldwide, the Dawn Treader has accumulated a massive cargo of 168 million, which is not even a small number in Hollywood. Despite woeful predictions from boxofficemojo.com, such as "Dawn Treader sinks" and likewise, the Dawn Treader is flying with a large mast raised to the wind as it is the #1 movie worldwide, after beating Depp and Angelina's movie domestically before Tron powered up. Additionally, it always has a large margin of positive buzz, one of the largest facebook movie accounts, and a majority approval rating, where the awesome movie Tron has only 30% approval, like many other movies.

Fox says it has resurrected the Narnia franchise after Disney had dropped it in distribution, and I think I agree. It is awesome, and it is in fact making big bucks.

In conclusion, when it comes to profit, quality, and message, Narnia is one of the best movies out there. One of my all time favorites. It will be loved by fans and non-fans, Christians and, perhaps, atheists.

Go see it for yourself.

A Crooked Thought

2010-12-15T23:33:00.000-08:00

Before you read further, I've got to warn you. What you're about to read may frighten you, fry your mind, make you crazy--or at least think you're crazy. Thus, continue at your own risk.

Keep in mind I've been reading a lot of scary books.

My crooked thought is this: what if the more-than-half-consumed water bottle sitting on my desk wasn't consumed; rather, it was packaged that way, already partially drained, that is?

Now let's reason:
A. Did I drink it?
B. Did someone else drink it before me?
C. Or was it bottled that way?

The reason I ask this is simple, but first I need your thoughts.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

God of the Past (Response to Zilch)

2010-12-11T12:38:00.001-08:00

The nation Israel is a small sliver in the middle east. However, the "idea" of God seemed to come from it. Albeit, in the early days Israel was large, but the point is that while other civilizations worshiped the sun, moon, stars, ect, Israel worshiped a God transcendent and unlike anything this world knows.

He's not made of matter; He's a spirit; He's eternal; He loves all, et cetera, et cetera.

And how did this God blast from the past and balloon into the biggest religion in the world. As far as I can tell, the sun worshipers are not dominating. Christianity is. Billions of people believe in the resurrection.

So...

1. The God of the Bible didn't follow the trend.
2. He's most believed in, even though the "concept" should have died by now.
3. He's unlike anything in this world.

I am not trying to make an argument for his existence. I am just trying to point out that He was not just another made-up God of the past.

But it would be incredible if He was. Perhaps more unbelievable. Because over forty people (at the least), living in different times and under different conditions, would have had to come up with this idea of God and write books with the same exact attributes. That's just counting the Bible authors. That's not considering the countless believers spread across what was the world at the time, though they had not access to what we do today.

I mean, read the Psalms if you don't believe me. You'll see David's view of God, thoughts of God, and expectations are that of a believer today who has never read the Psalms. It's incredible how someone thousands of years ago can have the same experience with the same unchanging God so long ago as believers do today. That mirror image is enough evidence for me.

Does that not make you think?

God--Best or Easiest?

2010-12-10T22:40:00.000-08:00

"God is never the BEST answer.
He is the EASIEST answer.
When it's hard to figure out these type of things, blame it on God. Relives so much stress don't you think?" - BenitoraSan

When looking at the universe--orbits and gravity, moons and planets, galaxies lined with star dust, brimming bright with twinkling solar systems--does it not make you wonder how it all got here?

Of course it does. But does it?

Think deep down inside you, now. Be introspective. Do you really wonder how it all got here? How our planet formed, and how dirt was created? What the first molecule was, and why atoms linked together? How trees, rain, rainbows, sunshine, saltwater, freshwater, rocks, gold, silver, diamonds, and everything else materialized?

How did it all get here?

I think every Christian wonders that. Or every converted Christian.

But I for some reason doubt atheists muse on these things often enough.
Let me explain:

- We live in a fallen world.
- The natural tendency is not to believe in God.
- Therefore it's easier to be an atheist.
- However, belief in God is something different. Something conceived not by birth but by thought and love. Not contrived, but rather accepted.

Follow me?

Sure, growing up in a Christian home often affects a child's views. But eventually that child grows up and starts wondering about Santa. Then God. Then he chooses.

And sometimes foolishly.

Anyway, the point of all this is that atheists aren't the ones who think outside of the box, but Christians. While atheists do what their sinful selfs please, Christians eschew from similar activities to pursue an ineffable God of wonder and intrigue.

What sounds easier to you?

Also, God is an incredible consolation, and/or stress reliever. However, this doesn't mean He doesn't exist. In fact, it might just help prove He does.

PS - I apologize for the slightly goofy header. It just seemed weird not to have a picture of me up there.

Termed Out

2010-12-01T17:10:00.000-08:00

So, (former) Senator Hollingsworth of the thirty-sixth district, the minority leader, and one of the top 5 leaders of California has officially termed out today. As of midnight last night.

I don't know how many of you know, as I haven't been blogging regularly, but I've been interning for Senator Hollingsworth. When I started, I wasn't sure what to expect. I thought maybe I'd stay for two, maybe three months at the most. Well, I ended staying for six months.

It was one of the most fun, long-term things I've done. I mean, going to Disney World for two weeks is fun. But interning (or helping out in politics in any way), for me, is right up there with Disney World. There's something about politics and offices and campaigning that just get me. And knowing I was working for Senator Hollingsworth, even though I've only met him three times (including today for lunch with the staff and him), I was extra proud. He's probably the most aggressive politician I know of. It was an honor.

So, now, having had lunch with the staff (which interns don't usually go to, but I was there for six months...) I am kinda sad. I'm going to intern for others, but I'm really proud to have had Senator Hollingsworth as my Senator for the last eight years (and being able to intern in his office).

The new senator that gets his spot is Joel Anderson. He's a good senator and I can't wait. I'm probably going to intern for him. Also, I'm pretty sure I'll get to intern with the same staff. However, I'll always be fond of the last six months.

Because Senator Hollingsworth didn't really have an intern program, I got to do a lot of different things. Working with the Constituent Management system was the main thing. But I got to answer phones, go to constituent meetings, go to GOP headquarters, meet lots of cool people at fundraisers, and organize much of the office.

I learned a lot that I wouldn't have learned about state, and even federal politics, in my government class (which I've studied inside and out).

Well, although I'm sad, I'll have more adventures ahead. I can't wait.

PS - Thank you, faithful readers, for letting me console myself. I'm feeling better now.

The Burden of Proof

2010-10-26T18:14:00.000-07:00

"Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy, it is you that must first prove the authority you claim." - Freddies_dead

If I held up two book covers to a blind man I would have a hard time proving to him which one is which if he was argumentative and didn't believe in colors.

In the same way, someone spiritually blind is hard to prove things too.

Freddies_dead is referring to, in the comment above, something I said about how God's authority must be disproved before the Bible can be bashed.

In other words, before he can say abortion is right, homosexuality is okay, but using preference as a judge is wrong (not arguing that, just making a point) then he's going to need some kind of law by which to judge, some kind of point of reference to back up those statements. Because if atheism is true, he is merely an accident following literally trillions of past accidents. His existence is meaningless. Where does he get such authority from such a meaningless existence to say what is right and wrong?

First he's going to have to understand God's authority. God's law. God. Otherwise he's going to be blind to what is right and wrong.

So unless he takes off the opaque lenses he thinks I've created as a means to shift the burden of proof, and see that God is the supreme authority, he's never going to understand what is right and wrong.

Understand?

A Very Fairy Tale

2010-10-24T15:29:00.000-07:00

"You sound like a child who's read one too many fairy tales." - Anon

One of my anonymous friends left this comment on one of my posts. Obviously.

I wasn't going to post it... until it hit me! Kabam!

And that's when I decided to share with you my favorite fairy tale.

It goes something like this:

Once upon a time there was nothing.
And from that nothing came something.
That something randomly organized itself
into planets, solar systems, moons, and suns
with gravitational fields.

One solar system was especially organized.
It was the perfect distance from the sun,
had the best amount of gravity,
it's axis was perfect,
the oxygen levels, superb!
Because of all this, life arose from non-life.

This new life was small.
Smaller than a baby's hand.
In fact, it was just a single cell.
No matter. It swam in the oceans
that were formed by clouds,
which were formed by something
nobody knows about. But one day
we may understand.

Anyway, this cell swam in the giant
ocean until it started reproducing
(A-sexually of course, it was designed--
I mean, arranged... or something--with that
ability.

After it reproduced, and over much time,
it evolved. It saw fit by competition to develop
new characteristics. It didn't have a brain, of course.
No matter. Because it evolved. We're here aren't we.

After it randomly mutated and naturally
selected itself for modifications, it turned into
a fishlike creature. It didn't have eyes yet
unfortunately. But it would form those in time.

Once it developed eyes, it swam to the land
and flopped on the shore until it grew lungs.
Unbelievable. Well, it's in school textbooks
so it must be true.

Back to the story. It developed lungs and
became an amphibian. Of course, some
fish stayed in the water and eventually turned
into the millions of species of fish in the oceans.

The amphibian eventually evolved into a bird,
then a cow, then a human. It took a lot of time.

Also, dinosaurs popped up somewhere a few
billion years ago, but then died off for
reasons unknown. But we have plenty
of good guesses. Scientificy ones.

The End.

Unbelievable? I thought so.

Chilean Miners

2010-10-16T15:53:00.000-07:00

Well, they're rescued.

Some guy, who I don't know, said that it was a result of community effort, help, compassion... democrats. He said that the right didn't help.

Rush Limbaugh played the clip on the radio yesterday. Then responded, naming all the different tools that dug out the miners that were invented as a result of CAPITALISM. As a result of competition. As a result of trying to work to take care of family, trying to make money, trying to be more successful.

So, really, capitalism saved the miners.

The democrat guy also said something funny. He said the the right is all about "everyone for himself." They're not helpful or compassionate.

I'll write a post on this later. Atheists, prepare to be shamed.

(I'm not implying that all democrats are atheists. Many of them aren't. There are very few atheists in this country anyway. Some understand the economy better than others. However... well, you'll just have to wait for that...)

Yosemite

2010-10-13T14:04:00.000-07:00

Got back two days ago from Yosemite. Here's just a few pics.

It was my second time to Yosemite. Tell me: how can you look at everything and not know there was a Higher Power involved in its creation?

Can you spot half dome? It was cloudy the day we went to Glacier point. We saw it clearly some of the other days, though. Only from the valley instead of Glacier Point.

"No Scientific Answer"...

2010-10-13T13:50:00.000-07:00

"Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this... The point is that there is no scientific answer." - Michael Ruse

Good question, Michael. My question:

Why, as a philosopher, do you not realize there is more in this world than science? That blind faith in an outdated theory limits your exploration? Why, even as you wrote what you wrote, did it not dawn on you that there just may be another explanation? Not just an old naturalistic one?

Natural or supernatural, folks. It's either one or the other. The former is inferior to the latter. So why not the latter? Just asking.

Organization

2010-09-23T16:16:00.000-07:00

Now that I'm on post 202, I've decided to tidy my posts and get... organized.

What exactly does that mean?

Don't try to guess because your propensity may serve you wrong. It's actually not that exciting, but you'll find out soon.

I'm going to try to write more posts. I haven't had any vicissitude, other than much school, and many vocabulary lists which my capacious mind has imbibed. Oh, and I also wrote a tome. That didn't actually take as much time as it did to edit it though.

So, hopefully I can create piquant posts soon... hopefully.

And I'll stop with the vocabulary words, it beats using banal words, but the use of big words can be thought of as an attempt of chicanery; on the other hand, it might just make my arguments more puissant or trenchant. Either way, I'll stop (or slow down). It's just my way of being facetious. Again, sorry.

Stephen Hawking's Failed Argument

2010-09-10T20:22:00.000-07:00

Stephen Hawking's name was trending in the Yahoo trends side column when I turned on my email a few days ago. As most of you know, he's written a new book.

I don't know why, but for some reason the guy is hailed as the greatest physicist ever... or something. When he speaks, people listen. Even his crazy theory that nothing created everything is published in journals. Why is he looked on to be so perspicacious?

Maybe because he was on the Simpsons? (Just throwing that out there).
Maybe because he's a good excuse to not believe in God? After all, he is smart.

It's most likely neither of those reasons. But what I really wanted to say is this: whether or not the universe came about by natural causes (impossible, but follow me here...) doesn't negate the existence of God. Why preclude the supernatural just because it isn't required as an explanation?

His argument is specious. For whether or not it's true doesn't negate God.

Finally...

2010-09-10T20:12:00.000-07:00

Boss,

Sorry for the late response on the header. I decided to post how I made it here in case anyone else wants to know. It's not that great a header, but simpler seems to be better these days.

I used a Mac (maybe PC) program (it's free) called LiveQuartz. I put my old header image into it so it would be the same size, painted it white, and put some different colored blocks on the bottom. I then found some cool fonts for the words, and had my little bro take a picture of me in front of my closet door (the secret is out).

I brightened the picture so the background would be more white, and tilted the picture to give the appearance that I'm leaning. I wasn't leaning when the picture was taken.

And that's about how I made the header.

New posts coming soon...

Interesting

2010-09-01T09:27:00.001-07:00

I just discovered this....

(Click it to enlarge)

A Good Header Idea

2010-08-23T14:03:00.001-07:00

"I see you have included all the valid arguments for atheism in your header." Bobmo

On to the Senate...

2010-08-23T14:01:00.000-07:00

"Yup, cutting taxes will help reduce the deficit. I'm glad your trying to spread your opinion on the economy before taking a macroeconomics class. You're on the right track to be in the senate someday." Anon

Oh, the satire.

Who says I haven't taken an economics class?

Also, you make it sound like cutting taxes won't work because you left out the main part: cutting taxes to help businesses to increase revenue--which would, if government spending was also cut, reduce the deficit. I am taking an economics class, but it's pretty simple to understand either way.

Cut taxes, increase private sector revenue (more taxes), and cut useless and harmful (indoctrinating people into believing it's the government's job to provide) government spending.

Anon, if you don't understand that, you might be in the need of a class.

Oh, wait, I almost forgot. Let's look at what policies reign in the California Senate today--democrats. What's our state deficit (or at least my state)? 19 billion. Hmmm, it just doesn't seem to be working does it?

Whitman on Fox

2010-08-13T15:04:00.001-07:00

How to fix California...

2010-08-10T14:17:00.000-07:00

... Balance the budget.

Yes, it's almost that simple. There's only one problem that's stopping California from becoming even greater than it is: democrats.

With 25 democrats and only 13 republicans in the state senate, it's hard for republicans to pass a good budget plan.

Let me further explain.

California's taxes are high. One of the highest state taxes in the country.
California make a lot of money from its taxpayers.
California's budget problem isn't going to be solved by raising taxes.

California's budget problem will be solved by cutting government spending. By discontinuing useless government institutions. By cutting extreme wages. By laying off useless government employees. By raising medical rates. By making the age older to receive pensions.

In other words, all the stuff republicans say should be done.

It's very simple, taxes need to be lowered to help create more jobs.
Government spending needs to go down and encourage job creation in the private sector.

I hope Senator Hollingsworth and the republicans can get a decent budget passed for this year (or next two years to be technical).

New Header

2010-08-09T21:13:00.000-07:00

Well, since I got a haircut, and since the last pic on the old header was over a year old, I decided to change it. I originally had something different than what you see (an empty box), but I didn't like it very much (it looked like some kind of european post-modern thing. You may have seen it.)

Anyway, if you have any ideas for what to put in the box, let me know.

Update

2010-08-09T14:49:00.000-07:00

Wow, much has happened since my last post. I had predicted July would be a busy month.

Although I didn't think writing a book would slow me down on the blog I was wrong. Anyway, I finished the book at 40,000 words. I'm still (annoyingly) working on the revisions.

After I finished I preached at a youth group, did lots of church stuff, and worked with my dad a little. Immediately after, we went on a short trip to go kayaking down the Trinity river. 30 miles in one day was a little too much for my taste.

Then we stopped by my great grandpa's house in Fort Jones. He's always fun to visit. He owned eleven gas stations, started the California Service Station Association, and passed thirty-seven laws in California. He was a big shot back in his day, taking on Standard Oil. Gas stations in California are the way they are today because of him. (For example, the oil companies gave you gas stations, but you weren't allowed to sell them. He changed that. Gas stations weren't allow to buy gas from other stations and sell it. He changed that. And many other things.)

Anyway it was a little over a week vacation (I think). We took a short one this year after a few months of vacationing last year. Actually, we're going to Yosemite in a few months, and Hawaii a few months after that, and Washington D.C. a few months after that. Boy, am I blessed! (For those of you who don't know, I went to Disney World last year for two weeks, and through many states and places to visit in those states for several weeks. Before that, I went to Oregon and Washington, and before that I went to England and France.)

Let's see. After all that I became a intern at State Senate Republican Leader Denis Hollingsworth's office. (That's a mouthful). It's only been a few weeks but it has confirmed my suspicions: I love office work! So, if you live in the 36th district you can know I'm your Senator's intern.

And lately I've been busy with several projects. A video at the local outlet center asking people if they know the ten commandments (which was for the church, not for internet).

But I am working on a youtube video (it's about time!) And I am extremely pleased with the script I wrote for it. I can't wait to make it. It will take me awhile though; I'm somewhat of a perfectionist (in certain things).

I'll try to post when I can and when I'm not too lazy too.

Until then.... read the Bible.

Methodological Naturalism

2010-07-14T10:40:00.000-07:00

When I watched this video of Stephen Meyer I was reminded of naturalism and its put-out of intelligent design on the grounds that it infers intelligence.

My question is, who defines science?

Naturalism, stating that things aren't scientific if it infers intelligence, is true because why? Well, because science has to be natural, and naturalism is science... That doesn't make any sense, and the reasoning is circular.

So, what's so bad about inferring something that is the best explanation? Should we be trying to explain and figure things out--advance and innovate--or cling to outdated theories and wait for some new evidence to come out for the sake of personal convictions? (If an intelligent designer were to exist, it might have to chance to be the God of the Bible, and that is a hard concept for evolutionists to grasp. God might just put a wet blanket on their fun).

Moreover, I'm not saying it is but if intelligent design is a better explanation than evolution, shouldn't we go with that? Let's take this a step further and say--just for the sake of things--that ID is a fact.

If ID is a fact that infers intelligent design, should we rid it because of naturalism? That's absurd. I'm not going to trash my computer because its design infers a designer. In fact, following with the scientific method, I could prove to you through simple observation that my computer was designed even though I don't know the designers.

But even though design is the best explanation, should I wait until a new explanation arises because mine infers intelligence and intelligence contradicts methodological naturalism?

Think about it.

Repealing Obamacare

2010-07-14T01:01:00.000-07:00

I'm loving it. No, I don't like McDonalds.

I'm loving it that half the votes necessary to repeal Obamacare in the House of Representatives has been collected. Joseph Farah says that we might have it repealed even before the fall elections. Awesome!

Now it's the public's turn. Sign the petition: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176237

And pray...

Atheism--The No-Brainer

2010-07-08T17:54:00.000-07:00

Usually the term no-brainer is used when a concept is easy to grasp. When the learning curve is zero. But in this post I mean to say that atheism takes no brains. Not because it's simple and obvious, but because it's beyond the grasp of any reasonable, sane, intellectual person.

I know, that sounds mean. But think about a 5x5 rubiks cube. I have one sitting on my desk. It has six sides with twenty five colors on each side. It has a total of 150 stickers! And, at the moment, it's not solved. I've solved it before, but now it's all scrambled. Follow me here, because if you have brains this will be hard to understand. When it came in its package, it was solved. And it all happened by chance.

It's my theory that it fell together over time in a washer machine. Somehow some pieces of clothes attached to the sides of a cube that formed probably by some goo (we haven't figured out how it exactly came to be, but that doesn't matter, that's abiogenesis and I'm talking about the evolutionary steps) and eventually, albeit over long periods of time, the cloths adapted sticking properties which caused them to stick to the cube (whereabouts unknown).

After a long time, the clothes divided into 150 colors, all the same size, and each side had its own color. Then, the cube started dividing into cubies. It was then that the inside mutated (probably by random) and formed a system in which rows could spin around the cube. Even though it developed this ability it still maintained its solved position.

Finally, someone left some plastic in their pockets which formed around the cube with some printed messages about warnings for small children and such. After that is when I found it. The product of no intelligence.

Sorry for that analogy. It's horrible. And it's exactly what atheists believe about humans in the world. That's what I mean: it doesn't take any brains.

In fact I wasn't the first one to point it out. Dwight Eisenhower was the first:

It takes no brains to be an atheist. Any stupid person can deny the existence of a supernatural power because man's physical senses cannot detect it. But there cannot be ignored the influence of conscience, the respect we feel for the Moral Law, the mystery of first life... or the marvelous order in which the universe moves about us on this earth. All these evidence the handiwork of the beneficent Deity... That Deity is the God of the Bible, and of Jesus Christ, His Son.

So there you have it. Atheism is the no-brainer--literally.

Declaration of Independence

2010-07-04T22:59:00.000-07:00

I have heard much argument recently as to why America separated from Britain. Sometimes I wish people would not say things until they have actually studied. Because, if a person actually read the declaration, they would read the reasons for separation.

First and foremost it was a question of rights. Did the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from government or from God? They acknowledged God. They argued therefore that taking away those unalienable rights were wrong--and that is in effect what King George 111 was doing. In fact, the declaration goes on to list 27 things he did wrong, violating their rights, and even violating their original charter which linked the colonists to the crown--not parliament.

George let pass what the colonists deemed intolerable acts. Some of which were heavy taxes without representation, allowing soldiers to quarter with colonists, soldiers from England and German were sent to strike fear into the colonists, and, if they did something wrong, the soldiers were given a mock trial and would be sent away without punishment.

You can read the declaration for more.

So, the colonists decided they were done with Britain and became their own states. Free from the immoral laws King George had passed to enslave and suppress them.

Many men, women, and children died in the War for Independence and we owe them and God, who blessed us so mightily, at least good stewardship of what we inherited.

I hope you enjoyed this day. It was a celebration of our freedom. We have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to bear arms, freedom to make money off our work, freedom for the individual to try and even, if they try hard enough, to succeed.

God Bless America.

Lately and Abortion and Trees and a Teaser

2010-07-03T23:53:00.000-07:00

If you read my twitter on the side of this blog, you will know that I have been busy writing another book. Nonetheless, 4th of July is tomorrow and I wanted to post something before that--because I will write one tomorrow strictly for the 4th of July.

So... the book is coming along well. It is a novel based in the middle ages, which I had to spend a few months researching and outlining. I used Power Structure and made a considerably detailed outline. It is an awesome program! Anyway, it has been three days and 14,000 words. The first day I saw Toy Story 3 and only wrote for about 2 or 3 hours. The second day I wrote all day long. And today, due to a family gathering, I wrote for about 2 or 3 hours. I am going to try and put in some more time tomorrow after church; that is, if we are not going somewhere far away to see the fireworks.

Other than the book, I wanted to talk about abortion and trees. I got this from the Rush Limbaugh book I am reading--I did not come up with this. He did. BTW, the ergonomic keyboard software does not install on the Mac, so that is why I am not using contractions; the button for the apostrophe registers a colon. It works fine on Windows on my Mac, so I will have to figure it out later.

Anyway, there are people who care more about fungi and trees than human life. When tree-hugging wackos call Rush, he tells them that the rain forests are not any problem; we have plenty of trees. They respond, well every tree we cut down might provide a cure to AIDS. He asks if they believe in abortion, then responds, one of the babies that are aborted might have grown to be smart and find the cure for AIDS, but you care more about trees and fungi than about human life.

I thought that was pretty cool. I cannot wait to celebrate the day of independence tomorrow. Where, after several battles and several petitions for King George 111 to stop parliament, we finally declared our independence from the crown. King George violated our God-given rights and men and women pledged their honor, fortunes, and even lives to fight for our freedom. Freedom has to be defended.

Nowadays, freedom is being attacked everyday. Encroached upon by ideas--communism, socialism, liberalism, globalism, feminism, atheism, homosexuality, abortion, existentialism, and more. We are in a battle of ideas and that seems harder to me than just picking up a gun and shooting. This battle is spiritual, and I hope and pray comfortable Christians come out of hiding, to the voting booths, to the streets, witnessing, and to their knees. Because that will be the only way the battle will be won.

That was just the teaser for tomorrow. Have a blessed Sunday, and a blessed 4th of July.

Atheists--try to remain sober.

Cool Article

2010-06-30T23:58:00.001-07:00

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=173273

An article breaking down something Rush said today.

Another Lie

2010-06-29T19:04:00.000-07:00

"Don't do that, don't misrepresent what i said to make it look as if i agree with you. America is secular, whether you like it or not, and a large number of the founding fathers were deist or even atheist. If there's one thing America is not it's based on the bible." Jonathan

Yet another lie from my socialist friend. Not only does he deny freedom (in America), he says the founding fathers were a bunch of atheists and deists. LIE. BIG LIE. Liberals are good liars. They're also good at turning it around and making you out to be the bad guy. Don't fall prey. Be aware.

I'm only 16, almost 17, but there are a few things I know. Example: NOT ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE ATHEISTS. 0. NONE.

So how can Jonathan get away with saying that (he can't on this blog). But most liberals result to ad hominem. Turn it around. Say you hate the poor, you're stupid, you're young, or "I'm not going to talk to you any more until you have better arguments."

Also, there were only a few deists (mind you, there were about 250 founding fathers... only a few were deists). There were a few Roman Catholics. And pretty much all the rest were Christian! Textbooks won't tell you this. Liberals (even though many know the truth) won't tell you this. They want to believe in a godless society, a godless constitution, a non-Christian America. It's just too bad they have to outright lie, make things up, defy centuries of history to prove their point.

All for religion (or the lack thereof)... something they don't even want. Yes, atheism is a religion. You have to have faith.

Moreover, even the deists sounded very Christian. Although I wouldn't classify Thomas Jefferson as an orthodox Christian he did say, "I am a real Christian." Also, he believed (as did Benjamin Franklin) that
"God governs in the affairs of men." Those are Franklin's words. They did deny the divinity of Christ, but they were not your normal deists (by definition). In fact, Jefferson denied it when people said he was a deist.

Food for thought: why are the two most famous founding father's non-Christian? Why don't we talk about people more involved in the drafting of the Constitution? Because, even though these guys are more religious than most Christians, they are the least religious of the bunch. Our present godless, liberal government wants them to be most popular for this reason.

Also, in the rest of his comment (which I haven't posted) he says we're free to have our phones tapped by the government. Interesting. Why isn't he outraged by the fact that Obama signed into law socialized medicine, but is that Bush listened in on people's phone calls to keep our nation safe from terrorists (which is the proper role of government)?

I'd recommend more American history research before believing liberal thought and revisionism. We could keep posting on this though; I've got 1,500 quotes from the founding fathers on these issues.

Freedom to be a Christian

2010-06-29T12:33:00.000-07:00

Jonathan said America isn't really free; it only looks that way. He says we have to do what is expected in America, and the only reason I like it is because it's based on the Bible.

The based on the Bible part is true. But saying America isn't free is just dumb. It sounds like someone who really resents America is out of ammo and shoving useless blanks into the gun.

You know America is free. Go to China where there is birth control, economic control, political control, and religious control. Where you can't pass out tracts without being beaten or possibly killed. Where the church has to meet secretly. Sometimes literally underground.

Now I ask you: is America free?

Also, the only reason it is free is because it's Christian roots. Because of principles of man's evil nature, less government, freedom through the law (after all freedom has to be protected).

Also the principles of equality (all men were created equal), the principles of man's dignity because we're not animals, because God created us and cares for us, and the principles of God's sovereignty over us (nature and nature's God), and His moral law.

"Without this [religion] there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without the restraints of religion and social worship, men become savages." Benjamin Rush, Signer of Declaration

"The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, He has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses." Thomas Jefferson

"The greatest vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ." U.S. House of Representatives, 1854

There's many more quotes I can give but I think you're getting the point. Hopefully. The Bible is the only sure foundation that can keep this nation afloat. It's that simple.

"Socialism is Fair"

2010-06-29T12:03:00.000-07:00

That's what Jonathan says. That's why he's a socialist: because it's fair.

What's fair about taxing the rich and taking away their hard earned money to give to the lazy poor who don't work, don't give back to the country, but only wallow in self-pity? There is nothing fair about that.

Liberals tend to make the poor an icon. Like, if you're not poor, you're evil and greedy. Probably a Republican. Hmmm. Even Christian's fall prey to this idea. Of course I'm not saying it's good to love money and live your whole life trying to get it. But I am saying it's not bad to have money. In fact, it's better to have money you work for than to be on welfare.

My dad makes a good amount of money. Is that bad? Should he just stop working, become poor, have sympathy on the homeless who attend our church, and live on the streets? No. That's not a good thing. If he stops working, not only does he not eat, his family doesn't eat. Striving for success and achievement isn't a bad thing.

Instead, my dad provides for us and encourages the homeless to find work, or often finds work for them.

Like Republican's always say, "Compassion isn't putting people on welfare; it's getting them off."

Also, work is what made this country great. The Puritans believed that work was a way of honoring God, so that's what they did. Since they were here in America (where we have free enterprise), they benefited from their initiative. We became a working nation.

To tax those who work and provide jobs (the rich and middle-class for that matter) is not only not fair, it's dumb, because it eliminates many jobs the poor could have otherwise gotten.

Giving people freedom to try their best, to succeed or fail on their own, is what made and makes this country a great place to live. Taking away that freedom destroys initiative, dreams, hopes, and even beliefs. Socialism isn't fair.

Matthew 5 and Guns

2010-06-29T11:45:00.000-07:00

I'm having a hard time believing how people can think that guns are responsible for murder. That's crazy. I don't know about you, but I'm not scared that a gun is going to come alive in the night, stalk me, and kill me. No. Guns don't do that. They can't think. They're not alive. They can't move on their own.

I know. It's dumb that I had to define that, but many people think guns are responsible. All the government has to do is take a means of self-defense away from the people and they won't murder. It's not an "evil nature" issue, it's a government issue, and the government can perfect society by taking away guns, spreading the wealth, creating equality of sorts.

In Matthew 5 Jesus said that if you're angry with your brother without cause your in danger of judgement. Simply put, murder comes from the heart. It's not a gun issue. It's a heart issue. Of course, liberals think government can change hearts, but smart people know the truth. Actually, you don't have to be smart, you just have to have a bit of common sense. You don't even need the Bible to man is evil, just watch the news for a few minutes.

It makes sense. You've just got to reconcile the fact that deep down, you are evil. Moreover, only God can deal with that evil nature. Otherwise, it just might ensnare you. And that dirty, little secret. That sin you love, will become the very thing that will be the death of you (forever in hell).

Guns aren't the problem. Humans are.

Guns

2010-06-24T23:39:00.000-07:00

One objection to America, the greatest nation in the world, the constitutional republic founded on Biblical principles, which is the only reason it has become the greatest nation in history, that JonathanHitch proposed was the "gun problem." He said he wouldn't want to live here because so many people have guns.

After Columbine, Rosie O'Donnel said we needed more gun laws. In response, a bumper sticker was created, which read, "Blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnel being fat."

'Nuff said....

As Far As Compassion Goes

2010-06-23T02:32:00.000-07:00

Inspired by "The Way Things Ought to Be" -- Chapter 4

Liberals have a crazy idea that the rich must be punished. That the rich have stolen from the poor. That the poor must be helped.

I guess if the rich were stealing from the poor, punishing the rich would be just, but who says the rich is stealing from the poor. I'm more convinced that liberals are stealing from the poor, maybe not literally (like cash) but they are robbing them of opportunity, success, and achievement.

Here's a classical example: We've got a rich guy named Smith who invests in land and builds communities. Every piece of land he buys need graders, contractors, engineers, and a host of other workers (jobs). We'll call these contractors the middle class (and a few rich ones). Also, the contractors workers are the poor. But they're working their way up on the social ladder, picking up trades, knowledge, experience. Trying to succeed.

The economy is going well. All is going well. So what does the democratic government do. Punish the rich with taxes. They tax the heck out of the rich. Why? So they can redistribute to the poor. Because they have compassion for the poor. Republicans don't. Republicans are greedy and evil. But liberals love the poor.

So what happens. Well, much of Mr. Smith's money goes to the government and he can't afford to invest in land. That affects the Jones' (our middle class workers) because they have no place or nothing to build. Also, the poor, return to the lifestyle and accept the government aid which comes largely from the rich's taxes and borrowing from other countries getting us more in debt.

At this point, it's time to start questioning the compassion of the liberal party. In the name of love and compassion, liberals strip the poor of initiative and dignity, leaving them as leeches of the state. Taking from but not giving anything back. Liberals supply the poor with government aid and make the rich guys look bad, even though it's the rich guys giving the poor guys work and dignity.

Why do the liberals do this? Because of "fairness," "love," "compassion." They want to make the country dependent on the state and destroy the individual. They want socialism. They want the government to make this imperfect world perfect, something impossible in this present world.

As far as compassion goes, being like Jerry Brown and going among the poor to sympathize is not only not compassionate, it's stupid (as pointed out by Rush Limbaugh). The real agenda is to make "greedy" capitalists feel bad and guilty. But wait, remember the analogy, it's the rich capitalist is the one providing the jobs.

So what's more compassionate? Going among the poor, whining about them, sympathizing with them, giving them money so they can get drunk and high, or providing them with jobs, getting them off the streets, cutting taxes so they can keep what they make, promoting individual achievement. In other words, equally caring for the rich and the poor. Now there's a thought. Equality ALWAYS gets lost in liberal babble about that very thing.

So people wanting money isn't a bad thing? NO!!! It's actually a Biblical principle. Now, the love of money is the root of evil. We know that. Money isn't evil. The LOVE OF MONEY IS. Of course there's always going to be greedy people on every side, but wanting money, wanting financial self-reliance, wanting a future isn't a bad thing.

Read the old testament. Read about the patriarchs. Read what Jesus said. God wants us to succeed (Joshua 1:8). God wants men to be men (self-reliant). God wants people to dream, to use their talents. But when the government makes people dependent, people stop being financially self-reliant. That's not nor should ever be (sadly it is) the purpose of government.

To tie up this post, taxing the rich and giving to the poor is about as compassionate as stealing soda from your neighbor and feeding it to the ducks across the street. It's not compassionate for the neighbor, and it kills the duck. Make sense?

A Good Excuse

2010-06-23T01:51:00.000-07:00

I promised a few posts in response to Jonathan's lengthy comments. Where are they? My excuse: moving.

You know, every time I move I realize how much I hate it. Of course this move was different. My mom decided that we needed to paint every bedroom, room, and hallway. Also the stairway. So we painted everything (different colors for each room, some rooms two colors) save the closets and bathrooms. My mom is going to paint the bathrooms later and the closets... well, we did something else with those.

We built custom cabinets in every closet. Every closet has a different design. I'll probably show a picture of my little sister's walk-in closet one of these days because it's awesome for reasons I don't feel like explaining at the moment.

After that we put in hardwood floors through the entire downstairs except for the guest bathroom, which will soon get its design.

Moreover, today, or yesterday as it is 1 in the morning, we moved the furniture and most of the packed stuff. We have to finish tomorrow (excuse me, today) morning, early. No, I don't know why I haven't gone to bed. Well, mostly because this Rush Limbaugh book I found while moving. I can't seem to put it down. It explains the way things ought to be. Really. And it's a beautiful thing (that'll make sense if you read the book, unless you're from Rio Linda.. heh, heh).

Well, the next few days I might squeeze some posts in, but I have a funny felling I'll be busy unpacking and throwing stuff away and doing all that annoying stuff you have to do when you move.

But it's okay. I'm going to see Toy Story 3 on the 29th and go do something (whatever I want) with my dad as a reward for my exceptional behavior and hard work during the move (I know, that sounds like a joke but it isn't... I wouldn't take dignity in that statement if my parents standard and expectations weren't so high, which is an extremely GOOD thing by the way, despite what society says. I mean, really, the "typical" teenager hangs-out, texts, and worries about zits. I'm glad I have more to live for.... another post for another time).

Anyway, posts are coming, be ready socialists/atheists/readers-who-don't-comment. And with this handy-dandy Limbaugh book you better be prepared. After all, he is the "most dangerous man in America."

The Case Against Keynesianism

2010-06-12T22:48:00.000-07:00

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich." -- Abraham Lincoln

Just because the economy experiences a recession, which is a normal thing in a free market--or any market for that matter--, doesn't mean the government needs to interfere. What has Obama's stimulus package done other than pour money into the public sector?

Experience has shown that a business cannot forever grow without small recessions (and possibly large ones). That's normal. The market corrects itself if you leave it be. If taxes aren't raised, businesses aren't subsidized, and stimulus's aren't printed, the economy would do a lot better.

There's not much more to say. It's a very simple concept.

Tax Cuts

2010-06-12T22:30:00.000-07:00

To begin, I must apologize for my misrepresentations of Clinton and the national debt. It appears Clinton did a great job in creating a surplus in the then budget--of course this doesn't speak for the national debt which he did increase (not as much as I said in the last post; I was confusing the budget deficit with the national debt and misread my figures). Nevertheless, there are a few things that went into the causation of the surplus budget. And they weren't liberal principles.

It seems the conservative principle of cutting government spending is what created the budget surplus. It isn't a wonder that this happened during the first time Republican's had the majority in Congress since the 50's. Just pointing out.

So why did the budget deficit go under during the following Bush years? Perhaps 9-11 and the war in Iraq. Bush did build our military defense and strengthened our homeland security. But all of this took the budget under. How about Katrina? Adding to that, Congress increased spending.

Probably one of the best things he did as President was his tax cuts:

"Since [President Bush's] the tax cuts, IRS revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history."1

1. http://www.conservapedia.com/George_W_Bush

A Silly Chart

2010-06-10T18:14:00.000-07:00

When I posted that Bill Clinton raised are debt a few trillion dollars, Quasar provided a chart that said otherwise. In fact, here it is:

So... I searched the Congressional Budget Office and wasn't able to find it. But I did find it on headybrew.net--a liberal website that sells liberal stickers. I'm not saying it isn't on the Congressional website, but it is misleading either way. The chart isn't talking about our national debt; it is talking about our budget deficit. Yes, there is a difference.

Isn't it strange how liberals outright lie to make a point? Wouldn't it be easier to tell the truth? Not for liberals. Because the truth is... only conservative ideas are good for the country, and the Founders were completely against liberalism.

For the record, I don't think Quasar knew it was fake--or misleading for that matter.

I do have a confession to make, though. Bill Clinton didn't get us in 5 trillion in debt exactly. It would be more accurate to say that he took us from 145 billion to 4.9 trillion.

I hope that clears things up on that matter. Number 1 lesson: DON'T EVER trust liberal websites.

Meg Whitman Commercial

2010-06-10T17:52:00.000-07:00

I was so happy when she won the primary. Of course I felt kind of bad for Steve Poizner; he spent 21 million of his own money to lose. I don't think he was really liberal, but I don't think he would have been able to get things done like I think Meg Whitman will be able to.

Now she's just got to beat Jerry Brown. From what I hear, that shouldn't be hard. Anyhow, the above video is her newest commercial... and it's awesome.

A really long comment...

2010-06-10T17:46:00.000-07:00

Jonathan, the socialist, wrote a very long comment to my last post... so I've been working on a few response posts. There were several important points he brought up. Sometime in the next few days the responses will be up (I'll probably post other things in the meantime).

""Moreover, a democracy usually ends in despotism or some form of socialism"

Is this you attempting to equate socialism with dictatorship? if it is i'd like to point out that when i describe myself as a socialist i always precede it with the word democratic. democracy would in fact have to form the central pillar to any real socialist state for the same reason trotsky refused to support violent revolution. It must be the choice of the people.
“About socialism. Socialism always ends in communism”
False

I’ll tell you why I’m a socialist then, fairness in both the tax system and in opportunity must be the centre for any government finance. I believe that this means taxing the well off at a higher rate, and aiding the underprivileged to positions of merit. The way to do this is socialism. For the same reason I wouldn’t want to live in 17th century Britain I wouldn’t want to live in the US. They call themselves freedom maniacs “oh we love freedom look at all our freedom”. There’s only 1 kind of freedom in America, the freedom to do what is expected of you. Look at the outcry when an atheist took a place in the senate? Despite the fact he’s perfectly free to do so, the laws on alcohol and drugs? Hardly free or socially progressive. You’re living in a cotton wool world if you think America is really free. I have no doubt that you really do think you believe in freedom but I’m afraid by simply saying you want a government which bases it’s legislature on the bible you show you really don’t.

"The appeal of socialism is to human weakness--the desire to avoid responsibility and the craving for material gain. It offers security as a substitute for opportunity, and the price is freedom! I would contest this entire statement.

nowhere does socialism exclude personal opportunity or liberty. I find it truly baffling that anyone could believe this.
I suspect when you talk of personal opportunity that you actually mean not restricting capitalist activities in order to protect those lower down the chain. I however have no issue with taxing bank profits or lowering repo rates in order to keep people employed or to pass on tax credits to them. I think it's entirely just to tax heavily those who have flourished under that society.

Government is more than capable of lowering what you label as "sinful" activity to reasonable levels. I would never live in the US, for the simple reason that for every 100 people there are 90 guns. this translates into more mass shootings with a legal firearm than any other western country. I would call shooting and killing people "sinful", if i believed in such a thing as sin. I think it should be stopped.
These are NOT obstructions to the personal liberty of citizens, it is the removal of both physical danger and fear from the remaining citizens.

And i think that's everyones responsibility by the way. Rich or poor, influential or not, we should all want to live in a better society and should not leave it down to a deity. I wouldn't want to leave it to them either, look what happens when you do?

ok, simply saying "i don't buy it" when i offered you factual cases of welfare and state benefit aiding long term economic and social wellbeing is not a counter point. and allegorical tales aren't proof of anything either.

In the UK we have people who try to fiddle the system, we call them spongers and when we find them out they go to jail. but having them in the system does not mean that the system as a whole ends up worthless. it's still productive to not have the 2% of the population who are unemployed looking for work living on the street. It's still productive to give underprivileged children free pre school education. it's still productive to offer free childcare to parents at the end of a school day so they can work longer. The problem with the US system is people aren't aware of the good that can be done with systems like it, so have attempted to scrap it over and over and over again. It doesn't help that every state is effectively run as a different country, possibly the most ineffective way to run government but you know, it's only billions of dollars in tax payer money a year that's being wasted that could be feeding the children of the country with the highest rate of child poverty in the western world.

"Bill Clinton opened up a lot of welfare and in one term got us 5 trillion dollars in debt! Welfare doesn't make money."
again no explanation but you know and exclamation mark means you must be right, right?

"When you give people welfare it gives them warrant to do nothing, and nothing gets done"

People who are on incapacity benefit because they have a terminal illness have the right to do nothing! why should they work to keep hold of their life savings and home etc when they're battling serious disease?

similarly the unemployed must provide proof that they are looking for work.

" The freedom of people to dream, invent, work (and receive full benefits from it) is what made (and still makes) this country great. History has shown it."

Nooooo, forcing the dollar as the reserve currency on international markets is what made your country great. It's also what left us with a global headache 3 years ago when we realised your system wasn't working.

You appear to have not only missed the point of what i was saying about democrats, which is that they barely touch the centre for looking over their shoulder at the right, and then simply brushed off my FACTUAL example of welfare as a productive force. Is it or is it not true that in the surestart program for every £1 that's spent it saves £7 later on? the answer is yes it's true.

Just a quick note as well you’re being overtly patriotic without being objective. Patriotism is not a virtue, objectivity is. I’m going to end this here because I’ve gone over 1000 words but there is a lot more wrong with your entire response."

JonathanHitch

Socialism and Welfare

2010-06-07T23:48:00.000-07:00

"Let me tell you, as a socialist, attempting to align the democrat party with socialism is laughable. They're about as left leaning as Geert Wilders to be honest.  It's only by comparison to the black shirt wearing republicans, of which there are many, that they appear even remotely leftist.  Secondly the vast majority of welfare goes to those on incapacity etc, those who can't possibly work, those that are retired, or those that take full time care of a relative or friend.  The UK rightly supports those groups as well as those who have become unemployed on the grounds that they are looking for work.  thirdly the conclusion you draw about the relationship between welfare and economic stability is unfounded.  It's been shown time and time again that certain welfare programs not only save public money but also encourage work ethics.  an excellent example of this is the surestart program in the UK. for every £ that the government spends on pre- school education for the underpriviledged it saves £7 later along the line. it reduces the number of school underachievers in comparison to groups without the funding from the same background, increases wages later on, hence increased government revenue.  Can i ask where you draw the line at welfare? tax breaks for the disabled or those with children? or raising the tax threshold for those on low incomes? you've been extremely vague about what you class as welfare." JonathanHitch

I'll divide the post into two responses. First, democrats and socialism. Second, welfare.

1. You said that democrats aren't as bad as I'm painting them, this coming from a socialist. I agree that some democrats aren't bad (in political ideals), but generally they are.

History has show that every attempt at a democracy is short-lived; it usually results in anarchy or despotism. The reason (or problem) is the people. People might go on a whim (and everyone is sinful) and vote some crazy guy in as a leader or something... it always results in what the Founders referred to as mobocracy. They didn't want that.

The term wasn't around then, but they were republicans.

They set up the nation to be a constitutional republic. It's not a direct democracy but a representative democracy, where the people and the representatives are limited by a constitution. We're a constitutional republic. It's only been two hundred years, but we've excelled like no other nation is history. In other words, the form works.

Democrats want a democracy. The exact opposite what the Founders wanted or intended. Moreover, a democracy usually ends in despotism or some form of socialism. So, in a way, democrats are socialists. In a way. How can you tell me they're not, when the democrats in congress just passed a bill for socialized medicine?

About socialism. Socialism always ends in communism, where not only the economy is controlled, but all the other freedoms that men should have a right to. Socialism is basically the end of freedom.

From what I can tell, you're from England. It was the English, not the Americans, who valued and esteemed freedom--ever since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. By the 1600s the English had most of the same freedoms that America has today. It's obvious, but those American's who fought for freedom (most of them) came from England or were direct descendants of someone from England who did esteem freedom. So, personally, I'm confused as to why you are a socialist.

Socialism is a system of government that controls the economy, and provides welfare, and spreads the wealth and all that stuff that sounds like a "utopia" but is false at the base of the theory.

Charles Shuman said, "The appeal of socialism is to human weakness--the desire to avoid responsibility and the craving for material gain. It offers security as a substitute for opportunity, and the price is freedom!

So the "from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs" may sound good, but isn't. Humans have a sinful nature, and government will never be able to tame it. That's God's job, not government's.

2. Welfare. I agree that some welfare is good and important. The Bible says to help the orphans and the widows. Taking care of those without parents and those without husbands to work is perfectly all right with me. But, giving money to those who are capable of working is ridiculous.

I don't buy what you said about welfare only helping and making money. My dad is the pastor of a small church, and I can name off many people who are fully capable of working but have been living off of welfare checks and food stamps. I know a guy who gets disability for "headaches."

What makes me mad is that I'm out working, paying income taxes and sales taxes, and essentially feeding these people who are twice as old as me, stronger, more experienced, and more likely to get a job. The welfare system is messed up. And it doesn't help.

Bill Clinton opened up a lot of welfare and in one term got us 5 trillion dollars in debt! Welfare doesn't make money.

When you give people welfare it gives them warrant to do nothing, and nothing gets done. The business of America is supposed to be business, but it's not, anymore. The government started providing for people (which isn't the role of government) and people started using it to sin.

I'm not racist--at all! I believe everyone was created equal by God. I'm the last person who would be racist. Anyway, the government has been providing for people and basically has people trained to have kids, ditch the family, and leave them on welfare (primarily black families... I'm not racist, like I said, it's just a fact). I know several families this has happened to. I can guarantee you that the men that ran away wouldn't have if they didn't think their family could live. (Not that this is always the case, but in the families I know, it is).

The government shouldn't provide, it should protect. "Promote the general welfare," not provide it.

That's why I'm supporting Meg Whitman for California (I can't vote, but I encourage others to vote for her). Her idea is, if they want to go on welfare, they've got to work. So they have a choice. Work for welfare and make practically nothing. Or really work. When people start working, the economy starts booming. Government spending has to be cut.

People have got to get their initiative and dignity back and work. The Bible says to take care of orphans and widows, but it also says, "If you don't work, you don't eat." And I believe that.

Just look at America in the 50s and remember that there was practically no welfare programs. Look at the Reagan years. Look at the example I provided in the last post with John Smith. Free enterprise is the way. The freedom of people to dream, invent, work (and receive full benefits from it) is what made (and still makes) this country great. History has shown it.

PS: Sorry the quote was all lumped together. I guess it didn't copy and past right.

What if every day were Sunday?

2010-06-06T21:58:00.002-07:00

Major Nelson - Oh, Jeannie you can't stop time!

Jeannie - Oh, but you are wrong Master, I already have.

Major Nelson - What do you think would happen if everyday were Sunday?

Jeannie - Oh, it would be wonderful Master. Children could stay home from school, no one would have to go to work, you could play golf everyday and become the greatest golfer in the whole country.

Major Nelson - There wouldn't be a country to play golf in. I don't know what it was like in old Bagdad, but our whole economy is built on people working.

Jeannie - Why must people work, Master?

Major Nelson - Well, to make a living.

Jeannie - And then?

Major Nelson - And then, well, one day they hope to work long enough so they can save up enough money to retire.

Jeannie - And then?

Major Nelson - And then they can stop working.

Jeannie - Good! I have taken a shortcut; with my system everyone can stop working now.

Despite the humor, herein lies a message all democrats need to hear. Democrats want government to take care and provide for people. The problem with that is it gives warrant to sin and laziness, which all us humans would fall into given the opportunity--most of the time.

Republicans, on the other hand, know that people are sinful and need to be responsible for themselves.

When settlers first came to Jamestown, they established what is known as the common-store system where the people gave all their food to the store and the store distributed it according to needs. It was communism. The people worked, gave money to the store (government), and the store distributed.

Well, what about the guy that wasn't working as hard and getting as much food as the hard-working guy. It wasn't fair, nor was it Biblical. John Smith knew this.

When everything was going wrong, John Smith showed up at the colony and quoted the Bible telling them if you don't work, you don't eat. The economy took off when established on that Biblical principle. So, if our country is going to bounce back and move forward, welfare programs need to be cut (not all of it, but you know what I mean). Welfare gives people opportunity to be lazy. People should work for welfare (if you'll allow me to quote Meg Whitman).

As Major Nelson points out, America is built on working people. And that's the way it must be if this republic should continue.

Reason and Faith (For Christian's Only)

2010-06-06T21:58:00.000-07:00

I'm reading Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig and have just finished the first chapter. Yeah, it's a lot harder read than I originally thought. But I made it through the first chapter which wasn't as fun as I expect the argument chapters to be. It was about the relationship of reason and faith.

I haven't thought about it in a while, but reason and faith has been a debate from the beginning of history. Like, how to we know Christianity is true? How do we know anything is true? Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke (not from Lost), and many others have dealt with this subject.

William Lane Craig summarizes it pretty simply. He points out there is a difference between knowing and showing the truths of Christianity. Christians already know because of the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit. A subject I've posted on many times before. Basically, the witness of the Holy Spirit wholly (get it, Holy... wholly... bad joke) authenticates the truth of Christianity to the Christian. So, no matter what evidence there is or isn't against the Christian faith, it doesn't matter the those who already know. As Christians, we shouldn't rest our faith on apologetics, because arguments and evidence is always changing, getting weaker or stronger. Rather, we base our faith on personal experience.

That's great and all, but personal experience isn't going to help "show" the truths of Christianity. Mormon's supposedly feel a "burning in the bosom" which authenticates their religion. Surgeons can stimulate certain feelings in someone's brain. But as Christians it's very safe to say we know by personal experience. Just like I know I've seen the Eiffel Tower. No matter what other's have experienced I know I've seen it.

But this personal experience doesn't help atheists, or non-Christians (a more general category). For them, we must show them. Now of course, apologetics isn't the means by which they're going to be converted. God is the only one who can convert a person (I'm not talking about Calvinism), and He uses the gospel. But apologetics is often necessary to break up the hard ground of skeptics to get them ready to hear the truths' of the gospel. The apostles did this.

Anyway, to sum it up, by faith we've encountered God which authenticates the truth of Christianity for ourselves. Apologetics is a great support for our faith but shouldn't be the basis. Moreover, in order to show the truth of Christianity we must often use reason to persuade. Now, this isn't always going to work. Why? Because sadly, people love the darkness more than the light.

Davy Jones Rewrite

2010-06-06T21:55:00.001-07:00

I was thinking. How would "Girl" sound with just a small rewrite?

God, look what you've done to me
Me and my whole world
God, you've brought the Son to me
WIth your smile
You did it God

I'm telling you God
Something unknown to me, makes you what you are
And what you are is all I want for me
And it's good to feel that way, God

Thank you God,
For making the nighttime nice
For making the daytime brighter
For making a better world for me

I'm telling you God,
Something unkown to me makes you what you are
And what you are is all I want for me
And it's good to feel that way, God

Thank you God,
For making the nighttime nice
For making the daytime brighter
For making a better world for me

Thank you God,
For making the winter warmer
For making the music softer
For making a better world for me

Thank you God,
For making the nighttime nice
For making the daytime brighter
For making a better world for me

So... some of it kinda doesn't make sense. But for the most part...

For the record, I like to original better. But the concept is true. God makes everything different (I'll stop here before I get started on cliches).

Drive Through Atheism

2010-06-03T15:14:00.000-07:00

There's a link at the bottom where you can find the sources of almost all these quotes. And, yes, I do read conservapedia... Atheists are always using wiki.

For starters, allow me to use this quote to defend my small, closed, and underdeveloped mind, according to Atheists of course. My mommy thinks I'm smart (I wish I had a shirt that says that).

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Sir Francis Bacon

C'mon, even Plato knew it leads to no good.

"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding." - Plato

Perhaps my favorite statement of all. It says a lot in two sentences. I can just see him saying it.... I think he learned his lesson after he stated, just before a battle, that he runs the show, not God. He lost that battle. (I don't really know if that's true... just joking.)

"You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you." -Napoleon Bonaparte

My words exactly...

"The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability." - Voltaire

I've tried to explain this many times. Maybe it's better wrapped up in a sentence.

"If there were no God there would be no atheists." - G. K. Chesterton

I find this to be true, sadly.

"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." - Heywood Broun

Ahhh, yes, the chaos Atheism has caused (it has killed more in the last two centuries than all the crusades--more than 250 million).

"In his book Modern Times, the historian Paul Johnson referred to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini as the three devils of the twentieth century. Interestingly, Nietzshean dogma influenced each of them." - Ravi Zacharias

I'd like to try this some day.

"How to trap an atheist: Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he believes there is a cook." — Source Unknown

Specified Information

2010-06-03T15:02:00.000-07:00

"Please define "specified information" - something Meyers couldn't manage in any of the 600 pages of his book - and then explain how we can differentiate between that and the information that exists in everything." freddies_dead

You may have heard of the license plate analogy. If you get a license plate that had a bunch of numbers, which is information, you wouldn't think much of it. But, if you get a license plate that reads "freddie" you might think twice about it. Obviously is wasn't a random arrangement of letters, it was specified. Someone who knows your username was behind it (Information, Informer).

It's the same concept with DNA. You said it yourself in your next comment.

"Wrong - I'll grant you premise 2 quite happily - there is information in our DNA, there's information in just about everything. I want you to tell me how you determine that information is designed when we quite clearly see information in purely material processes?"

So you believe there's information in DNA, but also in everything else. Well, I guess your answer is in your first comment. I should have made specific "specified information." Which I just defined.

DNA isn't just a random order of chemical's, but SPECIFIC instructions, which, if altered, can make up (if you will) different things.

Just like the post with the binary code. A different organization of those numbers would mean something different--therefore it's specified info (it was mean to be that way... it was specified).

Moreover, a lot of things you are referring to (I believe) are just patterns. Snowflakes don't contain information; they simply contain patterns. Nature creates patters (of course God made nature to begin with) but not information!

This blog post came from an informer. I hope you believe that... at least.

Almost Forgot...

2010-06-01T17:19:00.000-07:00

I almost forgot to tell you. The numbers in the post below is the binary form of the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

It doesn't look like much; but it's information. Just like in DNA. Is that not a viable theory? (Atheists, I'll talk to you on your forum if that's how you want it... but I'll keep posting here).

A Tale of Two Pictures

2010-05-29T14:19:00.000-07:00

The information argument:

1. Information comes from an informer/designer.
2. There's information in our DNA
3. Therefore our DNA was designed.

1. I don't think anyone doubts this premise; history and testing has shown (and common sense) that information can only come from an informer. Want some examples?

For starters, this blog post. Whether the information is good or not, it's information and it came from me--I'm a witness. Or how about the old alphabet soup with something spelled in it. Or the watch maker argument. Lee Stobel uses the example of "John Loves Mary" etched in the sand. That's information. It wasn't created by the wind and the waves. In fact, in the long time the earth has been around, the wind and waves have never produced any intelligible information in the sand.

Television programs are put together by writers, producers, directors, actors, dp's, cameramen, caterers, grips, sound men, and every other person needed. It takes knowledge, information, designer's. I'm sure you've never wondered whether the television show you're watching (in my case at this moment, Andy Griffith) was designed or fell together by selection and random collisions. Because it contains information.

Or how about a note dropped in the top of your bottle. How do you know it was written by a mind?--information.

I think premise one is simple enough.
Conclusion: information comes from an informer.

2. Here comes the tale of the two pictures. Since most of you reading this are from the WeAreSMRT atheist forum, I understand where most of you are coming from. You're going after the second premise. So, is there information in our DNA?

This first picture... well I'm not going to tell you what it is. All I want you to answer me is whether or not it is information.

This second picture is the DNA code--a little more advanced than the above picture. Of course a spoon full of DNA can fill libraries of info, but this code is not a randomized selection of letters (representing 4-chemical compound); it is an RNA polymerase.

Okay. Which picture contains information? Picture 1: only two different digits seemingly... just typed. Or, picture 2: the chemical code for an RNA polymerase.

Actually both. Does anyone know what the first picture is?

I'll tell you the answer later, but I think it's easy to see that there is information in the DNA "code" and that information comes from an informer.

When You Can't Get Davy Jones

2010-05-27T23:37:00.000-07:00

I haven't read the youtube comments on my video (the Dawkins' one) in a while. They're always interesting. I filter the comments on my channel, but not on the video.. because I don't have time. Sometimes they get to me (not really), like when Greg was caught off guard trying to get Davy Jones to sing at Marsha's prom. Anyway, here's some recent comments:

"dude, im amazed, you are 16 and yet you are this stupid?" - from the channel, deleted.

"poor kid, go back to school ignorant twat" - the highest rated comment.

"I'm a christian, but also an evolutionist. There is so much evidence for evolution, its overwhelming. You'd be a fool to say otherwise."

"wait, he's serious? I thought he was joking.
omg. Poor kid...." - it's hard to tell, is he being derisive. Lol.

"wow you are an idiot in the "god of the gaps" too. dude, your analogy failed miserably. he is right in saying christians use god as an explanation for the unexplanable. why was zues made? cause greeks couldn't understand what caused lighting. now we know so we no longer need him. god is only the zues of the universe. if physics was to make a false claim, they would be accused of that, but no, as you said, he said we don't know. would you rather not know and search for the truth or know a lie?"

The last comment has me little confused. I was going to respond, but I don't even think it's necessary.

Baiting

2010-05-27T23:14:00.000-07:00

"See AJ if you had actually read the forum thread at wearesmrt like you said you did, then you would have seen that a group of us previously regular commenters all decided to stop commenting here because your posts were getting obviously more and more stupid and deliberately baiting in an effort to get attention.

It's extremely uncommon for you to actually answer questions, and extremely common for you to misrepresent others even after repeatedly being corrected.

Hence the concession that you just weren't worth the time." Bathtub

I read people here and there saying they weren't coming back (including you), but here you are. And you were here before (after you said you were done). But let's answer these accusations.

I didn't answer questions when they were ridiculous, or there was an incredibly long list of questions--but I tried my best. I don't think I misrepresented others. But I'm willing to take back my misrepresentations if you show them to me.

So far as baiting goes, how else do you get readership? I have to make the posts interesting or controversial, otherwise I would have zero readers--who wants to read a dull blog. I think you said the same thing about Ray Comfort. And I believe he said something to the extent of: "You have to get the fish to nibble." I can't quite remember.

If I wasn't worth the time, what were you here for? I mean, you must have been commenting for some reason. Right? Of course, it has been difficult to find out an atheist's motivation for anything. But I'd like to know.

Here's the question: what would you like me to post on? No matter what, I'm viewed as unscientific--because I don't believe in evolution. So... what would you (as a representative of atheists) want me to post on?

Readership, Evolution, and Rush Limbaugh (A Brief History)

2010-05-25T23:35:00.000-07:00

I don't know how it exactly happened, but when I first started this blog I gained a lot of atheist readership off the bat. Almost all my posts (after the first month) were getting over a hundred comments--which is pretty good for a blog.

Then, I didn't post for a while (lots of vacations), then I did. Then I didn't (because I wrote a book), and then I did--kind of. Except that I came back with different posts.

Politics. That dirty word brought in some new readership (who probably left now), but all you atheists didn't seem interested. So I did somewhat of a test by posting a little of evolution--and the comments and hits started increasing. I guess I figured out who reads this blog. And I thank you if you do.

I kind of gave you a taste of something you didn't expect--with the politics and American history. You probably know how Dr. Bellows feels. I feel bad for that man. Always confused. Never finds out.

Anyway, thanks for all you insulting atheists (and for the ones who don't insult), it's still fun. But... I'm starting on another book, a Christian one, and I'm going to try to keep posting during the writing process. Sometimes I just can't seem to find the time. But I will. Maybe.

In the meantime, get Signature in the Cell--a massive book. It's good though. I've been reading it little bits at a time (like eating an elephant). Which reminds me, information argument coming up next.

Typing

2010-05-24T23:49:00.000-07:00

Want to try something fun? See if you can beat me. And no cheating (editing the html code).

66 words
Speed Typing test

Evolution in Jeopardy

2010-05-20T14:31:00.001-07:00

Yes, folks, it is in jeopardy. But two days ago (I believe) it was a category in Jeopardy, with Alex (well, I don't know how to spell his last name).

I'll take Darwin in the Galapagos for $400 please, Alex. A video fills screen. It's Alex in the Galapagos. "Darwin discovered this two-word term was the cause of evolution," Alex stated in some way or another.

I jumped to my feet and shouted, "Natural Selection." Then I looked for my mom's proud face, looking on her wise son who is gifted in so many areas. Only, she wasn't there; she was at Target, buying who knows what (I say that in spite. I mean, who goes shopping during Jeopardy!).

Is Alex right? I guess the question should really be, is Darwin right? Does natural selection cause evolution? No! And I'm sure you neo-darwinists would agree. It takes two broken motors to power a car--well, it actually only takes a good designer. Don't forgive me for being derisive; it was a result of natural selection.

So what's the second mechanism of evolution? Random mutations.

It doesn't take a kid to see that even natural selection and random mutations aren't enough to turn nothing into a human being. Evolution is really in jeopardy!

What's the "Matter"?

2010-05-19T22:42:00.000-07:00

I wasn't going to write a knew post today, but I just opened Yahoo to check my email and... http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100518/sc_space/whyweexistmatterwinsbattleoverantimatter

After perusing the article, my inquisitive, scientific, knowledgeable mind told me: why all the 65 cent words. Well, not really.

It's great that after years and years of study they've finally discovered that matter wins the fight with anti-matter, and we're all still alive. I must say, I was really blessed after reading that article. It compelled me to explore the theories of matter and anti-matter and why matter wins by 1% and why...

Enough of that, here's the real matter: where did all the matter come from?

I bet Yahoo could explain if they just Googled "AJ's Blog."

Founding Fathers and Science

2010-05-19T22:24:00.000-07:00

"Apparently the founding fathers weren't in favour of scientific progress either..."
Matthew

Isn't it interesting. The Bible is in the dark during the middle ages, and when it is brought to light there is a renaissance and a reformation. Still, religious freedom is limited, even in England.

So the "separatists" moved to Holland to worship God freely. They later decided to move to the new world to escape the godlessness their kids were picking up in Holland. What becomes of it?

13 colonies, the greatest nation ever, the biggest boom in scientific knowledge and discovery. Wherever the word of God is, there is a prompting for learning and discovery. Something fun that God gave us humans to do ever since the Garden of Eden.

Freddies_Dead Definitions, Redefined...

2010-05-19T22:17:00.000-07:00

"Evolution--the theory that man evolved from nothing, and that nothing mutated and eventually became human beings who could reason, enjoy, express, write, hear, taste, smell, touch, and love (and all the other stuff we do)

"Christianity--The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree..."
Freddies_dead

Let's define, shall we.

Evolution--the theory that man evolved from nothing, and that nothing mutated and eventually became human beings who could reason, enjoy, express, write, hear, taste, smell, touch, and love (and all the other stuff we do).

Christianity--the fact that God created the world and gave humans free will. Humans rebelled against God and brought upon themselves destruction--even though they were warned. So, God, in His infinite mercy, died on a cross (penal substitution) to legally take away our sins and grant us eternal life.

So what's more reasonable? Nothing created everything and everything evolved from goop, or God created everything.

Transitional... Berlinsky

2010-05-15T18:38:00.001-07:00

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict." David Berlinsky

Miracles and Evolution

2010-05-15T11:13:00.000-07:00

Miracles are hard to come by. Back in the early church days, healing and miracles were the norm. Nowadays, it's a hard choice between the liberal news and God TV--like, which one is truer. Just for the record, I believe in miracles--that they are for today just as they were for the early church. I think they still do happen, and I've witnessed many myself. But this paragraph is a little misleading. You see, I'm going to tell you where the real miracle is happening.

Anyone who watches God TV knows that satan is in the miracle business. Okay, so maybe not all their shows are bad, just the seeker sensitive, everyone is God's child, the gospel without the law, heaven without hell one's--which sums up all their programming (with the exception of the long prayers that sound more to the audience than to God).

It's established. We know satan can work miracles--he's a deceiver, the little "g" of this world. Let's have a look at some of his current work, shall we...

If you asked the Founding Fathers what they would think if, in only two-hundred years, people, even professing Christians, believed in evolution--the theory that man evolved from nothing, and that nothing mutated and eventually became human beings who could reason, enjoy, express, write, hear, taste, smell, touch, and love (and all the other stuff we do)--what do you think they would say?

James Madison would probably say the republic would fail because people need virtue, which only comes from religion (Christianity).

There's the miracle right there. The old deluder satan (that was an act in early American history, by the way. It was passed so kids would learn how to read the Bible) has got people believing that the universe came from nothing, and man came from nothing, which evolved into man. Confusing. I know.

Now that really is a miracle!

Richard Dawkins - Destroying Science

2010-05-09T19:59:00.001-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id9c9HWqcTA&playnext_from=TL&videos=BI3SyY63a2U

Is something needs an explanation, and that thing needs an explanation, and that explanation requires an explanation... well, watch the video for yourself.

Can Anyone Say Paycheck?

2010-05-07T22:55:00.000-07:00

Can anyone say... Sex is not the problem; lust is... And I just read it in one day (if you read that sentence fast enough it kinda rhymes).

Yep, a book. I saw it in Barnes and Nobles but restrained myself from buying it then and there. Instead, I bought in on my Kindle (much cooler than the iPad. And I'm a Mac-lover by the way).

It was a good book. I don't really have to explain what it's about. It's kind of obvious. Oh, yeah, it was written by Joshua Harris. The author of "I Kissed Dating Good-bye." And, if you read the Rebelution blog, he's the one who got eaten by a beanbag.

So, anyway, I also just bought Dug Down Deep by the same person, Joshua Harris. But that wasn't enough so I bought the works of Jonathan Edwards for 99 cents, which looks good with the works of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Wesley, George Whitefield, and a few others. They're all very cheap on the Kindle. Well worth it.

While I was on my shopping spree, I also bought Start Here by Alex and Brett Harris, and Screenplay Foundations by some Hollywood writer. I'm writing screenplays (yes, Final Draft is awesome) in-between books to keep on top of things. I've also bought Screenplay Index (or something like that. It's a book with a list of screenwriting terms in alphabetical order), and a Screenwriter's Workbook by Ellen Sandler (I think). They're all good books.

I've been doing a lot of extra reading--like other than schoolbooks--and have been getting ideas of books I myself should write. I know have a lot of ideas, and groovy outlining software (Power Structure), but I can't pick out an idea in particular that I want to outline. Not only that, but I'm stuck on the tenth page of a Jonas script, and thinking about a Christian script.

So, I have a novel written, two Suite Life On Deck's, a third of a Jonas, and a million ideas--but I haven't done anything with any of them. Well, my editior ("Grandma") is currently working on the novel, one Suite Life script was accidently written double-spaced; and therefore too short, and the other, well, it needs some editing. The Jonas script is confusing (but funny) and the ideas I'm getting are all mixed. Yep, I need to get more organized.

So, Secrets of Jonathan Sperry just came out, I pre-ordered it about a month ago. I'm going to order some more tracts in a minute, after ordering and giving out a few thousand, and I'm going to... uh, I forgot.

Anyway, between my

Kindle
42 Kindle books
Kindle case
Kindle screen protectors
iPod touch
iPod touch Jeopardy App
A Jonas iTunes Episode
Two Good Luck Charlies
My brothers 35 Suite Life's
Final Draft (Expensive Program just for writing)
Power Structure
12 Marx Brothers Movies (Two Collections)
2 season of Father Knows Best
4th Season of Brady Bunch
58 Looney Tunes Shorts (From Target)
Secrets of Jonathan Sperry
Thousands of Tracts
A few different WOTM Dvd's for giving out
Some WOTM's for myself
Valley of Visions from iTunes
The Happiest Millionaire movie for a friend
A $45 dollar out of print book for my little sister's birthday
A Ray Comfort Novel for mothers day
An Elvis movie for fathers day
A new set of golfclubs (actually my Grandpa bought me those)
And a few other things...

.... I surprisingly still have money. I hate to say it but I almost bought all this stuff in a day, with one paycheck. I work with my dad every once in a while, but, unlike him, I have no bills to pay.

Don't waste the time you're living with your parents before you have to pay the bills.

I figure when I'm eighteen I'll become more "fiscally responsible", but until then, I'm no Meg Whitman.

What If?

2010-04-27T21:49:00.000-07:00

New Christian movie. Look closely at the picture.... Closer...

Yes, you guessed it. "It looks awesome!" You exclaim! Well, yes. But that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to none other than Disney Channel star Debby Ryan (AKA: Bailey on Suite Life on Deck).

So, what about the movie? From what I can tell, it looks like a masterful reworking of one of my favorite movies: It's a Wonderful Life (Remember, Jimmy Stewart). (For the record, my favorite movie is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But It's a Wonderful Life comes in a close second or third).

Anyway, I'm a fan of Suite Life so I must say I was happy seeing Debby Ryan in a Christian movie. Yep, I am a fan of Disney Channel. In fact, I've written two Suite Life on Deck scripts; I just haven't done anything with them, yet.

Moreover, it's Debby Ryan--am I sounding redundant? Redundancy is the art of selling stuff (or something).

Well, I just found out about the movie today from Christianmovies.com twitter. I didn't even know they had one. I was just reading some articles about Jonathan Sperry (Another awesome Christian movie).

In any case, this movie looks pretty good--production-wise, acting-wise, budget-wise, director-wise, and for wisdom's sake. (BTW, for you would-be writers, don't say "-wise" it's really sub-standard English. And don't use the abbreviation "BTW". In other words, do as I say, and not as I do).

Anyway, check out the trailer --

What did I tell ya? The best thing since I Dream of Jeannie. I hope you go see it. Grab the link from their movie website -- whatif-movie.com/ -- and put it on your blog. Here's the specific link --http://www.whatif-movie.com/downloads.html Email it around and tell people about it -- especially your pastor, youth pastor, or what have you.

More From Chuck (On the National Day of Prayer)

2010-04-20T13:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=142297

I can't sign the petition (because I'm not 18) but, if you can, you can (I apologize for the adverb phrase). -- http://nationaldayofprayer.org/news/save-the-national-day-of-prayer/petition/

Conservative and Liberal Meet

2010-03-27T17:39:00.000-07:00

Mr. Liberal Professor was on edge after hearing an uninformed comment from a student. It took him by surprise; it even challenged him. He had to find out the truth. He had to go to the Dome.

Feeling relaxed, yea, even gleeful, the professor pulled the note from his pocket and scanned the scribbled directions from the uninformed, believing student. What a stupid comment, thought the Liberal Professor. To think--to think the believer would think such a thing.

After a a few hours of driving had passed, the professor turned onto a dirt road and made his way down the path until finally arriving at the Dome. At first site, wonder took hold of him. He shook it off. "I'm too dignified and intelligent to wonder like--like some child," he muttered, anger etched in his voice.

He looked away from the large, half-circle blue, green, and white dome and started for the entry doors. The dome was massive. It was perfectly round; and the colors almost appeared to be painted on by a designer. "A designer... Pish!" the professor uttered even more angrily. His reasoning mind was getting to him. He glued his eyes to the floor and thought about the curriculum he taught. Yes, it was written by very smart people; surely it's true. Surely this Dome happened by chance and time and evolution.

Stepping in front of the motion-sensory sliding doors, he pulled up his head and peered inside the Dome. He stepped inside onto the carpet. "Aha, carpet. I can explain that away." He looked at the walls. "Paint. I can't believe people think someone designed this. Paint--how primitive."

The professor turned right and walked adjacent the rounded walls down the circular corridor. When he had walked fifty feet he came to a door on the left wall. "Doors are easy to explain away," he took note. "After all, it only consists of wood, which looks carved, door knobs, which look sculpted, hinges, which appear to have been screwed in by someone, and trim around the door. Simple. Too simple for words."

A stir of wonder filled the Liberal Professor, and he opened the door. "Ahhh, this will be even easier to explain away." The professor stared into a large room, containing nothing but a dim light over the center, and under the light, a table, and, what's that? "Hello, who are you?" asked the professor to the man standing at the table.

The man didn't look up; he was working on something over the table. With his head down, the man responded, "Oh, I'm just a old professor. My name is Conservative Christian. How are you today?"

"Oh, fine," replied Liberal. "I'm just taking a peek at this Dome. After much study, I've concluded that it was formed over time through a series of depositions, erosions, volcanic eruptions, bird droppings, mildew, rain, mutations, and natural selection."

"Interesting you say that," responded Conservative, "because I think it was created, designed. After all, look at it. The colors on the outside are beautiful. There's paint on the walls, doors, door jams, walls, this table. It looks like a product of intelligence."

"Looks like. You said it exactly right, Conservative. It appears to be designed, sure, but that's just dumb chance. It really is a marvel that nature could make such a thing, doesn't it?"

"Do you really believe that?" asked Conservative.

"I do. Look around. It's the best explanation. Your explanation requires circular reasoning and presuppositions, and..."

"You know," started Conservative, "I wouldn't believe you even if it wasn't for the manual I found, but--"

"Manual?" inquired Liberal.

"Yeah, it's composed of sixty-six books, all of them written at different times in different places; and the crazy thing is, they don't have any contradictions! I read all of it and I..."

Conservative stopped mid-sentence and carefully examined Liberal.

"What's wrong?" asked Liberal.

"Nothing. Nothing at all. It's just--I finally--I mean, I figured out why you don't believe there's a designer."

"What?" Liberal responded defensively.

"Yeah. I saw your picture in the manual. I guess the general contractor upset you when he questioned the way you were living in sin. Yeah, it's coming back to me now. You committed adultery and he called you out on it, isn't that right? He said he'd let you keep working--because you were sub. He said he'd let you keep working if you turned from your sin. But you--"

Conservative stopped speaking when Liberal angrily stomped out the room and slammed the door.

Atheists and the Universe

2010-03-27T16:59:00.000-07:00

"When I was in England from 1785 to 1788, I may say I was intimate with Dr. Price [Richard Price was a theologian and a strong British supporter of American rights and independence, with Congress bestowing on him an American citizenship in 1778]. I had much conversation with him at his own house, at my houses, and at the house and tables of many friends. In some of our most unreserved conversations when we have been alone, he has repeatedly said to me, “I am inclined to believe that the Universe is eternal and infinite. It seems to me that an eternal and infinite effect must necessarily flow from an eternal and infinite Cause; and an infinite Wisdom, Goodness, and Power that could have been induced to produce a Universe in time must have produced it from eternity.” “It seems to me, the effect must flow from the Cause"... It has been long – very long – a settled opinion in my mind that there is now, never will be, and never was but one Being who can understand the universe, and that it is not only vain but wicked for insects [like us] to pretend to comprehend it."

- John Adams

What About the Founders and Slavery?

2010-03-27T16:49:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I made a response to one of Leon Brown's posts on God and country. In a very small nutshell, he said that to "take back the country for Christ" isn't a valid statement because of several reasons: First of all, he says that the country never was Christian--because the Constitution only has references to "God" not "Christ" and prayers were only offered to "God" not "Christ" and the Founders had slaves and killed the British. He then continued to say that our country is a lost cause at this point.

My last post rebuttals the part about killing the British. It started off as a defense and ended up in a fight for freedom. Freedom comes with a cost. Just like Jesus died for us to be free of sin, so, many men and women died fighting so we could live in a free country. Our ancestors long ago lived in bondage to government and churches and men of authority who used their authority to abuse. But us, Americans, have the benefit of freedom because of God's blessing and mans efforts. To say that America is a lost cause and give up is not being a good steward of the wonderful freedom we have been blessed with. The freedom that has and is still being fought for. Furthermore, even if America is a lost cause, aren't those the ones worth fighting for? I believe so.

Anyway, slavery will be the next rebuttal. I'll just provide a link for this one. It's an article from Stephen McDowell:

http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=120

Take Back America For Christ?

2010-03-27T11:53:00.000-07:00

A response to Leon Brown - Take Back America For Christ?

Before I begin my response, I must say that his views have changed radically since he went to cemetery (Cough, I mean, seminary). Not only did he become a calvinist (not too bad, but then again, not good if you take things too far) but he also changed his methods of preaching because of that change. Despite those changes, at least he's preaching.

Anyhow, I was reading his blog and read the post of which I provided the link above. He basically says that he "doesn't adopt the statement." Why? He lists two reasons: Because America wasn't originally His, and because he doesn't think it is possible.

1. Was America ever a Christian nation?

For those who love history (like me) you'll be interested in knowing that America was a very Christian nation. For starters, it came out of the great awakening. It was birthed during the great revival and reform after the preaching of John and Charles Wesley, John Locke (kind of liberal), George Whitefield, William Wilberforce, Robert Raikes, John Howard, William Carey, Edmund Burke, William Blackstone, and Samuel Johnson. There's more people, but I'm afraid that would be a long sentence. Actually, it's not right to say all of them were preachers. Some of them were good lawyers, teachers, and writers. Anyway...

Out of the 18th century great awakening, America was birthed, founded of Biblical principles regarding nations and law, and built by a people with a strong Christian heritage.

So, what about the murdering. Why did America kill the British? Well, King George 111 started taking over America, giving new laws and taxes, making everyone supply the mother country with gold and silver. The people all worked for the mother country. King George was basically a communist. The French fought back, the indians alongside the French, but a lot of them were killed and they lost.

After this, some colonists protested, their pleas completely ignored. They convened in 1774 in Philadelphia for the first Continental Congress. They sent representatives to King George, and that didn't go well. King George was angered and decided he would rule those rebellious colonies by force. So that's what he did. He commanded Parliament to remove British protection from the colonies, and he started attacking.

After he started attacking, the colonists starting defending; and thus begun the American War for Independence. Finally, after a few years of fighting, the Declaration of Independence was signed. Five years of war followed, and finally, Britain and America signed a peace treaty, recognizing a new nation, founded on the principles of freedom and justice.

The Constitution would later follow, and George Washington would be elected President. Remember what he said: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

So, there you have it, America was birthed from revival, and founded on Christian principles. If that's not enough, I'll give you some more.

It was common practice at the time, that an "Election Sermon" was to be preached before elected officials. Here's excerpts from a sermon given before John Hancock and Samuel Adams. For those of you who read Leon Brown's post, watch for the words "Christ." Not just God, but "Christ.":

"And as it has fallen to one of the least of the Ambassadors of Christ, to perform so essential a part of the exercise of the day, it will not be expected that he turn Statesman in this sacred place, or wander into all the affairs of government: But, in compliance with his character as a Minister, make such observations from the sacred text, as may be profitable for direction and encouragement, that the men of God here present, may be furnished to every good work."

"In these Proverbs of the wise man, we have the comprehensive duties we owe to God, and the world, made plain and easy, and enforced with the most powerful motives. By folly, the Preacher would be understood to mean vice and wickedness and by wisdom, grace and Christ.

In the text, the person speaking is doubtless Jesus Christ, who by the Apostle, is called "the wisdom of God, and the power of God." "By me Princes rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the earth:" That is, by my Providence and appointment, they are advanced to rule and govern; and their government is merciful and righteous, happy and prosperous, by my council and assistance."

"That civil government is ordained of God in the hands of the Mediator, the Absolute necessity of order and government, for the existence and happiness of society, pleads its divine original: For without it, the affairs of mankind would fall into the utmost confusion and disorder."

"Civil government, then, is a branch of the tree of life, and founded in, and built upon that covenant, sealed in Heaven by the oath of God, and upon earth by the blood of Christ."

"Not that Christ has pointed out the form of government, or the persons to rule and govern; in this sense his "kingdom is not of this world" But Christianity enforces the law of nature; and has confirmed the several constitutions of states and kingdoms, and called our obedience to the higher powers, as the gospel finds them."

There's a lot more to that sermon, but it's long.... Want more. Here's two order's from George Washington, regarding the Sabbath:

February 26, 1776

All Officers, non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers are positively forbid[den from] playing at Cards, and other Games of Chance. At this time of public distress, men may find enough to do in the service of God and their country without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality.

July 9, 1776

The Hon. Continental Congress having been pleased to allow a Chaplain to each Regiment, with the pay of Thirty-three Dollars and one third pr month—The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives—To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger—The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.

And here's one from Lincoln:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,
Washington, November 15, 1862

The President, Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, desires and enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in the military and naval service. The importance for men and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the divine will demand that Sunday labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity.
The discipline and character of the national forces should not suffer nor the cause they defend be imperiled by the profanation of the day or name of the Most High. “At this time of public distress,” adopting the words of Washington in 1776, “men may find enough to do in the service of God and their country without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality.” The first general order issued by the Father of his Country after the Declaration of Independence indicates the spirit in which our institutions were founded and should ever be defended:

The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.

But I couldn't leave you without these little statements from the Founders:

Samuel Adams
Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.

Will of Samuel Adams

Charles Carroll
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.

From an autographed letter in our possession written by Charles Carroll to Charles W. Wharton, Esq., on September 27, 1825, from Doughoragen, Maryland.

William Cushing
First Associate Justice Appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court

Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the earth . . .

Will of William Cushing

John Dickinson
Signer of the Constitution

Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.

Will of John Dickinson

John Hancock
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testament…Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God. . .

Will of John Hancock

Patrick Henry
Governor of Virginia, Patriot

This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.

Will of Patrick Henry

John Jay
First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has companied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!

Will of John Jay

Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer
Signer of the Constitution

In the name of God, Amen. I, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer . . . of dispossing mind and memory, commend my soul to my blessed Redeemer. . .

Will of Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer

Henry Knox
Revolutionary War General, Secretary of War

First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind; and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the Universe – to that great and tremendous Jehovah, – Who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite . . . To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection . . .

Will of Henry Knox

John Langdon
Signer of the Constitution

In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life . . .

Will of John Langdon

John Morton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

With an awful reverence to the great Almighty God, Creator of all mankind, I, John Morton . . . being sick and weak in body but of sound mind and memory-thanks be given to Almighty God for the same, for all His mercies and favors-and considering the certainty of death and the uncertainty of the times thereof, do, for the settling of such temporal estate as it hath pleased God to bless me with in this life . . .

Will of John Morton

Robert Treat Paine
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have been continually sounding in mine ears.

Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, Stephen Riley and Edward Hanson, editors (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), Vol. I, p. 48, March/April, 1749.

[W]hen I consider that this instrument contemplates my departure from this life and all earthly enjoyments and my entrance on another state of existence, I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of his providential goodness and his forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state, acknowledging with grateful remembrance the happiness I have enjoyed in my passage through a long life. . .

Will of Robert Treat Paine

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Signer of the Constitution

To the eternal, immutable, and only true God be all honor and glory, now and forever, Amen!. . .

Will of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

Rufus PutnamRevolutionary War General, First Surveyor General of the United States

[F]irst, I give my soul to a holy, sovereign God Who gave it in humble hope of a blessed immortality through the atonement and righteousness of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. My body I commit to the earth to be buried in a decent Christian manner. I fully believe that this body shall, by the mighty power of God, be raised to life at the last day; 'for this corruptable (sic) must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.' [I Corinthians 15:53]

Will of Rufus Putnam

Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!

Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, George Corner, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1948), p. 166, Travels Through Life, An Account of Sundry Incidents & Events in the Life of Benjamin Rush.

Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Constitution

I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.

Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), pp. 272-273.

Richard Stockton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I think it proper here not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great and leading doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the Being of God, the universal defection and depravity of human nature, the divinity of the person and the completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed Savior, the necessity of the operations of the Divine Spirit, of Divine Faith, accompanied with an habitual virtuous life, and the universality of the divine Providence, but also . . . that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness that can be enjoyed in this mortal state; that all occasions of vice and immorality is injurious either immediately or consequentially, even in this life; that as Almighty God hath not been pleased in the Holy Scriptures to prescribe any precise mode in which He is to be publicly worshiped, all contention about it generally arises from want of knowledge or want of virtue.

Will of Richard Stockton

Jonathan Trumbull Sr.
Governor of Connecticut, Patriot

Principally and first of all, I bequeath my soul to God the Creator and Giver thereof, and body to the Earth . . . nothing doubting but that I shall receive the same again at the General Resurrection thro the power of Almighty God; believing and hoping for eternal life thro the merits of my dear, exalted Redeemer Jesus Christ.

Will of Jonathan Trumbull

John Witherspoon
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish.

John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, pp. 276, 278, The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ, January 2, 1758.

Okay. There's much more but this post is getting incredibly long. I'll write some more later about slavery and all those issues. And, my favorite President, Lincoln. So, can we "take back America for Christ?"

Well, if you've read any history, you'll know it has been done more than once. And, God never changes.

Can Atheists Ruin a Country?

2010-03-26T11:08:00.000-07:00

Yes. Luckily there are only a few atheists in America--at the moment. But look at England, and ask yourself, can Atheism destroy a country?

England, at one time, was the largest and most powerful country in the world. Now, there's just about a 50% atheist population over there--and look what happened. I've been there. I've seen it. The houses are small, the cars are small, the stores are small, gas prices are high, and immorality is rampant.

Also, the town we were staying in had the highest amount of STD's. That ought to tell you something. Where morality lacks, the power of a nation lacks. Why? Because God removes His hand from that nation. When the people turn from God, God turns from the people.

You see, America is made up of over 170 million professing Christian's. I say "professing" because I'm not sure how many are real Christians. But, there has been a large reform, I believe. Much of America is awakening.

Don't make the mistake of judging America by Hollywood. Hollywood doesn't represent America. A ten year study was done and on average, and "R" rated film makes $11 million. A "PG" movie makes $26 million. And, a "G" rated movie makes over $90 million. Those numbers represent America.

Also, the liberal news may seem like the biggest most influential news; but it's not. Fox is. That ought to tell you something else. Glenn Beck gets more viewership than CNN, MSNBC, and HLN combined. In fact, he's the second most watched--to Oprah--person on television. Moreover, Limbaugh is the most listened to on radio. Oh, and I almost forgot, ABC News had big budget cuts not too long ago--not enough ads.

Most of America claims to be Christian. Most of America listens to conservative talk radio. Most of America watches "G" rated movies. Most of America watches Fox; and even TBN--not that TBN is the best way to judge reform.

Conclusion: There's still hope for America. It just depends on people's hearts with God. If people turn from God, God's not going to help our nation. But, if people confess their sins, repent and trust in Jesus, are nation will thrive like it once did. So, if you're a Christian, start spreading the news; I have a very, very small influence on this blog and on the streets, but if 170 million Christians had the same small influence, revival would sweep through the nation like a flood. And, if you're an atheist or non-Christian, check out needGod.com.

That's all for now...

Todd Friel on Healthcare

2010-03-25T20:50:00.000-07:00

With health care reform passed, many people, republicans and democrats, have been voicing their opinions and concerns and something called the truth. That's what I want to talk about. What is the truth about healthcare?

Before I tell you the truth, I must say something--or else I'd have to rename the post. Todd Friel's opinion on the reason of health care passing is wrong. "Wait," you say, "how can you say such a thing? You're betraying your idol." Perhaps. I like Todd Friel. And, I agree with almost everything he says... except what he says about health care passing: he says it passed as a reflection of American culture--like the lack of true Christian's. That's not true...

Sure, there have been many wrong things that have passed because of culture. But not health care reform. The American people don't want health care reform! Over 60% of American's want republicans to fight it in the courts. Over 80% of the people gave Obama an "F" on his health care actions on a CBS poll. Prayer groups, rallies, tea parties, protests, and lawsuits are assembling against the bill. The people didn't want it--the Obama administration did!

Obama and the democrats went against what the people want. And, instead of being a steward of this great nation, they are trying to "reform" it and give it the "change it needs." Why? Because they think America is corrupt. They think all the world's problems are because of America. They are trying to start a revolution--for SOCIALISM!

They aren't listening to the people. They are doing what they want to get more government control, more government, more taxes, more government employee's, and less freedom. Health care reform doesn't reflect culture, it reflects a corrupt President who doesn't care about you.

So, now that that is said, let me say a few more things.

What I just said, about socialism and Obama's agenda, is backed up by the polls: over 100 million American's believe what I wrote above. Why do I say that? Because when you, democrat, atheist, whatever, say that I'm wrong, you'll know that you're not representing the majority. Not that majority makes something true. But in this case, it is true; therefore, majority represents it.

Todd Friel is right--we should bring the gospel to every situation. Todd Friel is wrong--health care reform doesn't have the support of the people.

More to come... Soon...
YVB4MRSWZXAD

BTW, those letters are for Technorati

An Easy Way to Make People Mad...

2010-03-11T22:58:00.000-08:00

... Quote Rush Limbaugh:

"Our nation was created in ways that allow human potential to prosper, and it created the greatest nation for people in the history of humanity. Now Obama is dismantling it, because he has no appreciation for our greatness. In fact, he resents it. He blames this country for whatever evils he sees around the world."

"So what is so strange about saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to reconstruct and reform this nation so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? I want the country to survive. I want the country to succeed."

"I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed."

"The future is not Big Government. Self-serving politicians. Powerful bureaucrats. This has been tried, tested throughout history. The result has always been disaster. President Obama, your agenda is not new. It's not change, and it's not hope."

Atheists, Lawsuits, and Abraham Lincoln

2010-03-11T22:40:00.000-08:00

Another atheist lawsuit against the state for "under God" and "in God we trust." Gee whiz. You would think these guys would get over the fact that America is a Christian nation; that it was founded in rooted in the Bible. And, that there hasn't been one American President who hasn't believed in God. Interesting thought, isn't it.

From USA Today:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

At least he acknowledges they are "religious beliefs."

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."

Now, he's smart.

Wait a minute, you say, "under God" wasn't put in the pledge until after the World Wars. True. But, you're still missing something called the, oh, it's just a tiny little thing: the Gettysburg Address.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Thomas Jefferson Revisionist Quote

2010-03-09T11:06:00.000-08:00

After my last post, Freddies_dead said, "w00t, quote war!!!!" And then, he proceeded to leave a bunch of comments with quotes against Christianity--of course.

Anyway, like most atheists, he didn't play by the rules. What do I mean by that? Well, if you're going to quote people, you might as well use real quotes, like ones the person actually said or wrote. NOT quotes from revisionists.

Freddies_dead put a quote supposedly by Thomas Jefferson, which states:
“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”
Oooh, it's too bad; that is not a real quote!

It just so happens that I'm a Jefferson fan. I read a few quotes from him long ago and decided I'd collect his works. I've collected, among other things, his autobiography, the Jefferson BIble, the Works of Thomas Jefferson, and the Declaration of Independence (of course). I've also read extensively on things he's believed--like in his letters to John Adam's.

So, what did Jefferson believe. Well, he said he was a Christian, a REAL Christian--his words, not mine. And he often argued those who said otherwise. Now, for the record, I would say otherwise. He doubted much of the Bible and was liberal in his approach, BUT he did not say Christianity was perverted.

Also, he had some great principles for the nation of America. Starting with, "All men are created equal"..."Endowed by their Creator"... "natures God"... "Supreme Being"... "Ect."

He was smart and wanted to protect the church from government control. So, he came up with what is called the Establishment Clause--separation of church and state. But Jefferson saw it different than the AClU (Anti Christian Litigation Union). He used federal money to fund missionaries and build churches. He wasn't afraid of the church; he was afraid of the state--of the government! Republican's of all time have always wanted a tiny, small, little government. And that government ruled BY THE PEOPLE. So people can be free. Because they have dignity--they're different than the animals; they were created in God's image (we'll come back to this).

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he writes, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath?"

So, my atheist friend, if you're going to quote Jefferson. Please use something he actually said. And, I'd challenge you to look up the history of that very fake quote, and you'll find I'm right.

But now you're wondering about Jefferson. Was he a deist? No. Not in today's sense of the word. He believed God existed and was active in the world, giving liberty and blessings and even punishment. Which brings me to a quote from another supposed deist: Benjamin Franklin.

Benjamin Franklin was smart. He believed in God. He prayed, "That I may be preserved from Atheism and Infidelity... Help me, O Father!"

By the way, I got that quote from my Benjamin Franklin collection, his last will and testament. I guess you might say I'm a big fan of all the Founding Fathers. They fought for freedom, and, because of them and God, I'm free to speak, to think, and to act.

Freedom is too often times taken for granted; buried in textbooks. But when the government, under Obama, bails out workers for the government and does everything in its power to grow, America gets angry. The American people don't want a big government and a health care plan that will do everything but provide healthcare. They want what America has always stood for from its founding:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect tot he opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it..."

Declaration of Independence