God And Atheism

Perhaps the greatest irony with regard to Atheism is that the practitioners display as much faith in their Bible (The Origin of Species) and their god (Darwin) as the typical religious zealot does in theirs. The reality seems to be that the flaws in Darwin’s theory are overlooked and ignored because at its core, Darwinism is really atheism masquerading as science. In fact the way Evolution is taught in the schools and colleges it is in reality a social agenda that is anti-religious and indirectly amoral. But this focus on Darwin simply ignores the glaring flaws and inconsistencies in the theory. The Darwinist – when confronted with these – will admit they exist but expresses complete faith that science will eventually be able to explain them and they in no way justify God or intelligent design. Thus “faith” in “science” is not seen as equivalent to faith in God, so we are left to believe that God believes in Darwin but Darwin does not believe in God.

Of course the first problem with the Darwinists bible – The Origin of Species – is that it really does not address how species originate, it merely addresses how the various species adapt to their environment – changing over time but remaining within the boundaries of their species. This hole in the theory is simply glossed over by the Darwinists who maintain that the demonstrated facts of adaptation lead to the logical conclusion that if changes of the magnitude wrought by adaptation are demonstrated then it is not much of a stretch to believe that one species can be transformed into another. For example they claim that it isn’t difficult to believe that a Lion and a Tiger had a common ancestor, but what they choose to ignore is that Tigers and Lions have been known to interbreed yielding the “Liger” so they are the same species and this argument at least is simply sound and fury signifying nothing. The reality is that despite a long history of experimentation breeders (biologists) have not been successful in breeding across species lines and creating a new species. Nevertheless, the Darwinists and Atheists (if these are not one and the same) would have everyone believe that this has in fact occurred through some random, accidental process that they cannot explain or duplicate but believe happened. These same people deny that there “belief” is not the same as the “faith” expressed by the deists.

The fact is that evolution cannot explain the origin of life and makes no effort to do so. Darwin’s a priori position was that there was initial life – that there was some initial living organism from which all life sprang. The idea that life sprang from lightening striking the primordial ocean made up of hydrogen, methane, water, and ammonia and creating an amino (organic) acid has turned out to be a false alarm because this does not reflect conditions on Earth when life came into being. The origin of life remains “an unsolved mystery of science” yet the Darwinists insist that life evolved from a single cell even though they cannot explain how that single cell came into being. Now Richard Dawkins the high priest of Darwinism cites the genetic code as an algorithm for transcription and reproduction, because it is essentially a binary code similar to what is found in computers. How this single cell came into being complete with the complex DNA and RNA sequences necessary for life and reproduction is attributed to some sort of random event. Dawkins cannot explain this but simply states that “it must have happened this way because we are here.” The idiocy of this statement is lost on the Darwinists but the fact is to believe that some random combination of chemicals could have produced life any different that assuming that some random combination of atoms could have assembled themselves into a submarine or birthday cake? The similarity of Dawkins faith in science to the faith of the intelligent design proponents is lost on his closed mind, but to any rational mind intelligent design seems more logical than some random event that has never been duplicated since the first event.

The fact is that the Universe cannot have evolved through natural selection because the universe makes up the totality of nature – which brings us back to the great singularity known as the Big Bang. Prior to the postulation of the Big Bang the prevalent idea was that the universe was constant, was always there, and would always be there. This was known as the “steady state theory” but once it was discovered that the universe was not only expanding but the expansion was actually accelerating the steady state theory was doomed. Unfortunately the Big Bang led to the only logical conclusion and that was the universe not only had a beginning but it had an end and that it started from some common point. In effect the universe was formed out of nothing because there was no space or time prior to the creation of all energy and mass and space and time. Interestingly the Bible states that the universe came into being at a particular instant as an act of creation by an already existing cosmic force which – for lack of a better term – we call God. Although when Moses asked God who he was or what he should be called he said :I am that I am” Not very explanatory but the Jewish Kabbalah states that when God became aware of himself he became conscious and created all of us as companions. So when the Bible states that God created man in his image it isn’t referring to our human form but our eternal souls.

Naturally this entire description is viewed as laughable by the Darwinists because they are convinced that at some point science will discover “the truth” and will be able to explain how life came to be, how the Earth came to be, and how any belief in a divine being or force is ludicrous. However, these same fun loving Darwinists should go back and read Genesis because it is a relatively accurate description of the Big Bang. Not only is it a good description of the Big Bang it was described and documented by a bunch of nomadic goat herders thousands of years ago.

None of this should be viewed as a refutation of Evolution because much of this theory is accurate – once God got everything started.

Age of Aquarius

Science and Scientists are bounded by our reality and their vision is limited by the very rules of science. For example the universe is expanding and as the technology allows them to see to the very edge of the universe the scientists are beginning to see that the expansion is gaining speed and the objects at the very edge are nearing the speed of light. Of course Einstein’s Theories limit mass to the speed of light so theoretically nothing can exceed that limit or exist beyond it. That is exist as mass but this presupposes that nothing exists outside of our mass oriented reality. The fact that something could exceed the speed of light is not allowed by science because science is bounded by their mass orientation. This constraint of mass limits our ability to see to material things and thus science declares that if we cannot see it then obviously it cannot exist. This means that science rejects even the possibility that there is an existence that cannot be seen or demonstrated through scientific processes.. Essentially the demands of science limit us to accepted theory which states that an object cannot exceed the speed of light so nothing beyond our mass oriented reality can exist. But science has discovered a whole pantheon of sub-atomic particles which they say exist (momentarily) but in reality all they ever see is the track they leave behind but we never actually observe these particles. The reality of these sub-atomic particles and their existence is based entirely on these tracks – much like the existence of Big Foot is based entirely on tracks. Of course no reputable scientist would dare equate his search for these particles to the search for Big Foot but the evidence for them both is roughly equivalent to tracks or “was’es” because all we know is where these things were but no one has actually seen one although there are more witnesses to sightings of Big Foot than to any of the sub-atomic particles. Thus science is trapped in a box which they built and it is a box that prevents them from exploring things that they cannot encompass in their scientific concepts and processes. Consequently, it isn’t only Big Foot that gets cast into the pit of superstition but also ghosts, life after death, psychic abilities, astrology, and any existence beyond the speed of light—and that includes God and your soul.

To be fair there are some scientists who are seriously looking into some of these things that are labeled as quackery by the scientific community and the irony is that these studies are in fact yielding some interesting results – but of course these results generally don’t meet the rigors of science so they tend to be ignored. However, increasingly psychic abilities are manifesting themselves and it is getting more and more difficult for science to ignore them even though they may not meet the demands of scientific proof. Even Quantum Physics is creeping closer to accepting the reality of an unseen Cosmic Force that may be responsible for the Big Bang.

The Age of Aquarius is believed to be the age of “unity” where all of mankind and our existence will come together. The reality is that our entire existence is mass oriented but that mass is actually an illusion because what we perceive as mass – like our furniture and our bodies is in reality nothing but little bundles of energy that we call atoms and molecules. Every atom in the universe is made up from identical components which are combined in different ways to create everything in our universe including our bodies – but are our bodies just a collection of these tiny bundles of energy that are manufactured in the womb or are we more than that? Are we simply an accidental creation that defies the law of entropy that allowed us to grow from pond scum in the Pre-Cambrian to human beings who explore space? To people who are born, who live, and who die and that’s it? Is that all there is? Of course the atheists firmly believe that but then we have that anomaly – the scientist who believes in God but doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design or life after death.

But the real issue here is who are we, do we have a soul – and if we do how do you prove that? Can you be a scientist and still believe that you have soul and can you believe in having a soul and not believe in life after death? If you believe you have a soul how can you not believe in Intelligent Design? What does all of this mean? Most people believe in an afterlife and in fact this is true from the earliest man and this belief actually was a central theme in ancient Egypt. But the soul is one of those things that cannot be seen, it cannot be measured – at least scientifically – and there really is no way of proving there is such a thing – yet virtually all people believe there is such a thing and this includes many scientists who don’t believe in ghosts or psychic phenomena. But the Age of Aquarius promises to bring an understanding of many things relative to our ideas about God, medicine, education, and life as mankind is released from centuries of false doctrines, wrong ideas, and misunderstandings about these things.

In the Aquarian Age we will break free of those beliefs and false doctrines that characterized the Piscean Age. In this new age everything becomes unified and all of our differences and dualities will mix together to bring us together as never before. This means we will truly begin to understand our relationship to God, to understand energy, the universe, and the limitations of modern science. The Age of Aquarius and the predicted end of the world may only mean the destruction of these limitations and it in fact it will be the beginning of a new age and stage in man’s eternal evolution into a more spiritual being.

The Brutality of Islam

Today brings us news that a devout Muslim father has murdered his 16 year old daughter for not wearing her head scarf to school. He had previously beat her for “not being Muslim enough” and the girl had told her friends that she thought if she didn’t meet her father’s standard of “being a good Muslim” he would kill her. Killing her was required by Islam because she was apostate. The Saudi Court sentenced a young girl to 90 lashes after she was gang raped by four men. When she appealed the sentence the court raised her sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison. The men received two years in prison and the rationale for the girl’s punishment was that she had been in the company of an unrelated male prior to the attack. Reading between the lines you can see that because she was with a boy – not related to her, she was seen as a whore and thus available to the boys who raped her. A British school teacher is sentenced to 40 lashes because she allowed her 7 year old students to name their Teddy Bear “Mohammed”. Of course the multi-culturists are doing their best to spin these atrocities into something less brutal and primitive but the reality is Islam is a barbaric religion that is anchored in the seventh century and doesn’t seem likely to join the modern world anytime soon.

Few of the apologists for Islam seem to have actually read the Koran or have any idea of what it says, but in Chapter 24:2 it calls for the fornicatress and adulteress to be lashed on the body 100 times and this is noted as the extreme limit. Please note that the Saudi Court sentenced the unfortunate victim of rape to 200 lashes. Also note that the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) or any official Islamic spokesman has failed to condemn this sentence or called on the Saudi Court to pardon the girl. This silence is telling because the Muslims -- even in the west -- place Shar’ia Law above secular law. To condemn this court would have been anti-Muslim. It should also be noted that Chapter 24:3 goes on to permit the fornicator and adulterer (males) to have sexual relations with a fornicatress, an adulteress, or a polytheistic (non-Muslim) woman. Therefore, rape of non-Muslim women is forgiven and it is easy to see why the girl who was raped had to have been condemned as a fornicatress and girl of low morality (she was in the presence of an unrelated male) because this justified the rape. For this girl to have been found innocent – a very unlikely event – it would have been necessary for her to produce four witnesses (all male) who would testify to the fact that she was forcibly raped. In effect she was guilty until proven innocent.

The Muslims all over the world demand to be treated equally with regard to the local laws but deny equal treatment in the Islamic states. No Jews or Christians are allowed in Arabia and Bibles are forbidden and possession could result in severe punishment including death. There is no freedom of religion in Islam – that is a Western concept which is enjoyed by Muslims but which they deny to others. But the fundamental hypocrisy of Islam and Muslims is visible everyday in the news as we observe Muslims killing other Muslims something strictly forbidden in the Koran – but the real hypocrisy is in Chapter 2:191. In this verse Muslims are forbidden to fight in the Holy Mosque but as we see these hyper-religious Muslims spout the Koran while using their “holy” Mosques as ammo dumps and fortresses from which they attack others – namely American Soldiers. But the irony goes on because in Chapter 2:193 where the Muslim is enjoined to fight their persecutors until religion is freely professed for Allah. How the Muslim community attacks those who believe differently and then call that “persecution” and then deny religious freedom is a blatant example of their hypocrisy and failure to live by the very dictates they profess.

In chapter 2:216 the Koran states that Muslims are expected to fight “Fighting has been ordained for you”. In this chapter the word “love” appears but the Koran is fascinating because in the few instances where this word "love" appears it never is used in reference to loving mankind – only loving God or something and in this chapter it references something you may desire that is bad for you. This failure to preach love of mankind should be contrasted with the New Testament where the underlying theme throughout is to love all mankind and to forgive your enemies. Instead the Koran is filled with references to killing, beheading, fighting, and destruction of all infidels. Islam is a brutal religion anchored firmly in the tribal culture of the seventh century and practiced by tribal people today who place tribe and religion above everything else and who have little to no loyalty to any secular authority other than military and even that is problematic. Women have very few rights in Islam and are treated as little more than property. They are married off independent of their wishes. Recently there has been a spate of female suicide bombers and these are passed off as dedicated Islamic women. The actual facts are that these are women who have been condemned to death by stoning or flogging for violating Shar’ia Law. They are given the option of dying in the name of Allah or in shame. The supreme irony here is that the “Traditions of the Prophet” clearly and unequivocally condemn suicide in any form. This is supported by the Prophet himself who quoted God as saying to a man who was morally wounded and killed himself to shorten the pain “My servant has pre-empted me by taking his soul with his own hand: he will therefore not be admitted to paradise”. So you wonder just how pure these Islamofascists are relative to their religion when they dupe malleable people into carrying out their murderous schemes. According to the Koran and Islam suicide is forbidden so why is this being ignored in the name of Allah when it is a clear violation of God's will? The simple answer is that these people are after power and they are willing to use any monstrous lie or deception and are willing to go to any extreme to achieve this power. These are brutal people who are using a brutal religion to achieve their desire for power – God has nothing to do with it.

Science God and Time

Science studies the material world – the physical aspects of our existence and denies the metaphysical because it cannot be demonstrated by any known scientific method; ergo science rejects psychic energy, telepathy, souls, and God. The scientists assure us that their secular world relies on reason and facts while religious people rely on faith. While this is what the scientists would like you to believe – and they probably believe themselves – the reality is that much of science requires the same level of faith as the religious and metaphysical. In fact, Carl Sagan stated “The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be”. This statement was made as if it were a known scientific fact – a fact that he undoubtedly believed in – but is really not a fact and is nothing more than a belief – a faith based argument and in light of current Quantum Theory most probably wrong. The Big Bang Theory has certainly thrown a monkey wrench into the tidy little world of science.

The discovery that the universe is expanding and that galaxies are moving away at an increasing rate led inexorably to the Big Bang Theory. This is a theory that is generally accepted – reluctantly accepted – by most scientists today. But if the galaxies are continuing to accelerate as they move away from each other the implication is that at one time they were closer – in fact compacted into one bundle of energy which exploded. Unfortunately this conclusion led to some very uncomfortable questions with some very disturbing potential answers. How big was this primordial bundle of energy? Apparently it was smaller than an atom and we know how large that would be. BUT, the Big Bang created both space and time so where was this bundle of energy in microsecond before the explosion? If the Cosmos is as it has always been then space and time are not an issue – but then why is the universe expanding at an accelerating rate? The obvious conclusion is that Carl Sagan and his supporters are wrong. But if the Big Bang is a true picture of the beginning of the universe then what initiated the Big Bang and where did the energy come from? Science doesn’t approve of God so that answer is disallowed on the basis that scientists have faith that a better answer will be discovered, but what does God say?

In paraphrasing Genesis it seems that the Earth was without form and void and that darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said let there be light (Bang) and there was light and God divided the light from the darkness. This was God’s work on the first day of creation and it sounds like a fairly accurate description – albeit somewhat poetic – of the first moments of the Big Bang. The scientific community likes to shrug off Genesis as a fairy tale suitable only for the gullible because they KNOW that the cosmos is at least 15 billion years old so it could not have been created in six days. Alas imagination is not a strong characteristic of the scientific community but the actual word translated in the Bible as “day” is actually a word that is much less precise and could describe a period of time from a second to an epoch. So perhaps Genesis isn’t too different from the current paleontological record, but that really isn’t the problem. The problem lies with Darwin and Evolution and the scientific community has replaced the Bible with “The Origin of Species” and God with Darwin. Of course the irony is that “The Origin of Species” does not describe how species come into being and the only explanation provided by science is an undemonstrated theory – a belief in how it all came about. So the Darwinists are not really too different than those ignoramuses who believe in God.

Science does not believe in miracles but only deals in facts – demonstrable facts – so Genesis is out and Darwin is in. First it should be noted that everything in the cosmos is built from the same stuff – protons, electrons, and neutrons – all indistinguishable from each other. It also should be noted that all of these are pure energy and that what we perceive as material is in fact energy fields – and that includes all living things. Now Genesis tells us that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils – a miraculous beginning but science rejects miracles so there must be a rational explanation of how life was formed without bringing God into it. All of those protons and electrons bumped into each other and formed atoms, the atoms bumped into each other and formed other things which coalesced into the sun, moon, and stars and eventually the oceans, which presumably were composed of water and various salts – but lifeless.

At least some of these errant atoms floating around in the ocean either bumped into each other or were hit by some random cosmic particle that caused them to mutate into a complex molecule, which in turn evolved into a self-replicating simple cell and we were off on the evolutionary pathway to life, humankind, and the space shuttle. Of course all of this is speculation and in spite of years of effort science has failed to demonstrate any of this and it remains theory, which is science talk for a belief which is another name for faith and this brings us back to that aggravating Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang represents the beginning of both space and time, but everything that has a beginning has a cause – some initiating action. This means that since the material world did not exist prior to the Big Bang then the universe must have had a nonmaterial beginning, which would be metaphysical in nature or spiritual – in effect it was MIND not MATTER that was the initiating factor. It was a MIRACLE – something that seems to be the province of God.

Richard Dawkins, The Man of Faith

The Atheists are leading a virulent attack on religion, especially Christianity and in its place they substitute science, particularly Darwin. In fact these secularists actually call themselves “Darwinists” and place Evolution in the center of their new religion, and religion is what it is because their science is based on faith just as that old time religion that they are attacking is based on faith. In fact these Atheists who believe in science have built their new religion on two cornerstones – Evolution and the Big Bang – and each of these requires a leap of faith just as great as any other religion.

The Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, the exact month and day is as yet unknown. According to the Big Bang model the universe began as an extremely dense and hot state of pulsating energy which suffered a sudden inflation leading to the expansion of energy and space which is still going on. Precisely how much space existed prior to this expansion is unknown although it must have existed – even in a miniscule form for this bundle of cosmic energy to exist. Where this energy came from is unknown but it can only have two possibilities – it was always there or it appeared spontaneously. If it was always there then what caused it to suddenly explode and expand into the known universe? If it suddenly appeared, what were the conditions to cause it to appear and then explode? In the latter case was space always there but empty? Did this singularity also create space? Of course it is stated that this singularity had infinite density which means mass and mass requires space in which to exist so we can conclude that the initial singularity existed in space or that space must have been created prior to the introduction of this bundle of energy.

Obviously the entire Big Bang Theory is much more complicated but complication doesn’t add any substance because it still leaves these questions unanswered. Stephen Hawking and others have postulated the “Big Crunch” meaning that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin contracting down to a singularity and this may be an eternal cycle. Of course then that poses the question of what happens to Space. Will the current universe which is measured in light years contract and disappear or merely contract to the point where all of the mass/energy in the universe is once again squashed together until the temperature and energy becomes so great that it once again explodes and expands into a new universe. All very interesting stuff but where did this little bundle of mass energy come from in the first place? What created it and what caused it to expand? Science can explain and describe everything that happened within microseconds of this initial Big Bang – what they can’t explain is what initiated it and where all of this energy came from. This question is left unanswered because all of the equations work so science has faith that they understand how the universe was created --- and accept the fact that it was an accident or just a random event, but under no circumstance was God involved because they don't believe in God. A careful reading of Genesis seems to pretty well describe the Big Bang.

The second foundation stone of Atheism is Evolution. The logical flaws of Evolution and the failure of paleontology to meet the criteria needed for proof established by Darwin are well know just as the failure to explain the Cambrian explosion of life is glossed over, but undaunted the Atheists with Richard Dawkins in the forefront continue their war against God. The real conundrum for these Darwinists is “why would evolved creatures like human beings, bent on survival and reproduction, do things that seem unrelated and even inimical to those objectives?” By this they are referencing the universal belief by humans in a God or some cosmic force. Even biologists like Dawkins say there must be some natural and evolutionary explanation for the universality and persistence of religious belief.

In the Dawkins view humans are descended from some primordial molecule that evolved into pond scum and through the intervention of arbitrary mutations over billions of years evolved into apes,who in turn became humans, who became enlightened biologists like Dawkins. Thus humans are simply arbitrary products of reproducing organisms without purpose, past, or future – a pointless existence, unless you accept that the point of their existence is to demonstrate the very futility of their existence. On the other hand, those people who suffer the scorn of the Darwinists believe we are the products of a good and powerful God who has placed us above all other life forms and has created us as his companions and who has given us purpose and direction in this life and in future lives.

Given these two positions and given that Evolution favors those who are best adapted to their environment, which of these two groups seems best able to survive? Which of these two groups is flourishing and has flourished since man was placed on the Earth? The reality is that these Atheists are actually a pathetically small group – admittedly they seem to flourish in academia and scientific circles, but within the population as a whole they represent a minority. In fact it is one of those supreme ironies that some scientists who believe in Evolution attend church regularly and profess a belief in God.

The logical conclusion is that a belief in God is built into mankind and that this belief has been to our evolutionary advantage. That faith based science is really just another manifestation of this evolutionary trait and people like Dawkins believe just as strongly in their religion as those do who believe in God.

Age of Aquarius

Science and Scientists are bounded by our reality and their vision is limited by the very rules of science. For example the universe is expanding and as the technology allows them to see to the very edge of the universe the scientists are beginning to see that the expansion is gaining speed and the objects at the very edge are nearing the speed of light. Of course Einstein’s Theories limit mass to the speed of light so nothing can exceed that limit or exist beyond it. But this presupposes that nothing exists outside of our mass oriented reality. The fact that something could exceed the speed of light (and thus demonstrate a flaw in Einstein’s Theory) is limited by our ability to see so if we cannot see it then obviously it cannot exist thus even the possibility that there is an existence that cannot be seen or demonstrated through scientific processes is ignored. Essentially the demands of science limit us to accepted theory which states that an object cannot exceed the speed of light so nothing beyond our mass oriented reality can exist. But science has discovered a whole pantheon of sub-atomic particles which they say exist (momentarily) but in reality all they ever see is the track they leave behind but we never actually observe these particles. The reality of these sub-atomic particles and their existence is based entirely on these tracks – much like the existence of Big Foot is based entirely on tracks. Of course no reputable scientist would dare equate his search for these particles to the search for Big Foot but the evidence for them both is roughly equivalent to tracks or “was’es” because all we know is where these things were but no one has actually seen one although there are more witnesses to sightings of Big Foot than any of the sub-atomic particles. Thus science is trapped in a box which they built and it is a box that prevents them from exploring things that they cannot encompass in their scientific concepts and processes. Consequently, it isn’t only Big Foot that gets cast into the pit of superstition but also ghosts, life after death, psychic abilities, astrology, and any existence beyond the speed of light—and that includes God and your soul.

To be fair there are some scientists who are seriously looking into some of these things that are labeled as quackery by the scientific community and the irony is that these studies are in fact yielding some interesting results – but of course these results generally don’t meet the rigors of science so they tend to be ignored. However, increasingly psychic abilities are manifesting themselves and it is getting more and more difficult for science to ignore them even though they may not meet the demands of scientific proof. Even Quantum Physics is creeping closer to accepting the reality of an unseen Cosmic Force that may be responsible for the Big Bang.

The Age of Aquarius is believed to be the age of “unity” where all of mankind and our existence will come together. The reality is that our entire existence is mass oriented but that mass is actually an illusion because what we perceive as mass – like our furniture and our bodies is in reality nothing but little bundles of energy that we call atoms and molecules. Every atom in the universe is made up from identical components which are combined in different ways to create everything in our universe including our bodies – but are our bodies just a collection of these tiny bundles of energy that are manufactured in the womb or are more than that? Are we simply an accidental creation that defies the law of entropy that allowed us to grow from pond scum in the Pre-Cambrian to human beings who explore space? To people who are born, who live, and who die and that’s it? Is that all there is? Of course the atheists firmly believe that but then we have that anomaly – the scientist who believes in God but doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design or life after death.

But the real issue here is who are we, do we have a soul – and if we do how do you prove that? Can you be a scientist and still believe that you have soul and can you believe in having a soul and not believe in life after death? If you believe you have a soul how can you not believe in Intelligent Design? What does all of this mean? Most people believe in an afterlife and in fact this is true from the earliest man and this belief actually was a central theme in ancient Egypt. But the soul is one of those things that cannot be seen, it cannot be measured – at least scientifically – and there really is no way of proving there is such a thing – yet virtually all people believe there is such a thing and this includes many scientists who don’t believe in ghosts or psychic phenomena. But the Age of Aquarius promises to bring an understanding of many things as our ideas about God, medicine, education, and life are released from centuries of false doctrines, wrong ideas, and misunderstandings about these things.

Of course there is some controversy over precisely when the Age of Aquarius begins but generally it is believed to begin sometime between the years 2000 and 2100 although many believe the changes have already begun. Certainly many ancient people, particularly the Aztecs and Mayans, predict the world will end Dec 21, 2012. Naturally what is meant by the end of the world is open to interpretation with many thinking in literal terms, that is widespread destruction and the ending of civilization, but then perhaps the end of the world as we know it may mean the destruction of old beliefs and the ending of these false doctrines and rigid inflexible science that denies the existence of things that will become manifest in the new age. It seems obvious that humanity is evolving and changing into a more spiritual form. Already we see the growing number of people who are psychic, who have greater vision, and who recognize that there is an indwelling spirit in us all, but more importantly they recognize that everything in our reality is linked. We are all joined to each other, to all of the animals, to the very rocks, and stars that make up our reality.

In the Aquarian Age we will break free of those beliefs and false doctrines that characterized the Piscean Age. In this new age everything becomes unified and all of our differences and dualities will mix together to bring us together as never before. This means we will truly begin to understand our relationship to God, to understand energy, the universe, and the limitations of modern science. The Age of Aquarius and the predicted end of the world may only mean the destruction of these limitations and it in fact it will be the beginning of a new age and stage in man’s eternal evolution into a more spiritual being.

Intelligent Design On Trial

The PBS NOVA program has recently broadcast a program called “Intelligent Design On Trial” which was a documentary and re-enactment of the Dover School Board trial regarding whether Intelligent Design was science or religion. Naturally the outcome of the trial was a foregone conclusion because scientists are only exceeded in their close mindedness by University Professors. Nevertheless, it was interesting to watch because once again we are treated to the belief of scientists that if you can name something you understand it. Gravity being one of those things which everyone can observe, science has named it, and to a large extent it can be described operationally, but precisely what it is and how it works is not totally understood. Suppose I stated that gravity is simply an example of “Unity” where unity is the tendency of things – all things – to unite and to be drawn together and that this Unifying force could be applied to everything including people? Even though this is saying virtually the same thing as the Theory of Gravity, the challenges would be to prove that this unifying force even exists because magnets repel as well as attract, whereas gravity always attracts. The fact that no one really knows how magnetism or gravity operates or at what speed is simply ignored because it has been named and studied by science but Unity has not. This is a very simplistic analogy but it essentially describes how science operates -- no concepts not sanctioned by the scientific community are allowed.

The crux of this trial, which resembled the Salem Witch Trials, really revolved around Michael Behe (an addmitted religious man and thus guilty at the outset) and his postulation of the irreducible structure. Behe based his postulation on a flagellum which he has studied for most of his career. Essentially he stated that if any part of this simple organism was missing the flagellum wouldn’t work and the organism would die – ergo – it could not evolve. The trial lawyers offered a similar organism that looked similar but did not flagellate. Because these were similar in appearance they were cited as proof that the entire theory of an irreducible structure was wrong – not flawed – but wrong. Behe had used the simple mouse trap as a case in point –showing that if any part was removed it would not work. The scientists immediately disproved this analogy by showing they could remove the base plate and attach the remaining parts to the floor and it would work just as well. Of course this proof came from a Harvard professor so it was not surprising that he missed the point that the floor was simply a larger base plate. A less prestigious scientist attempting to recover from this logical failure, removed TWO parts of the mouse trap and demonstrated that it could now be used as a tie clip so the concept of an irreducible structure was wrong. What was ignored of course was that this was no longer a mouse trap but something totally different with a totally different functionality and purpose. The second attack rested on Behe’s statement that there is no scientific explanation for how the immune system developed. The lawyers jumped on this and produced a mountain of books written by prominent scientists explaining how the immune system MIGHT have developed. The fact that they offered scientific POSSIBLITIES was enough to prove intelligent design was wrong.

This has been the problem with evolution all along – scientists use words like could, may, might, and possibly but because the caveats are surrounded by technical jargon and are pinned to the coveted title of Professor, then no further proof is necessary. Things change but essentially remain the same -- academia is as much of a belief sysem as religion. Darwin never explained how species came to be and his seminal work “The Origin of Species” doesn’t address this at all but like all studies on Evolution it simply describes adaptation and none of the tests he described have been met yet science accepts Evolution as a fact and the scientists refuse to even consider any flaw much less and alternative.

The argument then progresses to the study of chromosomes and how in the process of reproduction chromosomes become damaged and the resulting organism is modified. This can be demonstrated in various examples of adaptation and is generally unchallenged. However, given this accepted fact, the scientists then show how the chromosome pattern for apes is telomere – centomere – telomere but for humans – who have one less chromosome it is telomere--centomere – telomere – centomere – telomere. The result is that humans have 23 chromosomes while apes have 24. This poses a rather interesting point and that is chimpanzees and humans cannot reproduce and this is a problem with most of these mutations – they are not all positive, the mutant does not always survive, and those that do may not be able to reproduce. So precisely how apes evolved into humans is really left unanswered and there is no proof one way or another that they did and really this is no different than intelligent design which cannot be proved either.

Of course this is the problem with the entire Theory of Evolution. Species come and species go and according to Darwin the losers could not adapt to changing conditions – fair enough and it seems logical that species change through adaptation, thus we have horses, donkeys, and zebras – but they are all the same species and thus capable of interbreeding. Dogs are an even better example of this kind of adaptation but at the end of the day they are all dogs and how one species becomes another remains unanswered. Another unanswered question is the explosion of life between the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian. In the Pre-Cambrian the life forms were soft bodied animals like worms and pond scum but at the beginning of the Cambrian – the very beginning – we find an explosion of complex life forms like Trilobites complete with mouths, eyes, hard bodies and digestive tracts but no plausible explanation as to where these came from, how they evolved without leaving any trace of a predecessor or any transition fossil showing the development of the eye, mouth, foot, or hard shell -- so whatever it was WE KNOW it was random and not planned -- don't we?

The discussion branches off to the Big Bang and scientists KNOW that the Big Bang is a FACT and that all of the energy in the universe was initially contained in one teeny tiny dot, which instantaneously expanded into the universe as we know it. Where this teeny little dot came from is left unanswered, how long it existed before expanding no one knows, and since the big bang actually created SPACE where was this dot in the first place? Every proton, electron, and neutron in the universe is identical. In the chaos that followed the big bang we are told that these universal building blocks collided into each other and formed all of the elements and these elements combined to form planets, which then produced seas through other natural processes. The seas were filled with these random molecules which were bombarded with cosmic rays which created carbon atoms, which combined to from reproducible atoms that led to pond scum, then to humans and then to scientists and all of this was done through some sort of random process – there was never a plan it was all just an accident. God must be rolling with laughter at the sheer chutzpa of our scientific community.

Surprisingly Rich

Imagine my astonishment today when I found out precisely who the politicians mean when they say we need to tax the rich. I have always wondered precisely who these rich people are they need to be more heavily taxed. Well I nearly fainted when I found out that virtually everyone I know is “rich” in the eyes of the government. It seems the Federal Reserve Board is very diligent in tracking the financial wealth of Americans – apparently excluding all of the illegal immigrants. According to the Federal Government 40% of Americans are poverty stricken (family income of $25,000) with another 30% falling into the middle class with a median family income of $65,000. What is astonishing is that the remaining 20% are “rich” with the top 10% showing a family median income of $170,000. This means a husband and wife each earning $85,000 are rich, which I’m sure would come as a total shock to them. Looking at this from another perspective if you take average salaries a husband and wife team of a teacher and a policeman their combined incomes would place them in the top 75% or upper middleclass. In fact any family whose median income is in six figures, they are in the top income bracket targeted by the politicians who are always trolling for votes on the basis that the “rich need to pay their fair share”.

Income Level Percentile Median Family Income
Rich 90% - 100% $170,000
Upper Middle Class 80% -- 89.9% $99,000
Middle Class 60% -- 79.9% $65,000
Lower Middle Class 40% -- 59.9% $40,000
Poverty 20% -- 39.9% $24,000
Level II Poverty Less than 20% $10,000

So after looking at these numbers it is easy to see why the politicians are so vague about precisely whom they mean when they are on their annual electoral crusade to “tax the rich”.

But as we all know what you bring in goes out pretty much as fast as it comes in and the real test is how much can you keep after the government takes as much as they can because after all the rich should pay more because they make more – I think this is the precise position of the American Democratic Party and the Socialist Parties of various European countries. So does making over $100,000 a year make you rich? The reality is that very few people in these upper income levels feel rich or even consider themselves rich.

Of course income really doesn’t mean much in defining where you stand overall. The better measure would be net worth, that is the total sum of a family’s assets minus all outstanding liabilities. When viewed from this perspective it seems that the national median net worth of the average American Family is $86,000 and this includes all assets like home equity, jewelry, savings, autos, collections, furnishings, etc.


Income Level Percentile Median Family Income
Rich 90% - 100% $833,000
Upper Middle Class 80% -- 89.9% $263,000
Middle Class 60% -- 79.9% $141,500
Lower Middle Class 40% -- 59.9% $62,500
Poverty 20% -- 39.9% $37,200
Level II Poverty Less than 20% $7900

At first glance it would appear that the top 10% (approximately 30 million people) have more substantially more money than the remaining 70% of the population. But included in that top ten percent are Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, all of those professional athletes, and most assuredly all of those actors in Hollywood who command multi-million dollar salaries while crusading for the poor and demanding that the rich should pay their fair share. Of course at these multi-million dollar income levels, taxes are for the “little people” because batteries of accountants and lawyers insure that little to no tax is paid. These tax loopholes are carefully protected by judicious political contributions (to both parties) while the recipients beat the drum for higher taxes on the rich.

If you would believe what you see on television there is a whole segment of society living the high life in retirement communities. You see them every night as they dance the night away on their Caribbean vacations, where they jog, they fish, they bike, and in general live a great life in retirement because they are rich. Well I think if you would talk to most seniors you would quickly discover that few – very few – can live like these advertisements. In fact even those people in these median income brackets can not afford to live lavishly. Suppose the entire income tax structure were abolished and instead a flat tax was installed with no deductions whatsoever. Everyone and all businesses would simply pay a flat tax on their gross incomes. Do you think the people in the very top brackets, those who support the various politicians would ever allow this to happen? Can you imagine a George Soros, or George Clooney, or MicorSoft paying a flat percentage of their gross incomes to the government? Not a chance! These people want to tax the rich – not themselves. It is important that all of us rich people keep this in perspective when we go to vote for those candidates who think the rich should pay their fair share – that my friend is YOU and you clearly aren’t paying your way. Think about that!!

Life and Death

It is worth noting that reincarnation is a common concept and is found in many religions, with the exception of modern Christianity. But modern Christianity is founded on the Bible which was canonized at the Synod of Nicaea in the 4th Century and reincarnation per se was officially stricken at the Synod of Nice in the 6th Century, where the teachings of Bishop Origen were declared heretical. Origen was one of the early powers of the Christian Church who believed in reincarnation and rationalized it on the basis that if we are created at conception and upon dying we become an eternal spirit then that implies that we existed prior to birth, live, die, and live after death and thus logically are reborn, otherwise the entire process seems pointless. Bishop Origen was defeated in a power struggle with the Church Hierarchy as were the Gnostics who didn’t believe in a priesthood. The decision to outlaw reincarnation was driven by the desire of the early priesthood to secure their power because if our souls have an unlimited opportunity to live and evolve spiritually, the priests could no longer threaten us with damnation and hellfire if we do not do as they dictate.

Prior to this purging of the Bible it was still part of the Christian faith and remained part of the Gnostic beliefs and is found in the Druze Christians today. However, remnants of this philosophy remain in the Bible:

And the disciples asked him, saying, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"
But he answered them and said, "Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand."
Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matt. 17:10-13)

Then there is this passage:

This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist ... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He, who has ears, let him hear. (Matt. 11:11-15)

But the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts are being translated and with these translations some of these purged teachings and beliefs are coming to light once again. Recent translations from ancient scrolls contain text that points to reincarnation, for example:

"Jesus said, 'If they say to you, From where have you originated? say to them, 'We have come from the Light, where the Light has originated through itself.'" The Book of Thomas, Nag Hammadi Texts.

This passage has some interesting points in that it tells us that we come to the Earth from the Light but more interesting yet is the implication that Light is God and that God was self-created. This is addressed in early Jewish texts collected in the Kabbalah and paralleled in the Nag Hammadi texts under “The Origin of the World”. This is a very lengthy text but begins by noting that everybody both gods of the world and mankind say that nothing existed prior to “chaos” or the beginning,and that they are wrong. That chaos was derived from “darkness” which existed always and before the creation of chaos. That all of the immortal beings (souls) had been created out of the infinite and that it was “Wisdom” that divided mankind from the things above.

This concept of an eternal all knowing and always existing God is at the root of most religions, but beyond that lays several other equally interesting concepts. First that the Heavens and Earth were created for man and that all of our reality is essentially a thought projection, that all of the souls in the existence were created at the same time and are eternal, that our physical bodies are actually prisons for out energetic spirits, and that we come to Earth repeatedly to learn and expand out spirituality. However, we are given free will and this means that whatever we do individually and collectively is our responsibility and not driven or willed by God. Our individual conditions are self-determined and the result of decisions made in this lifetime as well as others.

Science and scientists are busy attempting to demonstrate that science has all of the answers and that God doesn’t exist. Unfortunately the evidence for Karma and reincarnation as well as the evidence for God continues to grow as science moves inexorably to the only logical conclusion that science cannot disprove God and that God may be the only answer. It seems logical that reincarnation exists and that we come to Earth repeatedly.

The Common Good and Marxism

Recently we are hearing the term “The Common Good” being bandied about by various politicians and public figures – almost always left leaning people who would describe themselves as “progressive”. However, the term “progressive” is in reality simply a code word for “socialist” or in the more extreme cases “Marxist”, but precisely what is meant by the common good? This is a term that has a long history but really has no specific definition because it is situational. Generally this is a term that describes a specific “good” that is shared and beneficial for all members of a community but just on the face of it, this is a definition that clearly does not work because not everyone would agree that a specific good was good for everyone. If a good is common between persons A and B may not be viewed as “good” to persons C and D. But in general it is agreed that water, food, and shelter are “common goods” and shared by all people.

Of course while these are indeed common goods, they are relative because the quality of food and shelter are not universally the same, indeed some people are homeless and others indigent. And at this point the Progressives enter with their agenda for the common good. In the interest of the common good the progressives have outlawed smoking, not on the basis of empirical science but on the basis of social engineering – it is bad for you and we are going to force you to stop smoking. They have outlawed free speech, on the basis that no one in society should be offended by anyone else. So we have hate speech and forbidden words but accept low class behavior, profanity, and blatant public sexuality on the basis of free speech and free expression, because to suppress these is not in the common good.

Increasingly the progressives are using the rhetoric of common good to advance their socialist agenda, hence we are being told that universal health care is in the common good. The failure of government sponsored universal healthcare everywhere it has been tried is ignored as is the cost. The corollary here is that the government needs to “tax the rich” to pay for these social programs espoused by the progressives. In the progressive world private businesses are inherently evil and should be taxed out of existence. The means of production belong to the “people” and everyone is entitled to a job regardless of their qualifications. This was the basis of communism in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, all of Eastern Europe, and is currently underway in Venezuela. The clear and obvious failure of these progressive philosophies is simply ignored by the leftist intelligentsia on the basis that the implementation was flawed and in the right hands, it would work. Of course the question immediately rises as to “whose hands” we should entrust our government. So who falls into this camp of enlightened progressives who feel they should control the rest of us – well we find, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Barbra Streisand, and a whole bevy of similar intellectual giants. The reality is that these people are actually trying to establish an Oligarchy where they run everything and the rest of us are reduced to servants and serfs who must work to support them while they confiscate our earnings in the name of the common good.

If we allow these progressives into power they will do everything they can to implement their agenda in the name of the common good. This will include a suppression of the constitutional right to bear arms; after all, guns kill people (the empty headedness of that statement totally escapes these intellectual giants). Smoking is already criminalized but then we can be assured that Marijuana will be legalized and the convoluted logic of that will be rationalized on the basis that most of the liberal smoke marijuana but would never smoke a cigarette. Illegal immigrants will be permitted to take advantage of all social services on the basis that they provide services for the common good. Of course universal health care would be high on their agenda because it isn’t fair that health services should be paid for or offered as charity. Of course every effort will be made to suppress capitalism via heavy taxes, onerous restrictions, environmental protection, and anything else they can dream up to keep businesses from making a profit because any profit is obscene. Without doubt they will take a leaf from Hugo Chavez and attempt to socialize the oil companies because they are making way too much money. Hillary Clinton has already stated that among her first actions as president will be to take the profits from the oil companies and invest them in other energy programs.

So when you hear the liberal media talk about progressive ideas and ideals, remember these are actually the people who view themselves as smarter than everyone else and thus are entitled to rule you, to take your money, to restrict your lives, and to govern what you eat and how you live in the name of the common good.

Death of the Democratic Party

The strength of the United States was founded upon or certainly has been maintained by the two party system. True, there have been attempts to establish third parties, the Bull Moose Party and the Dixiecrats come to mind, but these have never been successful and the country has continued to be steered by first one party and then the other, but always by a Republican or Democrat. This situation has moved the country first left and then right and then back again. Certainly at various times both parties have been plagued with failures, corruption, and scandal just as each has been distinguished by courage, principles, and success. But the dignity, honor, and strength that has characterized both parties seems to be waning, but more so with the Democratic Party which seems to have become impotent as its members are driven further and further left.

The Democratic Party began moving left with the election of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, but this shift was really barely perceptible and typical of the way the parties had balanced each other because prior to the election of FDR the country had been very conservative and that conservatism – rightfully or wrongfully – was held accountable for the disastrous Great Depression. But the real inflection point came with the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice, an appointment made by the Republican President – Dwight Eisenhower. It was the Warren Court that started the judicial system down the pathway of judicial activism that continues to this day and it was the rulings of this court than began the dramatic shift to the left. Subsequent Republican Presidents have been able to slow this drift but they have not been able to stem the tide toward socialism and left wing activism.

The rule of the majority, the founding principle of the country, has been replaced through judicial activism by the rule of the minority. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been stretched by first one judge and then another to include the “right to not be offended” The Freedom of Religion has been distorted to guarantee the right of all minorities to practice their religion (?) while slowly curtailing the right of the Christian majority to practice theirs. The right to not be offended is trampling the Freedom Speech except when that Freedom of Speech is immoral, obscene, anti-American, or anti-Christian. As bad as these things are they still fall within the realm of “correctible”. The real threat to the country comes from the waning power and influence of the Democratic Party and the growing strength of the “progressives” which is the code word for socialists which in turn is code for Marxists.

This dramatic shift to the extreme left began with the founding of Moveon.Org by George Soros, a Hungarian by birth and political activist who claims (with some justification) to have been instrumental in bringing down the communist party in Poland and the governments of Georgia and Czechoslovakia. He has now embarked on a campaign to bring down the government of the United States and to replace it with one more to his liking, which is one where he is the power behind the throne. Clearly he is seeking a role – on a global scale – of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin. In effect, Soros is using his vast wealth to fund various organizations that support various politicians, who if elected, will be beholden to and controlled by him. This bevy of politicians under the sway of Soros includes, Clinton, Roberts, Gore, and Obama. The election of anyone of these would give Soros the power he seeks and the ability to redirect the government and the foreign policy of the United States. As a naturalized citizen he cannot be President but as one of the richest men in the world, he clearly intends to be the shadow president.

The Democratic Party abandoned Joe Lieberman because he supported the foreign policy of the government, he viewed Islam as a great threat and the War on Terror as real. Now we see Moveon.Org attacking General Petraeus without any condemnation from the leading candidates, who either dodge the issue or soft pedal it but do not condemn it. Now we see the same organization plus many of the front organizations supported by Hillary Clinton (who is supported by Soros) attempting to shut down talk radio and censor Rush Limbaugh. This blatant attack on free speech is not condemned by Moveon.Org or any of the Presidential candidates, instead they are again either silent or softly supporting the Moveon.Org positions.

The real issue here is the absolute silence from the “official” Democratic Party. Howard Dean – the Chairman of the Democratic Party appears to have been transported to some distant planet because he has not uttered any word about anything in months. In fact the Democratic Party appears to have disappeared entirely and has been replaced by Moveon.Org. The policies of the left are not being formulated and articulated by the Democratic Party, they are being formulated by George Soros and articulated by his mouthpieces – Clinton, Roberts, and Obama. The real Democrats like Dodd, Biden, and even Kennedy are silent while the extremists like Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha spend all of their time attacking the current administration rather than trying to run the country. All of this is signals a decline in the power and influence of the national Democratic Party and this represents a threat to the entire country. Remember, Soros has the objective of overthrowing the government and he intends to install himself as the power behind the President. Unfortunately I think Obama, Roberts, and Clinton think they can control Soros, just like the German politicians thought they could control Hitler.

Foreign Policy

Recently we have been treated to a virtuoso display dissimulation by the Prime Minister of Iran and a breathtaking display of the anti-American attitudes found on the liberal campuses of America. Coincidentally I have been asked to sit in on a discussion of American Foreign Policy by a private discussion group who are increasingly concerned about several foreign policy issues, but first Iran.

Iran
There is no doubt but that Iran is a terrorist state established by and in control of Islamofascists. But of all of the Islamic States Iran is perhaps the one with the largest educated population. Their population is relatively young on average, generally pro-west if not pro-America, and very restive. While the world is focused on the Iranian Government and its drive to gain nuclear weapons and drive the Americans out of Iraq, the Iranian government is struggling internally to maintain control and that is becoming more difficult everyday as the youth of Iran resist the Mullahs and their strict moral codes that are not shared by more educated people.

The danger is that if the Iranians gain nuclear capability before a more secular government comes to power, then Hamas and other terrorists organizations will gain that capability and would certainly use it against Israel and America. It should be noted that it is quite possible that the Iranians are using their nuclear program to distract America and the UN from the underground nuclear development effort going on in Syria. The Israeli’s bombed this facility but whether or not it was destroyed remains unknown. If this secondary nuclear development can go forward, then the Iranian government may be more open to UN inspections and loosen their control over their people in order to stabilize their government without sacrificing their nuclear ambitions and objective of bringing down America.

China
This is a very interesting topic considering two things -- 1) Bill Clinton is the one who allowed free trade status to the Chinese. He was financially supported by Hsu as was Hillary. Connecting these dots may be impossible but given the sleaziness of the Clinton's it is easy to conclude that there was a Quid Pro Quo between the Clinton's and China. However, China is far from a free or even capitalist society, although it is no longer a pure Marxist state. It is more like the old imperial china than the worker’s paradise promised by Mao and Lenin. The people have few civil rights and although the government is more open to entrepreneurs it is worth noting that they are the major source for copyright violations, product knock offs, and violation of almost every standard of production and safety. They are a rogue nation relative to business standards, civil law, and human rights. The American government as well as the UN gives lip service to China’s violation of human rights and the use of slave labor but no meaningful action has been taken nor is likely to be taken. But this flouting of standards and safety is beginning to catch up with them but I note the US Government is making more excuses than taking any effective action.

Venezuela
Hugo Chavez is a Marxist and only a thinly veiled one at that. He is systematically raping the industry of Venezuela in his drive to redistribute the wealth. He is a living example of how to gain power by promising the take the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor. This was tried by the Roman Emperors and failed. It was tried by Lenin and failed. It has been tried in France and failed. It was tried in Cuba and failed. It has been tried numerous times in Mexico and has failed every time. The reality is that poor people are poor for a reason and taking the wealth away from those who create the jobs and their wealth and giving it to the poor assures the politician of their votes while giving the poor a few dollars and temporary relief. In the long term, the entrepreneurial class is destroyed, the means of wealth generation is destroyed, and the entire country sinks further into poverty. This is true of Venezuela today just as it is of Cuba. For America the problem lies mostly in the production of oil because under Chavez the production has declined dramatically and will probably sink further as he and his Marxist/Socialist cohorts mismanage the oil fields.

Saudi Arabia
The House of Saud has a tiger by the tail. The situation there is analgaous to an obscure protestant sect of snake handlers got control of the US Government and used their resources to convert everyone to their way of thinking. They have created a monster and they don't know what to do. If they stop funding these terrorists they face a civil war which they will certainly lose -- and they may have one anyway. If they continue funding these Madrassas and thus indirectly the terrorists, they risk losing support of the West and thus instigating a civil war. The Saudi Government is VERY UNSTABLE and I seriously doubt they can remain in power much longer. Once they fall, the Muslims will have a choke hold on Western Society -- especially Europe. This will give the Russians an upper hand in Europe and they will become resurgent politically and economically. This is a problem that will be exacerbated if Putin becomes dictator which seems to be his plan. America's dependence on foreign oil will be a problem because much of our oil comes from Venezuela but the mismanagement by Chavez has reduced their output but he is heavily dependent on American oil revenues.

It should be noted that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Baharain, Quatar, the Emirates, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey plus all of North Africa represent the old Islamic Empire that stretched from Spain to India. The Muslims are trying to re-establish that empire under the Caliphate, which historically was seated in Baghdad and unter the Ottomans in Constantinople. The war against the West is only part of the issue because these various leaders are vying for power and the position of Caliph, which is what Saddam was after. It seems clear to me that Spain has already succumbed to the Muslims in all but name and France isn't far behind. The western powers continue to view these countries as countries with secular governments but that is a false assumption. Islam does not recognize any secular power and they make no distinction between the Mullahs and the government. People like Maliki are shams because they have no real power unless the Mullahs say they do.

We are engaged in a religious war and no Muslim can be loyal to ANY government and remain a Muslim. This means that all of these Muslims who exist in our midst represent a huge and growing threat to our stability because when challenged they must side with Islam and NOT the government- any government. Just because these people are American or French, or German citizens does not mean they would support those governments over Islam and the Mullahs. Saudi Arabia is a problem but Iran, Syria, and Palestine are much greater problems right now. There are laws government sedition and it is long past time when those laws should be enforced in America.

The Decline and Fall of Science

What has happened to “science”? Does it exist anymore or has the pressure on professors to “publish or perish” become so intense that the long and arduous effort necessary to do effective research is being bypassed in favor of “statistical” studies many of which are simply data mining activities with no scientific basis. Worse we are being bombarded by “studies” that are so ridiculous that one must wonder if they were intended as joke or a satirical comment on other similar studies. One of these ridiculous studies was recently published that purported that the brains of political liberals were more developed and had greater reasoning ability than the brains of political conservatives. That isn’t a joke, so stop laughing – this was a serious study conducted by a --- dare I say it --- professor --- now don’t roll your eyes like that – he really was a professor at NYU.

This was a real “scientific” research project that consisted of showing students a card with a design and then flashing that design on the screen for a tenth of a second and the student had to push a button if the designs matched. This experiment was divided into two phases. In phase one the designs matched every time and in phase two they never matched. The objective of the experiment was to determine the ability of the individual to make snap judgments in limited time. Once the results were tabulated it seems that all of the students got 100% right in the first phase but in phase two those students who professed to be “liberal” only make errors 34% of the time while those students who classified themselves as “conservative” made errors 44% of the time, thus demonstrating that the “liberal” brain is more capable of making quick and accurate decisions than the “conservative” brain. Stop laughing – really now – I did not make that up. Furthermore, this experiment was based on a total of 43 students with half (please stop laughing – I KNOW that 43 is a prime number so there wasn’t an even division) of the students being selected from a West Coast University and the other half (maybe they used two midgets and classed them as one person – you never can tell when it comes to professors) were from Eastern Universities. Where they found conservatives in these bastions of learning and group think is beyond me, but the professor assures us this was a balanced study.

Of course this entire exercise – which you can be assured, was paid for in some way by the taxpayers – is completely laughable. Not only is the total number of students studied miniscule to the point of being statistically irrelevant the selection of students only from East and West Coast universities further compromised whatever this was. Of course the difference of 10% points on such a small sample further compromises any the activity but the most ridiculous point was the conclusion that liberal students are more capable of making considered and reasoned decisions than conservative students who simply react like trained monkeys. This same experiment run with different students across the country and incorporating smaller colleges and universities, including military cadets, would undoubtedly yield a different set of results – most likely showing that there is no difference in the brains of people or how they use them. Although the brains of college professors might actually be smaller and more ossified.

This brings us to the other popular liberal cause and that is global warming, which has replaced the hysteria over global cooling so those giant liberal brains have now connected the two and assure us that global warming is driving global cooling and the warmer it gets the more it will cool – or is that vice versa – the colder it gets the warmer it will become. It really doesn’t matter because none of these liberal cause apparatchiks really research any of this stuff anyway. The thing that amazes me is it is widely believed that much of the Earth was once covered by ice. This was called the “ice age” and there appear to have been several of them. During this period animals grew long hairy coats and in spite of PETA the human let their hair grow and wore fur clothes which they took from these poor defenseless animals. This tendency to grow long hair in times of stress can be observed on most college campuses – especially on the East and west Coasts.

However, the ice ages did occur and glaciers did appear to have covered much of North America. The long haired animals seem to have disappeared along with – are you ready for this astonishing observation -- the ice!! The ice sheets and glaciers are gone and we are left to speculate on where they went. Of course we are left with only two possibilities migration or melting – I choose melting. Now I guess we could assume that all of those cave people built big fires to melt all of that ice but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of that while there is evidence that the entire climate got warmer. Sort of a Paleolithic global warming that occurred seemingly without any human assistance since the earliest of these occurred before humans graced the Planet. In fact, there is evidence that this warming was so great that Antarctica was NOT covered by ice.

Of course these are the inconvenient facts not addressed by the deep thinkers who are determined to indict Western Civilization for all of the ills of the world as they demand The US sign the Kyoto treaty before it is too late. What they aren’t telling you is that the Kyoto Treaty will not reduce CO2 nor will it have any impact on Global Warming at all, it just redistributes who can make the CO2 so the total remains the same. Just remember when you hear these ridiculous claims that they are coming from the same universities who gave us Ward Churchill and the scientific proof that liberals are smarter.

Conspiracy and Intelligence

It is worth noting that conspiracy theories abound just as they always have but recently they seem to have exploded into a full time activity for people who seem to have nothing better to do with their time. Actually as it turns out that isn’t precisely true because many of these conspiracy addicts are young people who were infected with there inability to think clearly while still in college. As we already know the University System is stuffed to the brim with “professors” like Ward Churchill who have never actually held a job, have never had to make a profit, who have never served in the military or served their country in any way. These are the dregs of the Flower Power generation, the men (?) who remained in college with a deferment hoping to outlast the Viet Nam War. Unfortunately that war dragged on and on in spite of their best efforts to derail it. Ultimately they succeeded with the help of the media and such illustrious patriots as Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda, and Walter Cronkheit, but by the time the war was over they had their Phd’s in political science, sociology, black studies, are some similar subject, certainly not degrees in any challenging subject like mathematics because they had to maintain their grade point average in order to keep their deferments. So this gaggle of patriots found themselves in post-doctoral work and holding positions as professors at their universities because they had no skills to sell in the job market. The common thread with these university whack jobs is their universal hatred of the military, of capitalism, the government, and of course anything that even smells like competition.

However, it is their universal hatred of the military and mistrust of the government that they have conveyed to their students over the last 30 years. With the accessibility of the internet we now find these young people sitting at their desks surfing the internet while they slave for some capitalist pig, so they don’t see their failure to give a days work for a days pay as stealing, it is merely redistributing the wealth and this is their share. But these are the people who create these wild conspiracies out of thin air because they cannot accept that any poor, down trodden, non-American, would actually attack America unless manipulated by that cabal of arch criminals – the CIA. Therefore, Al Qaeda is either a totally made up organization or if real it is simply a shadow organization being used by the CIA, the Pentagon, and oil magnates to gain control of the Middle Eastern oil fields. So logically (in their clouded and immature minds) the destruction of the World Trade Center could not possibly have been accomplished by some ignorant goat herders from Saudi Arabia.

The educational background of these Saudi’s was obviously made up by the CIA because no educated person would be capable of such a crime. So while these ignorant peasants may have actually flown airplanes into the twin towers, the actual destruction was an implosion carried out by the federal government under the direction of the administration. The objective of this entire exercise was to trigger the invasion of Iraq for the purpose of seizing control of the oil wealth of Iraq. To these simple minds America is imperialist and Americans are evil grasping people bent on taking control of the world’s wealth. They see any reduction in taxes as “welfare” for the rich and any legislation aimed at giving unearned money to the “poor” as the redistribution of wealth and morally justified. The fact that most of these theorists do not earn a great deal, may in fact be unemployed, and certainly do not hold positions of any responsibility is ignored as other members of this lightly educated elite rush to their support.

To actually believe any of these conspiracy theories you must believe that the American Military is morally corrupt. That the senior military officers would commit crimes like the destruction of the Twin Towers without regard to the law or the morality of such an act. You must believe that the Pentagon was destroyed – not by an airplane being flown into it but by a missile launched by the military against itself. What happened to the missing plane and people is ignored because these theorists were never taught critical thinking in college. The Ward Churchill’s of the universities do not encourage questioning – just belief.

The real irony is that these same people carry signs and placards calling President Bush a stupid man and that he and his administration are hiding these vast secrets from the American people. First, off President Bush has been consistently “misunderestimated” by his critics. I am reminded of the Emperor Claudius who played the fool to survive and outlived all of his smarter relatives. President Bush uses these ignorant fools to great advantage and makes them seen even dumber than they are. Secondly, no administration since Washington’s has been able to keep a secret longer than it takes to call the newspaper. If any part of these conspiracies were even partially true it would be all over the New York Times and Washington Post. The reality is that it is our premier universities, the tenure system, and the force of groupthink in those classrooms that are our greatest threat today.

Roman Parallels to America

The Decline and Fall of Rome has been written about endlessly without any real or definitive explanation being offered, primarily because there wasn’t any single event or causative factor but it was the cumulative result of many factors, both large and small. Today the question being asked by many people is “Is America in danger of suffering the fate of Rome?” Obviously no one knows the answer to this question or even what questions to ask, much less any definitive answer but the parallels between Rome and America are striking, beginning with Eagle. Rome and the power of Rome was always signified by the Eagle – just as America is symbolized by the Eagle.

Even a cursory examination of Washington DC reveals similarities between Rome and America. The Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials resemble the temples of Rome, the Supreme Court, Congress and other government buildings resemble Rome, the Senate even displays the Fasces – symbolic of Roman Power, the Power of the Consuls and Proconsuls. In fact, the founding fathers took many things from ancient Rome beginning with the concept of a Constitution, so our government is truly a modern day reflection and improved version of the Roman Republic. So it is quite natural to wonder will the fate of America follow that of Rome? We know that the military defeats came long after the Empire was already in decline and failing. So what did cause the fall of the Roman Republic (Empire)?

We know that the fall of Rome was not through military defeats because there was no military force in the world at the time capable of challenging the Roman Military machine. Even the fractious Israelites were kept in check by Roman arms, so the Empire did not fall due to an ineffective military. This leaves two broad areas as the source of the decline – moral and economic decay.

Of course Hollywood has given us a highly distorted view of Roman morals, with their focus on various perversions and immoral behavior by prominent citizens – implying that these actions were common in the society. The reality was that Roman society was rather conventional and even puritanical – much like contemporary American society. Certainly we have prominent citizens whose conduct falls very short of the Ten Commandments but American society in general doesn’t reflect that conduct. However, the Roman government was always corrupt and the Senators were self-serving and open to bribes. It was this internal corruption that opened the door to Caesar and the Empire ruled by dictators. To date America has not suffered a military coup but our Senate is increasingly self-serving and the number of corrupt Senators is growing. Congress has an approval rating at an all time low and the population in general holds the Congress in growing contempt. THIS is a danger sign.

Roman law was for sale to the point that judgments could be purchased and justice became a joke. The American judicial system hasn’t sunk to this low point, but the ACLU and other special interest groups have distorted the law to the point that the very fabric of our society is being warped into something not intended nor wanted by the majority of citizens. The separation of Church and State has been taken to an extreme, terrorists have been defended and released on technicalities, laws governing illegal immigrants are not enforced, and judges increasingly use the bench to legislate law. All of these things are danger signs and signs that the value system and culture of America is waning.

The Roman Empire was an economic powerhouse but it also consumed huge amounts of revenue. The Roman Army was over a million men scattered across the Empire. This was a huge drain and then there was the infrastructure (roads and aqueducts) which also took considerable revenue to sustain. But the Roman Senate – much like the American Congress robbed the tax revenues for self-interest, to enrich themselves and their friends, to pay off potential enemies (foreign aid), and to buy food to keep the populace quiet (welfare). To a large extent we see this in America today as we see our Congress tax and tax and tax but the revenues go overseas into the pockets of dictators or into social programs that sustain a large and growing underclass who are unmotivated to change.

Rome was actually a polyglot civilization that was very tolerant of all peoples and all religions. In fact part of the problem was the barbarians that they were always fighting were not really trying to overthrow Rome, they really wanted land and the protection of Rome. The Empire was filled with refugees from these outlands. This is very similar to what we see in America today. Our country is being overwhelmed by illiterate illegal immigrants while productive applicants are being kept out by bureaucrats. The impact of this can already be seen in California where the taxes go up while the number of taxpayers goes down, the infrastructure is in decline because there is not enough money to keep it in repair. English is in decline and the literate class retreats into enclaves around the larger cities – oblivious to the threat that they are creating in the name of diversity and liberal values.

Is America in threat of decline? Look around – what do you see? The decline has already started. Illegal immigrants are on the rise, illiteracy is growing, corruption is increasing and Congress is no longer an instrument of the people but a self serving club of the privileged – just like the Roman Senate. We have a religious minority – Islam – that is a growing threat as they demand special privileges while telling everyone that they intend to destroy the country. Wake Up America!! The Barbarians are at the Gates

Summary of Evolution

Evolution and faith based science continues to fascinate me. If I understand science this is describes in simple detail how we got to be where we are today – enlightened but relatively pointless pieces of protoplasm. And it all began with – nothing – nothing at all. In the beginning there was nothing, no space, no time, no mass, and no energy. Then there was a huge explosion called the “Big Bang” by scientists and God’s cosmic Belch by Creationists. In this primordial instant there was nothing and then all of the energy in the universe was created in a flash along with the space needed for the energy. At this point it gets a little tricky because where did the space come from? Was it always there? Can space exist without anything occupying it? Did the creation of all of this energy simultaneously create the space required? How much space was created in this primordial moment – all of it – or just enough to contain the energy and that space continues to expand and will continue to expand either indefinitely or until the “Big Crunch”. If the “Big Crunch” occurs what will happen to all of that mass and energy? Will everything disappear or simply restart? If it does then how did it all begin in the first place? The Big Bang of course defies the Law of Entropy but then the Big Crunch follows the Law of Entropy. It’s all very confusing but scientists – who are very wise men—tell us that this is the way it was and they have written very weighty books on the subject so it must be true, We are expected to believe these high priests of materialism and set aside those aggravating questions which they cannot answer.

So if we accept the scientific explanation for the beginning on faith, even though they really don’t have any answers for the really tough questions, we can move on to the next steps. Following the Big Bang the Universe was a whirling mass of energy composed of protons, electrons, and presumably neutrons. These represented the total number that was ever to be created (Laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass). But as these particles whirled about they collided and over time created all of the Stars, the Planets, and of course all of the elements that make these up. Among all of these millions of stars and planets, the Earth came into being and as it cooled the mountains and seas formed. So we now had a planet with oceans but no life – not a trace.

During the period of coalescence all of the minerals were formed, including Carbon – which we observe today in its many forms ranging from soot to diamonds. How it existed in its primordial state is not actually known but some form must have been present in the oceans. This is the logical conclusion reached by those wise men called scientists so it must be true, besides, life began in the oceans (didn’t it?) so Carbon atoms must have been present or even Carbon based molecules. And then the miracle happened, but in science there are no miracles so there was a random chance event. The Sun is constantly showering the Earth with particles and cosmic rays and one of these little particles – who we can call Bob – hit one of these Carbon Molecules causing it to join with another Carbon Molecule – who we can call Stella – and these happily married molecules began to split and reproduce – thus giving life to the Earth. Not a miracle but a chance event that hasn’t happened again and has never been observed, but this must be the way it happened.

Now random Carbon Molecules reproducing like mad only give you more of the same thing and are really not very useful but gradually these common molecules (Clara and Phil) combined and formed Chlorophyll and Pond Scum. Not a very dignified beginning for mankind but then we all have to start somewhere. Of course – as they say – the rest is history. The benevolent Sun continued to shower the Earth with Cosmic particles and these allowed the descendants of Clara and Phil to morph into sea weed and algae. Eventually these rascally reproducing molecules combined to form a worm, which was the next step up the evolutionary ladder because the worm was alive and mobile. Precisely how this worm achieved life is a little vague but it undoubtedly happened because Pre-Cambrian fossils show worm burrows. But the stage was now set the next huge step forward – The Cambrian Explosion.

At the opening of the Cambrian Period the seas were teeming with complex life forms, primarily Trilobites, but Trilobites with eyes, digestive systems, complex organs, appendages, and hard shells. How these came about or where all of this life came from is unknown but we are assured that it was through some random evolutionary event. From this point on, science assures us that Evolution picked up steam and ever more complex life forms evolved, lived, and became extinct making way for newer and more complex life forms. This inexorable march of life resulted in all of species with each one springing from a predecessor and ultimately resulting in Homo sapiens. Of course precisely how this happened is not known because there is no evidence of one species morphing into another, but scientists assure us this is what happens and we must believe them because after all THEY are scientists and learned wise men.

When critically examined evolution seems to be nothing other than a series of random events that occurred millions of years ago but for some mysterious reason have ceased to occur since no new species has emerged in historical times. Nevertheless, we continue to have faith that science and scientists have the answers.

Marriage and Commitment

While the institution of marriage continues to outpace divorces, the reality is that the number of “common law’ arrangements continues to grow. But for those who actually engage in a true marriage the statistics show there is a fifty-fifty chance the marriage will end in divorce. Of course it is this astonishing level of divorce that is used by those who elect to pursue the common law path to justify their situation. The rationale seems to be that why would I get married because there is a real possibility of a divorce and its just a bunch of words anyway. It’s hard to argue with the statistics on divorce but is the marriage vow just a bunch of words? If they are just a bunch of words then why not say them? In fact why is there such a thing as marriage and how does it differ from these casual relationships?

The reality is that if two people enter into one of these live-in arrangements they are assuming a great deal of risk, risks that they probably don’t recognize or think won’t apply to them. The female in these arrangements is particularly at risk, especially if there are children. Generally the male is the breadwinner in these arrangements and the female may either not be employed or employed at a much lower salary. Thus the male holds the advantage because he can leave anytime taking his income with him and leaving the female destitute or nearly so. The female has no legal rights regarding community property, no claim for spousal support, but she might have a right to child support if a child is involved. Furthermore, the female can easily be manipulated by the male through intimidation and threats to leave. The fact is that these arrangements are conveniences – primarily for the male – that show a shocking lack of commitment and regardless of protestations to the contrary a lack of love as well.

Beyond these obvious risks there is the health risk. Suppose one of the partners suffers some devastating illness. The other partner has no legal right to act on behalf to the other, that right remains with the family and the “domestic partner” is not family in any legal sense. Suppose there is an accident and one of the partners is killed? Unless that partner has been careful to name the other as the beneficiary then the insurance goes to the estate not the partner. Essentially these informal domestic arrangements result in bastard children, legal issues, insecurity, and a shocking lack of commitment because the partners do not bond as they do in a legal and formal marriage.

Marriage requires a commitment – a public commitment that has both religious and legal ramifications. It is a formal ceremony where one person dedicates their life to the other and with this commitment comes numerous benefits, not the least of which is a sense of security that the other person won’t simply walk out and if they do there are some significant ramifications to that decision. At the very least there are the financial issues which govern the division of property and assets, but there are many longer term impacts as well.

Beyond these legal and mundane issues regarding marriage there are some very significant emotional ones as well. The first of these is “love” not the physical love that drives the informal arrangements but the deep and abiding emotional love that only comes with time and dedication to the other person’s well being and happiness. This doesn’t mean that this emotional bonding can’t happen in the common law arrangements but it is much less likely to happen because if this feeling of care and concern for the other person is there the commitment is not otherwise why not say those simple words that would have given legal protection to the other partner.

Certainly marriage is not a bed of roses and every marriage has its ups and downs. As anyone who has been married for more than a couple of years knows, keeping a marriage together requires work and commitment to making it work. Unfortunately that lesson seems to be the one that is missing today as more and more people spring from broken marriages. These people have no role model and what they saw was the going gets tough the solution is to leave and move on to a happier situation. The fact that this decision to place ones self above the other and any children is actually a selfish act is missed entirely. These seem to be the people who believe they are entitled to a life of perpetual happiness and indulgence that requires no sacrifice by them. Enduring marriages rest on the belief that commitment is required, personal sacrifice is required, and that for those who are willing to give up anything for the other partner, then nothing must be given up. Marriage is not a fifty-fifty proposition and on any given day it may be 90-10, but over time it works out to be a true partnership.