A sobering commentary about a fact of our recent history, that will not be taught to our kids in Social Studies class.
The Amero vs. The Dollar
This link is broken, but for more history and explanation of the Amero/ North American Union go HERE.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_currency_union
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Should we Celebrate Diversity, or Unity?
Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorarado tells us 8 methods for the destruction of the United States.
Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no future.
Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no future.
Friday, June 22, 2007
National Sovereignty Info.
Here is a clearinghouse for information regarding the behind-the-scenes cramming of elitists plans to join Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into a union like the E.U. down our throats, without open discussion or vote.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Jim R. Schwiesow -- Taking Back the Country
Please read this commentary with patience, the author is angry, justifiably so. Those who wish this information to be forgotten, or ignored, will use harsh words to make the writer seem like a "conspiracy nut" or "fanatic", but the author is a patriot who loves our country and it's freedoms, and has not forgotten lessons learned the hard way...and that have not been taught to subsequent generations...
Jim R. Schwiesow -- Taking Back the Country
Jim R. Schwiesow -- Taking Back the Country
Monday, June 11, 2007
Evolution? or Creation?
This may be a little long and technical, but if you are like me, you will understand enough to see this is well worth the read. It is from the "Institute of Creation Research"-WWW.ICR.ORG
Evidence for Creation
from Biology
A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know."1 Later, concerning the question of the origin of such a molecule, Pross said, ". . . one might facetiously rephrase the question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?"2 That pretty well summarizes the extent of the progress evolutionists have made toward establishing a mechanistic, atheistic scenario for the origin of life after more than half a century of physical, chemical, and geological research. It is possible, however, to derive facts that establish beyond doubt that an evolutionary origin of life on this planet would have been impossible. The origin of life could only have resulted from the action of an intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural universe. There is sufficient space here to describe only a few of the insuperable barriers to an evolutionary origin of life.
1. The absence of the required atmosphere.
Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.
2. All forms of raw energy are destructive.
The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source.4 Here evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In his comments on Miller's experiment, D. E. Hull stated that "These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."5
3. An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an incredible clutter.
Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.
4. Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules.
It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The same is true of DNA and RNA. To form a protein in a laboratory the chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide reagent). The energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H2O (water). This only happens in a chemistry laboratory or in the cells of living organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in the sky.
5. DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms.
DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that "Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis mine)."6 Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?
What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.
"Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?" (Job 12:9).
Endnotes
1. Pross, Addy. 2004. Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism or replication first? Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biospheres 34:308.
2. Ibid., 316.
3. Davidson, C. F. 1965. Geochemical aspects of atomospheric evolution. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 53:1194; Brinkman, R. T., 1969. Dissociation of water vapor and evolution of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 74:5355; Clemmey, H., and N. Badham. 1982. Oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere; an evaluation of the geological evidence. Geology 10:141; Dimroth, E., and M. M. Kimberley. 1976. Precambrian atmospheric oxygen: evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and iron. Can. J. Earth Sci., 13:1161.
4. Miller, Stanley. 1953. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117:528.
5. Hull, D. E. 1960. Thermodynamics and kinetics of spontaneous generation. Nature 186:693.
6. Wood, R. D., et al. 2001. Human DNA repair genes. Science 291:1284.
*Dr. Duane Gish is Senior Vice President Emeritus of ICR.
From icr.org/articles/3140, copyright © 2007 ICR
Evidence for Creation
from Biology
A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know."1 Later, concerning the question of the origin of such a molecule, Pross said, ". . . one might facetiously rephrase the question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?"2 That pretty well summarizes the extent of the progress evolutionists have made toward establishing a mechanistic, atheistic scenario for the origin of life after more than half a century of physical, chemical, and geological research. It is possible, however, to derive facts that establish beyond doubt that an evolutionary origin of life on this planet would have been impossible. The origin of life could only have resulted from the action of an intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural universe. There is sufficient space here to describe only a few of the insuperable barriers to an evolutionary origin of life.
1. The absence of the required atmosphere.
Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.
2. All forms of raw energy are destructive.
The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source.4 Here evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In his comments on Miller's experiment, D. E. Hull stated that "These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."5
3. An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an incredible clutter.
Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.
4. Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules.
It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The same is true of DNA and RNA. To form a protein in a laboratory the chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide reagent). The energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H2O (water). This only happens in a chemistry laboratory or in the cells of living organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in the sky.
5. DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms.
DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that "Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis mine)."6 Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?
What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.
"Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?" (Job 12:9).
Endnotes
1. Pross, Addy. 2004. Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism or replication first? Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biospheres 34:308.
2. Ibid., 316.
3. Davidson, C. F. 1965. Geochemical aspects of atomospheric evolution. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 53:1194; Brinkman, R. T., 1969. Dissociation of water vapor and evolution of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 74:5355; Clemmey, H., and N. Badham. 1982. Oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere; an evaluation of the geological evidence. Geology 10:141; Dimroth, E., and M. M. Kimberley. 1976. Precambrian atmospheric oxygen: evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and iron. Can. J. Earth Sci., 13:1161.
4. Miller, Stanley. 1953. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117:528.
5. Hull, D. E. 1960. Thermodynamics and kinetics of spontaneous generation. Nature 186:693.
6. Wood, R. D., et al. 2001. Human DNA repair genes. Science 291:1284.
*Dr. Duane Gish is Senior Vice President Emeritus of ICR.
From icr.org/articles/3140, copyright © 2007 ICR
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Grace + 0 = Salvation?
Rich Mullins has a song about faith without works being as useless as a screen door on a submarine. I agree. Read on.
Grace + 0 = Salvation?
Grace + 0 = Salvation?
Why So Many Churches?
A popular tract by Irvin Baxter Jr. Please read with an open heart, and prayerful consideration.
Why So Many Churches?
Why So Many Churches?
Friday, May 25, 2007
WorldNetDaily: Bush makes power grab
Think Ron Paul is overstating the misuse of the office of the Presidency? Think that we couldn't be headed for a dictatorship? Remember Frank Zappa's song "It Can't Happen Here"? Well it can, and apparently the groundwork is laid to see that it does. Read on.
WorldNetDaily: Bush makes power grab
WorldNetDaily: Bush makes power grab
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Ron Paul gains momentum
Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility
Ron Paul: Constitutional message of limited government gaining momentum
By Geoff Whittington/p>
Sunday, May 20, 2007
During the last few years American news outlets have been reporting the impact of the US Government at home and abroad. Risking job loss and reprisal whistleblowers and journalists have been sharing a list of revelations: warrantless domestic spying, misinformation as a pretext for an illegal invasion of Iraq, the misuse of Presidential signing statements, the abuse of Habeaus Corpus, a National ID program that threatens privacy, economic bullying of other countries, Guantanamo Bay abuses, torture, growing debt, and a faltering dollar. The list is destined to grow longer because the US Government grows unchecked. Every day this faceless entity clamors for more power and funding. It is not known to what extent this government will stop infringing on the rights of its citizens and the rest of the world. Ironically, though, it is this same mainstream news that must share fault: it does not provide the requisite forum to debate the creeping size of government.
The Constitution is the legal framework for American free society and it provides the rules for the US Government. The Constitution was originally designed as a safeguard from tyrannical governments. However, the aforementioned list provides strong indication that something very close to a tyrannical government is coming soon. Regrettably, it is the law-abiding hard-working citizen who suffers. He is forced to pay more taxes, experience a growing loss of liberty and privacy, faced with a bleak economic future, and is offered no effective platform to debate the political trend. The present situation wouldn't be so gloomy had the US Government simply followed the rules.
It is natural that large organizations like the US Government seek to legitimize their activities, expand its power and grow its influence. This is common practice for most bureaucracies. Though for this reason the US government was instructed to operate within the confines of The Constitution. Unfortunately over the years the media has failed to bring attention to Constitutional subversion. The US Government has converted a healthy republic into a bully and debtor by breaking the rules. Thankfully, though, an opposition is organizing itself to reverse the trend. Today America has an opportunity to restore The Republic by supporting 2008 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a 9 term Congressman, physician, and a veteran of the Vietnam war. He is currently seeking Republican nomination for the Presidency. His voting record is undeniably consistent with the limited government ideal. Each time the federal government has proposed spending bills to expand its responsibilities and power beyond The Constitution Ron Paul has voted ÒNoÓ. Aligned with him are groups who wish to increase state autonomy, lower taxes, increase federal accountability, reduce inflation and introduce legitimate fiscal responsibility. Ron Paul's support is growing and his message of limited government is breaking into mainstream news.
The growth of Ron Paul support is due to a number of reasons; future social security problems, war weariness, agreement that the US must cease being the Òpolicemen of the worldÓ, refreshing candor, opposition to Internet regulation, understanding that the size and role of the US Government is unsustainable, concern for further erosion of liberty and a wish for a meaningful economic future. The community rallying around Ron Paul is proving to be an influential group.
Beginning first with MSNBC, then ABC, the National Post, Yahoo! News, Chicago Tribune, and others this group has systematically expanded coverage of Ron Paul and the message of limited government. The media's reaction was first predictably quiet and then soon engaged in damage control. Media critics soon joined the fray and blasted news outlets for failing to provide fair and accurate coverage of Ron Paul and the other candidates. Providing a fair and balanced debate is important to Ron Paul and his supporters because it allows the American people to hold their government accountable.
The media is the fourth branch of government and shares responsibility for the future of The Republic. Due to the failure to provide effective debate on the growth and influence of the US Government media is complicit in the creation of an unsustainable debt, the perilous intervention around the world and the infringement upon personal liberty. The role of government must soon become a focus in American political debate because the current governmental trend is alarming. Fortunately the 2008 Presidential Race is providing the American people with a real alternative in Ron Paul. They would be wise to encourage Ron Paul and his constitutional message of limited government. Allowing the same tired message to be sold in the news threatens to provide similar, if not more horrible, outcomes for the American people.
Geoff Whittington runs a small software company called Fireball Technology Group Inc. In addition he helps connect local experts with their communities at: www.thelocalguru.com.
Ron Paul: Constitutional message of limited government gaining momentum
By Geoff Whittington/p>
Sunday, May 20, 2007
During the last few years American news outlets have been reporting the impact of the US Government at home and abroad. Risking job loss and reprisal whistleblowers and journalists have been sharing a list of revelations: warrantless domestic spying, misinformation as a pretext for an illegal invasion of Iraq, the misuse of Presidential signing statements, the abuse of Habeaus Corpus, a National ID program that threatens privacy, economic bullying of other countries, Guantanamo Bay abuses, torture, growing debt, and a faltering dollar. The list is destined to grow longer because the US Government grows unchecked. Every day this faceless entity clamors for more power and funding. It is not known to what extent this government will stop infringing on the rights of its citizens and the rest of the world. Ironically, though, it is this same mainstream news that must share fault: it does not provide the requisite forum to debate the creeping size of government.
The Constitution is the legal framework for American free society and it provides the rules for the US Government. The Constitution was originally designed as a safeguard from tyrannical governments. However, the aforementioned list provides strong indication that something very close to a tyrannical government is coming soon. Regrettably, it is the law-abiding hard-working citizen who suffers. He is forced to pay more taxes, experience a growing loss of liberty and privacy, faced with a bleak economic future, and is offered no effective platform to debate the political trend. The present situation wouldn't be so gloomy had the US Government simply followed the rules.
It is natural that large organizations like the US Government seek to legitimize their activities, expand its power and grow its influence. This is common practice for most bureaucracies. Though for this reason the US government was instructed to operate within the confines of The Constitution. Unfortunately over the years the media has failed to bring attention to Constitutional subversion. The US Government has converted a healthy republic into a bully and debtor by breaking the rules. Thankfully, though, an opposition is organizing itself to reverse the trend. Today America has an opportunity to restore The Republic by supporting 2008 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a 9 term Congressman, physician, and a veteran of the Vietnam war. He is currently seeking Republican nomination for the Presidency. His voting record is undeniably consistent with the limited government ideal. Each time the federal government has proposed spending bills to expand its responsibilities and power beyond The Constitution Ron Paul has voted ÒNoÓ. Aligned with him are groups who wish to increase state autonomy, lower taxes, increase federal accountability, reduce inflation and introduce legitimate fiscal responsibility. Ron Paul's support is growing and his message of limited government is breaking into mainstream news.
The growth of Ron Paul support is due to a number of reasons; future social security problems, war weariness, agreement that the US must cease being the Òpolicemen of the worldÓ, refreshing candor, opposition to Internet regulation, understanding that the size and role of the US Government is unsustainable, concern for further erosion of liberty and a wish for a meaningful economic future. The community rallying around Ron Paul is proving to be an influential group.
Beginning first with MSNBC, then ABC, the National Post, Yahoo! News, Chicago Tribune, and others this group has systematically expanded coverage of Ron Paul and the message of limited government. The media's reaction was first predictably quiet and then soon engaged in damage control. Media critics soon joined the fray and blasted news outlets for failing to provide fair and accurate coverage of Ron Paul and the other candidates. Providing a fair and balanced debate is important to Ron Paul and his supporters because it allows the American people to hold their government accountable.
The media is the fourth branch of government and shares responsibility for the future of The Republic. Due to the failure to provide effective debate on the growth and influence of the US Government media is complicit in the creation of an unsustainable debt, the perilous intervention around the world and the infringement upon personal liberty. The role of government must soon become a focus in American political debate because the current governmental trend is alarming. Fortunately the 2008 Presidential Race is providing the American people with a real alternative in Ron Paul. They would be wise to encourage Ron Paul and his constitutional message of limited government. Allowing the same tired message to be sold in the news threatens to provide similar, if not more horrible, outcomes for the American people.
Geoff Whittington runs a small software company called Fireball Technology Group Inc. In addition he helps connect local experts with their communities at: www.thelocalguru.com.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
SOS: American Sovereignty, Rule of Law Under Attack!
Here is one man's view, I imagine many can agree with.
SOS: American Sovereignty, Rule of Law Under Attack!
SOS: American Sovereignty, Rule of Law Under Attack!
Foreign Policy: The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions
You would think that Islam has taken over the world as leading religions go...but there are almost twice as many Christians as Muslims according to this report from Foreign Policy.
1.3 billion Muslims to 2.2 billion Chrisitians. A billion is a lot.
Foreign Policy: The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions
1.3 billion Muslims to 2.2 billion Chrisitians. A billion is a lot.
Foreign Policy: The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Ron Paul's Weekly column Dec.11, 2006
Who Makes Foreign Policy?
December 11, 2006
The Iraq Study Group released its report last week, giving the president several recommendations to consider in prosecuting the war. Similarly, the incoming Democratic leaders in Congress promise to urge the President to take a new course in Iraq. Meanwhile, one newly elected member of Congress was asked on national television about the Iraq war. She responded by saying she had no real opinion, and that foreign policy was “up to the president.”
In each instance, it is assumed that the president will make Iraq policy. I’m not talking about the details of actual military operations in Iraq; I’m talking about the broader policy questions of how long our troops will stay, how many will stay, and how victory will be defined.
The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.
The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the Constitution.
Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher, writing in The Oxford Companion to American Military History, summarizes presidential war power:
The president's authority was carefully constrained. The power to repel sudden attacks represented an emergency measure that allowed the president, when Congress was not in session, to take actions necessary to repel sudden attacks either against the mainland of the United States or against American troops abroad. It did not authorize the president to take the country into full-scale war or mount an offensive attack against another nation.
But it’s not simply the decision to wage war that is left to Congress. Consider also the words of James Madison:
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws (italics added).
So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct-- and bring to a conclusion-- properly declared wars. Of course the administration has some role to play in making treaties, and the State Department should pursue beneficial diplomacy. But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.
It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.
Go directly to Ron Paul's site at http://www.house.gov/paul
December 11, 2006
The Iraq Study Group released its report last week, giving the president several recommendations to consider in prosecuting the war. Similarly, the incoming Democratic leaders in Congress promise to urge the President to take a new course in Iraq. Meanwhile, one newly elected member of Congress was asked on national television about the Iraq war. She responded by saying she had no real opinion, and that foreign policy was “up to the president.”
In each instance, it is assumed that the president will make Iraq policy. I’m not talking about the details of actual military operations in Iraq; I’m talking about the broader policy questions of how long our troops will stay, how many will stay, and how victory will be defined.
The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.
The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the Constitution.
Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher, writing in The Oxford Companion to American Military History, summarizes presidential war power:
The president's authority was carefully constrained. The power to repel sudden attacks represented an emergency measure that allowed the president, when Congress was not in session, to take actions necessary to repel sudden attacks either against the mainland of the United States or against American troops abroad. It did not authorize the president to take the country into full-scale war or mount an offensive attack against another nation.
But it’s not simply the decision to wage war that is left to Congress. Consider also the words of James Madison:
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws (italics added).
So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct-- and bring to a conclusion-- properly declared wars. Of course the administration has some role to play in making treaties, and the State Department should pursue beneficial diplomacy. But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.
It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.
Go directly to Ron Paul's site at http://www.house.gov/paul
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
A foreworded e-mail sent by my daughter
> Jim Neugent is a coach in Childress , Texas .
>
> Jim writes:
>
> My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program
> called
> "THE PRACTICE." In last nights episode, one of the lawyer's mothers
> decided
> she is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help her get a marriage
> license so she could marry her 'partner.' I sent the following letter
> to
> ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply, but I did get one.
>
> My original message was:
>
> ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer
> watch
> any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. '
> THE
> PRACTICE' can be a fairly good show, but last night's program was so
> typical
> of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was
> against the idea of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner
> because he had convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a
> "gay basher."
> Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the
> apostle Paul had to say about it.... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay
> bashers'. What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that
> an
> alternative l ife style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)
> --Jim Neugent
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:
>
> How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of
> stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read
> the declaration of independence (what our nati on is built on), where it
> says "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that way for a
> change!
> Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of
> stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in
> this country, and your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of
> statement.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
> Jim Neugent's second response ! to ABC:
>
> Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I
> will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the
> Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I
> will be praying for you.
> - -Jim Neugent
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Note: Wouldn't Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible
> for a crutch? Please resend this to everyone in your mailbox.
>
> -- Thanks, Jim Neugent
>
> I wonder if the person from ABC considered how many people would read
> this
> e-mail!
>
> This is one we should definitely pass on.
I agree.-Fred
>
> Jim writes:
>
> My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program
> called
> "THE PRACTICE." In last nights episode, one of the lawyer's mothers
> decided
> she is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help her get a marriage
> license so she could marry her 'partner.' I sent the following letter
> to
> ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply, but I did get one.
>
> My original message was:
>
> ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer
> watch
> any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. '
> THE
> PRACTICE' can be a fairly good show, but last night's program was so
> typical
> of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was
> against the idea of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner
> because he had convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a
> "gay basher."
> Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the
> apostle Paul had to say about it.... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay
> bashers'. What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that
> an
> alternative l ife style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)
> --Jim Neugent
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:
>
> How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of
> stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read
> the declaration of independence (what our nati on is built on), where it
> says "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that way for a
> change!
> Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of
> stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in
> this country, and your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of
> statement.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
> Jim Neugent's second response ! to ABC:
>
> Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I
> will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the
> Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I
> will be praying for you.
> - -Jim Neugent
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Note: Wouldn't Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible
> for a crutch? Please resend this to everyone in your mailbox.
>
> -- Thanks, Jim Neugent
>
> I wonder if the person from ABC considered how many people would read
> this
> e-mail!
>
> This is one we should definitely pass on.
I agree.-Fred
Paul, Not Romney, Won First GOP Debate
Ron Paul, a Republican running for President, is a constitutional believing, Christian. He is NOT your run-of-the-mill politician. But, the mainstream media may not let you know that! Read about the GOP debate results here.
Paul, Not Romney, Won First GOP Debate
Paul, Not Romney, Won First GOP Debate
Sunday, May 6, 2007
That Too Is Apostasy
I wanted to post this to keep the subject fresh to us and to remind us what time we are living in. Also, if you are a new visitor, this should whet your appetite to read further about the subject matter at hand.
That Too Is Apostasy
That Too Is Apostasy
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Europa-How Revelation reveals Europe in end time prophecy » UnsealedProphecy
GREAT teaching about a neglected subject by the majority of the Church. Please read this informative piece!
Europa-How Revelation reveals Europe in end time prophecy » UnsealedProphecy
Europa-How Revelation reveals Europe in end time prophecy » UnsealedProphecy
Progress in the fight to stop the NAU and NAFTA Highway
The "Superhighway" that the government has been trying to cram down our throats, as a tool to create a North American Unity government like the European Union has hit a snag or two. It is good news to me, and I hope you agree. I treasure our National Sovereignty. Read about it here.
Progress in the fight to stop the NAU and NAFTA Highway
Progress in the fight to stop the NAU and NAFTA Highway
Sunday, April 15, 2007
One World Gov't- our participation
Click on the title to go to an article by Debra K. Niwa. Debra Niwa has researched extensively the information she presents here, and should be considered very reliable. We have too few watchdogs on our government in mainstream media.
Our government has been systematically eroding our national sovereignty. One of the newest tactics is by fousting upon us this border eroding Highway linking Mexico to Canada via a super highway conduit through the USA.
Our government has been systematically eroding our national sovereignty. One of the newest tactics is by fousting upon us this border eroding Highway linking Mexico to Canada via a super highway conduit through the USA.
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Inquisition
While googling "The Inquisition" I found page after page of misinformation and bad referrals. I googled "Pope Gregory IX" to obtain anything usefull. Our current population is horribly mis/un-informed about the horrors and causes of the Roman Catholic Church's Inquisition. It was not a "Christian" maddness against the world, but a Roman Catholic maddness against Christianity!
This web page is not just about the Inquisition, but about Papal power, Roman Catholic doctrine which sets aside the scriptures that establish the true church. I am sure some will be angered and offended if you are currently uninformed, or misinformed, but please approach this subject with an open heart. Truth can hurt.
Click on the title "The Inquisition" above to get to the link.
This web page is not just about the Inquisition, but about Papal power, Roman Catholic doctrine which sets aside the scriptures that establish the true church. I am sure some will be angered and offended if you are currently uninformed, or misinformed, but please approach this subject with an open heart. Truth can hurt.
Click on the title "The Inquisition" above to get to the link.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Separation of Morality and Society
Familiar with the "Seperation of Church and State" arguements? Many, if not most Americans have heard that lie so often, they believe it, including too many fundementalist Christians.
J.B. Williams writes this, found in the Canadian Free Press, exploding the truth of this doctrine. Our politicians need to hear this: if you vote you need to hear this. If you don't vote, maybe this will cause you to rethink that decision. Send links to everyone you know.
Separation of Morality and Society
J.B. Williams writes this, found in the Canadian Free Press, exploding the truth of this doctrine. Our politicians need to hear this: if you vote you need to hear this. If you don't vote, maybe this will cause you to rethink that decision. Send links to everyone you know.
Separation of Morality and Society
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
