Giraffe Evolution?

A lot of people say that they see evolution everywhere around them. They say that there is no field in science where they do not see its influence. Wait a second, you can’t have absolutes like that; it’s un-scientific.

Whether something is evidence of creation or evolution all depends on your worldview, how you interpret the evidence, and your starting premises. If any of the above conditions are false, then the “proof” goes down the drain. An evolutionist looks at the Grand Canyon and says, “A little bit of water over a long period of time did this.” A creationist looks at the Grand Canyon and says, “A lot of water in a short period of time did this.” It all depends on your viewpoint. That isn’t to say that there is no absolute truth. There is, all I’m saying is that people look at things differently and make conclusions based on their worldviews.

I look around me and see examples of creation and marvelous design everywhere.

Take the giraffe, for instance. Its heart is 2 ft. long in order to pump the blood all the way to the head. Now say (hypothetically) that the long neck and head evolved before the heart. That giraffe would have a serious problem: it’s called death. Oops, there goes the carrier of the one successful mutation. I wonder what the intermediate form of the giraffe looked like. We’ll never know, because it hadn’t developed all the defensive mechanisms it needed yet. Guess we’ll have to wait another million years or so.

That’s just one example, if you look around you, you’ll see many more examples of excellent design by an awsomely intelligent Creator.

UPDATE: After doing a blog search on giraffe evolution, I discovered that some people still believe Lamark's theory of evolution by need. (Lamark was French, by the way) That's a funny, outdated evolutionist argument that most of them don't use anymore.

Lamark said that a long time ago, there was a drought in Africa, and deer-like creatures needed to reach the higher branches of the trees for food. So, they stretched their necks and after a while, by passing down the "stretched neck" gene; they got to how they are now.

False for several reasons:

1. Acquired characteristics are not passed down in the genes.
2. Genes do not change because you want them to.
3. I could sure use eyes in the back of my head, or an extra limb; but no matter how hard I try, I can't seem to get them.
4. You can't stretch bones that long.
5. You need support systems for that long neck (see post).

I find it funny that some people still subscribe to Lamark. Die-hards.

Welfare

Now there’s a touchy subject. Welfare was introduced in the '30s by FDR. The idea was that poverty would disappear in America by just throwing money at it. By taxing the rest of the country, they could redistribute the wealth to the poor. Despite the good intentions, the program does not work well. Poverty is still around, people are staying poor, and jobs are still lost. And no, the solution is not to throw more money at the system.

The word “welfare” only means (in this sense) the aiding of poor or unemployed citizens. It doesn’t mean necessarily that the government administers that aid. In older times, that’s what welfare meant: the aiding of private citizens by other private citizens, or groups of them. This usually worked very well, until you had a situation like the Great Depression where practically everyone was poor. The sources of aid that had done the job in previous situations were no longer available, or just exhausted. In this case, I think it is all right for a government to step in and aid its citizens, using money that has been saved up for such emergencies. That’s another example of what I spoke about before with regards to socialism being appropriate in emergencies. The problem occurs when the government continues to assume its role as the big daddy of everyone after the emergency has passed. It doesn’t work, and there are many problems that have come up, are coming up, and many more that likely will come up.

Here are a few:

The welfare agents don’t know the private situations and backgrounds of the people they serve. They can’t understand each personal case because they usually aren’t from the area. Thus, they can be deceived by some shady people into giving money away.

The welfare system puts an extra, unneeded burden on the people.

Welfare also promotes a kind of laziness, and unwillingness to work or get out of the present situation. Instead of the alcoholic working for his liquor, the government now pays for it with the money of hardworking people. That makes sense. People who would otherwise work hard to get out of poverty now don’t have as much of an impetus to do so. “There’s time, Uncle Sam will pay for it.” You see the effect in New Orleans. I’m not saying that all poor people are a bunch of lazy slouches who sit around watching TV, and sipping beer. What I am saying is that welfare is not good for getting people out of poverty, off the rolls, and into productive roles in society. It does not accomplish its primary function of eliminating poverty.

As I said in my second paragraph, welfare used to be distributed by private citizens who understood the needs of the particular people (and believe it or not, their needs do not begin and end with money). The voluntary organizations also helped a great deal in fulfilling the need of the poor and unemployed.

There are many stories of people who got off welfare and speak of it as an addiction. They say that welfare doesn’t help the people; it only compounds the problem. I tend to agree. People need other things besides money.

The Last Verse of Our Anthem

O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

For those of you who say that Christianity was not influential in our founding, this the last verse of the Star Spangled Banner (that’s our national anthem, by the way).

Notice the motto in the 6^th line.

Hope for Education in California

Okay, so the justice system in California still works and has a little integrity. I just found out that the California Supreme Court overruled an Alameda judge’s decision to ban the high school exit exam. The decision will reinstate an exit exam that 1/10 of the California students couldn’t pass on the first try. However, the decision is being appealed.

The people who are against the test say that it discriminates against students who are learning English or are poor. But the thing is; if they don’t know English, then they should learn it before they are awarded a diploma. If you don’t know English, you’re not going to get very far in this country. (By the way, that’s a good thing) You should not give a Hispanic student some false sense of security by handing him a high school diploma, if that diploma doesn’t mean anything. You are failing a student if you just rush him through the grades, and then send him off to college with a good luck wish.

All that a high school diploma means right now is that you spent 12 years of your life in classroom, not that you actually learned anything. I’m not saying that you didn’t learn anything, just that there’s no way to know. Students today cannot fail a course; it’s impossible. That’s bad.

If students fail the test or a course, they should study hard, not sue the state. Even if that means staying in a grade for a longer period of time than a year. That's right, I actually said that. Those things used to happen in this country when there was accountability, unlike today.

Again, we need to restore meaning to a high school diploma. We need to get back to the old days when an 8^th grade education was enough to get by in life. Right now, the 8^th grade exit exam would probably not be passed by most of our seniors. That needs to change. A high school diploma used to be respected. These people who are against the test are against the students, not for them.

Modern Pelagianism

There is a widely accepted viewpoint among secularists (and some “Christians” too) that in my opinion has its roots in Pelagianism. It is related to the sociopath, psychopath, and other interesting trail theories. The idea basically says that man’s sin is a result of his environment, or the bad influence of society. In other words, you’re not responsible for you’re actions; it was your bad childhood, etc.

Pelagius was a 4^th century heretic who said that sin is not inherited from Adam, as traditional Christianity taught, but that it is a result of the bad influence of people around you. Augustine was one of the major opponents of Pelagius, and succeeded in showing the church the error of that viewpoint from the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches inheritance of sin and total depravity. (See 1 Cor. 15:22, Gen. 6:5, and many more)

This viewpoint has influenced many things, including the public school system. The mentality behind the institution of public schools was that by forcibly putting a child into a “good” setting, they could change the child and create a perfect world without sin. Change the environment, and you’ll change the kid. It obviously didn’t turn out that way. (Ever heard of Columbine?)

This idea plainly contradicts the doctrine of total depravity that is proven by the second. Which one of us can truly say honestly without his conscience being ed that he does not sin? Even when you isolate a child with no outside, “corrupting” influence, he will still be a sinner when you look at him the next time. Toddlers disobey their parents when they don’t even understand what that means. The idea of a utopian society is completely faulty.

Many of the frivolous lawsuits, murderer defenses, and criminal excuses today come from this mentality of, “I’m not responsible,” and, “It’s the neighborhood I grew up in.” Hence, criminals are pardoned, murderers declared insane, and bad people excused. Those pleas are just convenient excuses invented by modern man in rebellion against God.

Sin comes at birth from Adam as a characteristic of being human. If you’re not sinful, you’re not human; that’s the sad truth for man since the fall. There’s only one way out of the judgment of God for sin, and that’s through Christ.

A Missed Chance

Have you ever wondered why Patrick Henry never ran for President? There is (believe it or not) a reason.

In the making of the Constitution, the Southerners and Northerners were disagreed (of course) on slavery. They didn’t want to make it a big issue, so they make a bad, behind the scenes, no good, shocking, sneaky, deal: no one would talk about it. All they said was that slaves would count as 3/5 of person in elections, and that no one could outlaw the importation of slaves until 1808.

This under-the-radar deal so angered George Mason and some other Christians that they left the convention. This is another reason (among others) why Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution. If he hadn’t, he could have easily won a presidential election. (Well, in my opinion).

The cotton gin hadn’t come around yet, so slavery wasn’t as firmly established in the South as it became in the 1820’s. Many people were able and willing to free their slaves if the time came. But the chance was passed up because a few men didn’t have the guts to mention the issue at the convention.

Standards in Education

In California on May 12, a judge recently rejected a high school exit exam that is required for 12^th graders too graduate. There have been many challenges to this program since its conception by Jack O’Connell, the Superintendent of Public Instruction. He drafted this requirement so that public schools (in my opinion across the country) could regain their lost reputation as credible academic institutions among the world. But at its first year of operation, it was shot down.

Here is the requirement and a summary of the test from the Los Angeles Times:

This year's 12th-graders were the first class to face the testing requirement, which includes a section of eighth-grade math and another of ninth- and 10th-grade English. Students are required to answer little more than half of the questions correctly and can take the test multiple times. Students with learning disabilities were exempted from the test.

This apparently was too much for some parents to handle their kids going through. A suit was filed against the state by Arturo Gonzalez. The basic complaint against the test is that it discriminates against poor and minority kids who apparently can’t study.

The argument is decimated by many holes. The whole purpose of the test is to restore meaning a high school diploma. These people make it seem like everyone is supposed pass the test. If it’s a test, (and an easy one at that) then some students will fail. I sympathize, but they shouldn’t ruin everyone else’s reputation just because they didn’t pass. The whole point of the exam is to filter out those who aren’t as educational from those who are. If everyone passes, the test is irrelevant.

There are many, many stories of poor people who succeeded out of tough situations to rise in the academic realm. One thing distinguishes them: they studied fervently. If the “poor, minority, unprivileged students” wanted to succeed in passing high school and moving on with their life, they would study. It’s not like the test is impossible.

It’s time to restore the dignity of a high school education. (Or an 8^th grade education for that matter) The way to do that is to raise standards of graduation.

Immigration Requirements

Here is story I got in an e-mail recently: [with grammer and spelling changes]

The following quote is from a director with SW BELL in Mexico City:

I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval. During those six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:

1. Birth certificates for me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.

6. A letter from The St. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good standing."

7. Finally, I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our "I am the greatest person on earth" letter. It was fun to write.

All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized.

It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right. Once they were completed I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony.

We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Loredo, Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid. We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six-dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. I went through about twenty legal size pages annually. The FM3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees. Leaving the country meant turning in the FM3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.

It was a real adventure and if any of our senators or congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico. The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their White House or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.

Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on illegal immigrants.

Socialism's place

You have probably noticed as you read my blog that I am not the most avid supporter of socialism. That’s right. I am against socialism in government.

For those of you who missed my definition of socialism in a comment I wrote, here it is:

Socialism is a system of government and economics similar, but not identical to communism. Marx said that socialism is the step in between capitalism and communism. Socialism says that the state must take care of everyone's needs and provide all services (e.g. welfare, education, medicare) In the extreme; it means that all goods produced are shared with everyone else (e.g. Jamestown, in 1607).

Here's Webster's definition: "(1) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. (2) A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. (3) A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. (4) A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

However there is one case when socialism can be beneficial: Emergencies.

In WWII, the aircraft companies of America joined together in a union. They shared ideas and concepts, plans and blueprints, and leaders and workers. This corporation worked well. It accomplished the needs of the country for combat aircraft during the war. European countries also nationalized industries during the war.

There have been other instances of governmental and corporational socialism in times of extreme need.

These provisions work well in the short term. However in the long run, they are not efficient and can sometimes bring ruin.

The Origin of the Southwest

Today in 1846, the U.S. declared war on Mexico in what is now known as the Mexican-American war (hmmm, I wonder how they came up with that title). The protesters for equal rights to illegal aliens say that we stole California and the Southwest from the Mexicans, and thus we are the aliens, not them.

That’s just a plain lie. The Mexicans invaded Texas and attacked our troops stationed there in April of 1846. They were beaten back, but war tensions had already been brewing for a while, (the Mexicans had broken diplomatic relations) so President Polk declared war.

We had a three-pronged plan of attack: conquer California and New Mexico, and then move on to intimidate the Mexicans into surrender by invading the Mexican frontier. Colonel Stephen Kearny subjugated New Mexico (which then included Arizona, Utah, and parts of Nevada) early in the war. Commodore Robert Stockton declared California secured by August 17. Despite a rebellion afterwards, California was firmly in American hands by January 10, 1847. Mexico had been invaded by General Taylor, and the northern part of it occupied by December 1846. However, in the face of these defeats, the Mexican government still did not surrender, and General Winfield Scott had to invade Mexico City by amphibious landing. The army entered Mexico City on September 14, 1847; and the marines stood guard over the “halls of Montezuma.”

The Mexican government finally made an overture for terms. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ratified by both countries, had the U.S. pay $18¼ million for California and New Mexico, even though they rightly belonged to us and we already occupied them. It also acknowledged the Rio Grande as the official border between Texas and Mexico.

Thus, we overdid ourselves in making sure that we rightfully owned the land. The illegals are incorrect in their denunciations of the U.S. Not to mention that if they really want to be recognized as citizens of this country, they shouldn’t accuse it of being a horrible dictatorship. Waving Mexican flags, chanting anti-American mantras, and mocking the national anthem is not going to endear you to the people of this country.

People say that this country was built on immigrants. That’s true. But those immigrants filled out the forms, and came to this country legally. The controversy is over illegal aliens; we have no problem with productive immigrants who come to this country by the due process of the law. If the aliens did want to get recognized, they should push for less bureaucracy in the immigration process instead of demanding that they get citizenship rights. (See my post) If anyone can become a citizen, the status loses its value and purpose.

We should all remember the ones who died to keep this country free on this, the 160^th anniversary of the Mexican War.

A Christian Influence and its Results

With the recent immigration conflict, it’s good to know that we’re not alone in immigration troubles. Countries in Europe and the West generally are experiencing an influx of illegal aliens from the third world.

In Europe particularly, Muslims are coming in from the Middle East and beginning to te the Continent. The lack of motivation, morals, and conviction of secular Europeans is being replaced by the radical determination and of Muslims. Muslims, who have the solidarity of a radical religion, are overwhelming Europeans, who don’t have any solid foundation to stand on. The secular populations of Europe are shrinking with the decreased emphasis on family. But Muslims, who believe in a family and are against abortion and the like, are slowly gaining the upper hand in the population. It’s scary to think what could happen in the democratic nations of Europe if Islam gets in control. They don’t realize that the mindset of Muslims is completely opposed to Western values.

Another interesting thing, however; is that nobody seems to ask the question, “Why do we have the huge influx of immigrants, but the other nations of the world don’t?” I mean, you don’t see people lining up to emigrate to Cuba, China, or Iran. You just don’t. Why? It’s because they are opposed to freedom, and ultimately, because they have rejected Christianity. Which nations have the problem with illegal aliens? The ones that are historically Christian. These countries tend to be wealthier and more encouraging toward freedom. Why? It’s because Christianity urges people to move forward, to work hard in this life, to explore God’s creation, to fill the earth and multiply, etc. (Ever heard of the Protestant work ethic?) The Bush administration does not understand that without a Christian basis, democracy does not, and will not work.

Christianity is necessary for a Western culture’s survival. Why? It’s because Christianity gave rise to Western culture. Without the values that Christianity brings, many of our institutions would fall. Marriage requires commitment. Business requires honesty and hard work. Democracy and free governments require an equal measure of honesty along with commitment, morals, and good will. The nations that don’t have these things have lost, or don’t have a Christian foundation in society.

We didn’t get to be the most powerful nation in the world for no reason.

George Washington

George Washington was one of the greatest leaders this country has ever had. He stood strong in battle, he persevered and was an encouragement to his troops in hardship, he was wise in government, and for all indications; he was a Christian.

Many attacks have been leveled against Washington. Yes, some of them are valid that he wasn’t the greatest of generals. But he wasn’t the worst either. Some have said that he was a price gouger, for example charging $10,000 to feed someone’s horse. Other statistics and prices have been recorded in certain books, with the intention of slamming Washington. But you have to remember that that those prices were in Colonial dollars, not modern ones. This currency had so flooded the economy that its value went down to almost nil. It was once remarked that a wagonload of paper money could hardly buy a wagonload of supplies. The attacks on his character are unfounded. Many who witnessed his courage were strengthened. You don’t win an impossible war by shrinking back and not doing anything.

As president, he ruled our country well. He helped the fledgling republic become a nation that could defend itself and be an example of free society. He advised, in his Farewell Address, that the U.S. should continue to expand trade and peaceful diplomacy in the world community; but that it should stay out of “entangling alliances.” In other words, peacefully influence the world for good, but don’t get involved in European wars or imperial conflicts. That’s good advice for any country, including ours then and today.

One interesting thing about George Washington’s vision for this country was his plan for the capital. He planned it on the Potomac for several reasons:

1. It was on a river, thus trade and economic growth.
2. It was geographically central to the country at that time, thus unity.
3. It had mineral resources fairly nearby, thus industry.
4. It was on the border between the slave South, and predominantly free North.

Washington envisioned a bustling commercial capital, central to the country and industrialized. He didn’t want a showy, opulent area for tourists, like France’s Versailles. He envisioned a center of industry with factories that would be an example to the South of the profit and potential of free labor. The South, which hadn’t become addicted slavery at that time, (cotton was not as profitable) could have been reformed. At any rate, Washington had a noble plan that was not carried out. Jefferson differed from Washington in his dream of the capital, and set out to build what we see today: a showy, more or less opulent place for tourists.

We should respect this great leader of our country for the great man he was, and not revile him because he didn’t fit in with modern views.

The Civil War

Now I am very aware that this is a very touchy topic. Some people I know seem to think that Appomattox was only a ceasefire. They hang pictures of Lee or Grant on their walls and do homage to their respective sides. In my opinion, both sides had their faults and their favors; but that position was reached only after long, hard hours of meditation. (Not really, but I thought that would sound nice) The positions on the war are evident in the many names for it. You have the Civil War, (which I’ll use) the War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression, the War of Southern Secession, etc. What I am actually going to do in this post is not talk about the war itself, (I hope y’all covered that in high school) but the situations, debates, and positions taken by people and regions before Fort Sumter was fired on.

At first, the main controversy between North and South was on the issue of state’s rights. The South believed that states should be able to nullify acts of Congress that were believed to be unconstitutional. It also held that States should be able to secede from the Union, and that the Union was not perpetual. The North (mostly New England and the mid-Atlantic states at this point) did not think that the states had that power. They also held that the Union was perpetual. These issues arose between the two regions as early as 1799, in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions drafted by those states in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. It reached open debate on the Senate floor with the Webster-Hayne debates of 1830. These issues continued to grow in power and sentiment along sectional lines until the election of Lincoln in 1860.

Then, slavery gradually came to the forefront as the distinguishing line between North and South. This issue was held off for many years, starting with the Constitution itself in 1787, extending through the Missouri Compromise of 1820, to when it came to a head in the debates leading up to the Great Compromise of 1850. The origin of this compromise started when California applied for admission into the Union. This time, unlike any other time, there was no slave state to balance the free California. New Mexico, which would probably become a slave state, was not yet ready for statehood. Henry Clay, a Kentucky Senator, attempted to resolve the problem by drafting a compromise. Its final form, drafted by Stephen Douglas, said that California should be admitted into the Union, that New Mexico would be admitted as slave or free when the time came, and that fugitive slaves could be taken from free states by their masters, even after they had run away.

There were great debates all through this time and up to the Civil War with the Kansas-Nebraska Compromise, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, and other things that aggravated both sides into passionate speech. Most of the debating went on in the Senate, because that was where the two sides were the most equally represented. The main points that both sides insisted on and argued for were the following:

John C. Calhoun of South Carolina stated that the North was aggressing and should grant the South equal rights.

Daniel Webster of Massachusetts said that the South had good cause for complaint against attacks leveled by abolitionists at the region. But he also stated that the North also had good cause for complaint against the South’s aims to expand slavery into other states and across the western frontier. Webster also said that their criticisms against the North for its industrialization were just cause for complaint. However, he declared emphatically, the talk of peaceful secession should cease. There could be no such thing while the sun still rises and sets. Unfortunately, Webster was right.

William Seward, an abolitionist from New York, said that there was a higher law that men were bound to. This law forbade slavery. (And thus, its expansion) This appeal to a higher law became common among abolitionists.

Jefferson Davis, the future president of the Confederacy, stated that the North was trying to te the South, and should back off from meddling in the affairs of states.

Stephen Douglas held to the unpopular view of popular sovereignty concerning slavery in the various states. In other words, the people in each state should decide on whether slavery was to be allowed or not; and to if so, to what extent.

Abolitionists continually harangued the South that slavery was a sin, and that they were sinners. Southerners maintained that their cause was just, and that they were holding to the Constitution.

In hindsight, several conclusions can be reached: The South was wrong for wanting to expand slavery and maintaining that it wasn’t a sin. The North was wrong for continually pressing the issue and for virtually forcing the slave states to secede. The South shouldn’t have pressed for equal rights with the North. They were a minority region after 1850; they shouldn’t have tried to force the rest of the country to make allowances for them to have equal representation. The South was Presbyterian; the North was Unitarian. In that sense, the South was more Christian than the North, but the Southern Christians should have realized their sin and put a stop to it. (See my post on racism) The abolitionists should have waited for slavery to die out from natural causes and used the due process of the law to make slavery unprofitable; instead of forcing the South to do something it wasn’t ready to do yet. Stephen Douglas’ idea of popular sovereignty was probably the best idea in terms of slave vs. free states and the numbers of each. I don’t think it was good to have Congress decide the issue for the states. Both sides could have used a little more moderation and al lot less hot-headedness in their denouncements of each other.

All in all, the Civil War was not a shining moment in our history. It’s a little embarrassing. But nevertheless, it is part of our history, and we should learn from it.

Rairoads and the Civil War

In the 1850s, railroads were becoming popular in America. The railroad had presented itself as a reliable, efficient, and (relatively) cheap way of transporting goods. Canals had become too expensive; not to mention that almost all the commercially feasible canal routes already had canals by the mid 1840s. Roads were unthinkable as an economical way of moving things. (Remember, they didn’t have trucks) Thus, railroad building became popular in the 1850s.

Much of the financing for railroads was done by local, state, and federal governments. These were ted by people who were developing sectional tendencies to tie the Northeast to the Midwest. These officials wanted to keep the Northeast’s old nce in the Union. They feared that the Midwest would be tied to the South, since much of the Midwest is drained by the Mississippi River. So, the New England big-whigs made a massive effort to make the Great Lakes the major outlet of Midwestern goods. First, they made the Cumberland Road, tying Baltimore, Maryland to the Ohio River. That didn’t catch on too well, so they tried the Erie Canal, tying the Hudson River to Lake Erie. That was a great success, so some people in Pennsylvania thought they’d try it. They built a canal from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. Now wait a second, anyone who has driven across Pennsylvania on I-80, or has taken basic U.S. geography knows that Pennsylvania is not the flattest place in the world. As you probably thought, the “Main Line” wasn’t a huge success.

So, in comes the railroad. Once government officials saw the possibilities of railroads, they jumped on the bandwagon without thinking for another second. Governments on all levels went into debt in their financing of railroads from everywhere to somewhere else. Philadelphia went into a debt of $8 million (which was a lot back then, believe it or not) for the construction of railroads. Ohio passed a law requiring the state to supply one-third of the capital for any new railroad project in the state. And so on and so on. Pretty soon, railroads criss-crossed the Midwest, bringing the region’s produce to the Great Lakes, New England, and the Mississippi. (But mostly the former two)

The North was now tied together firmly. But the South hadn’t been as eager as the North in railroad building. The South didn’t have a very pressing need for construction of railroads. Nor was there any political motive to do so. Besides, any extra capital in the South was more likely to be spent on land or slaves than machinery or ultra-ambitious projects. The ideal life for the Southern man was to get a solid plantation and settle down as a Southern gentleman.

As I mentioned before, the Northern governments financed a large portion of the companies that built railroads there. They did this because they were focused on trying to link West and East together. Thus most of the roads were built with their endpoints at the Great Lakes or ultimately an Eastern city, such as New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore. This drained a lot of traffic from the Mississippi River ports, such as St. Louis and New Orleans. That is not say that the transportation on those Rivers was completely stopped. Those port cities continued to grow. But the railroad traffic did take away from the level to which those cities grew and received the Midwest’s produce.

If the Northern Sectionalists hadn’t been so focused on tying East and West together and maintaining New England’s influence on the Union; it is possible that New Orleans would have become the major port city of America, thereby tying North and South together which would have been more important in the long run. New Orleans would have grown, its influence would have increased over the Southern states, and it would have been more reluctant to leave the Union when the time came. It is also possible that the example of free labor to the South by the Midwest and through New Orleans would have influenced Southerners to not be so adamant for the expansion of slavery. When South Carolina seceded, the rest of the South might not have followed.

But this is all speculation. However it is interesting to think about the possibilities.

The main point: State-sponsored activities often have something that’s not completely kosher going on behind the scenes.

Politics! Oh Great.

You know; it’s interesting the lack of difference between the Republican and Democratic parties today. One’s headed for the cliff at 100 mph.; the other is going in the same direction at 99. (I’m not going to tell you which one is which) Meanwhile, their programs are becoming similar as this country becomes more and more addicted to socialism.

The Bush administration isn’t helping too much. Bush has instituted more healthcare programs, more education funding, and is spending money like a drunken sailor. But that’s not fair to drunken sailors, because they spend their own money. (Ronald Reagan, at the 1984 Republican National Convention) The only thing that looks like a possible step in the right direction is his attempt to bring Social Security down to eye-level. But, that one got shot down by the media. (aka, the 4^th branch of government) Wait a second, we have the majority in both houses, but we can’t get anything done besides put a few good judges in the Supreme Court.

I’m not saying that the Democrats are much better, but what we really need is someone who will show some real guts against big government; instead of bending to the media and demands of European countries to “modernize.” This nation did not become great by just sitting around, waiting for Washington to do the job.

Lines are becoming blurred between Republicans and Democrats. What happened to the days when Republicans were conservative and Democrats were liberal? Oh, I see those are bad words now. Did you notice how John Kerry (remember him?) reacted to being called a liberal? Oh boy, I’m starting to feel like an old man.

To win the war in Iraq, we need to put soldiers over there, root out the insurgents, and get the job done. But we won’t do that because the public demands the troops to come home. By the way, why did we let the Iraqis make their Constitution? We liberated them from tyranny, why don’t we make sure that their not going to revert? It’s not like we don’t have experience in making Constitutions that work. Ours has been going strong for 230 years. But I guess the essence of democratic freedoms these days is women voting. As long as you let women vote, it doesn’t matter what else you put in. However, if you look at history, you will see that the right of women to vote is not the basis of a free society. Neither is abortion. What about the principles that this country was founded on? For example, religious freedom???? There’s an idea.

Okay, I’m done with my ranting, on to a more reasonable topic tomorrow.

Saturday Evening Post

I don't have the time to write much else, so I'll just mention the following that I read in a blog recently: The message of the Judas Gospel (see my post) is the same as saying that Abraham Lincoln asked John Wilkes Booth to him so that Abe could join his well-distinguished ancestors in heaven. That's a powerful but true comparison. It shows the non-sense of it all. Oh yeah, that's right; you're not supposed to use reason or un-common sense in these matters. "Just go with your gut."

Not.

There were many Americas

Most people don't know that the Constitution was just one of many original documents that ruled our country in the early days. Before the 1790s, we had the Articles of Confederation, the Federal Charter, the New England Contract, the Eastern Seaboard Pact, the United Province Compact, and the United States Constitution. All these ruled the country and provided law and order for the people simultaneously. We have newly discovered them in a vault in Providence, Rhode Island.

However; one of these manuscripts, the U.S. Constitution, eventually outdid the others by including things people wanted. This particular document was written by one James Madison. But it we don't know if that's really true.

People just chose which charter they wanted, and were ruled by their government of choice. But the U.S. Constitution was the most popular document that was chosen by men of influence. These leaders imposed their way of government on the rest of the country.

You'll probably hear in mainstream history courses that the Constitution was written in 1787. But that's all you can expect from a bunch of propagandists. Just ignore them. The real truth resides with the other documents. No one has known the real history of the U.S. until now. People have their opinions, but they are just speculation.

These new finds will rock the political and academic spheres of our country forever.

(O.K. for those of you with no sense of humor and full of complete seriousness; I'm joking. But it stands to show how outrageous this whole deal about the Judas Gospel is.)

The Gospel of Judas

A better title would be “The Gospel of Satan.” I just read the National Geographic Magazine’s article on the Judas Gospel. First of all, before I delve into my rampage; I would like to put forth the question: “Since when does National Geographic cover heresies?” I guess it’s just part of their general trend toward politicizing everything.

The Judas Gospel is a document that was discovered in the 1970s, and is one of the many Gnostic Gospels (see my post on them) that were written in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries A.D. This particular manuscript was supposedly written by Judas, or one of his followers, and presents a completely different message from the canonical gospels. This “gospel” says that Judas was the beloved disciple of Jesus. In other words, Judas was the only one of the disciples who actually understood Jesus and His mission. The other disciples were jealous of Judas and were worth nothing to Jesus. (Don’t ask me why He called them, then) So according to the Judas Gospel, Jesus asked Judas to betray Him, so that He would be able to die and therefore separate the soul from the body. At that point, Jesus would be free to practice His divine nature. The whole point of Gnosticism is to separate the soul from the body. After this, Judas killed himself so that he could also reveal his divine spark.

This is a completely outlandish and twisted account. Yet NG gives it more credibility than the canonical gospels. Why? Because it contradicts Christianity and gives people an excuse for not believing.

There are many, many problems with the concept put forth in the Judas Gospel. I’m going to give just the ones that I have thought of, but there are new ones I think of everyday.

Judas died, so how was he able to record the events? (Unless it was his private diary, or something.)

Jesus was divine, and came to earth to die for the sins of mankind. The Judas Gospel contradicts the whole message of Christianity.

The Judas Gospel contradicts the other canonical gospels in almost every fact. Why should we trust it more than the ones that have been in the Bible since the very first days of Christianity?

The letters of Paul, and the rest of the New Testament for that matter, do not back up any of the Judas Gospel’s “facts.” In fact, Acts condemns Judas just as the Gospels do.

BIG PROBLEM: The Judas Gospel does not fulfill the Old Testament. The whole point of Christ’s coming was to fulfill Old Testament prophecy, promise, and covenant from the time of Adam on down. The Judas Gospel makes itself irrelevant by not accomplishing salvation. If Judas was the genius in matters concerning Christ’s mission, why did he not fulfill it?

The article in NG has many problems itself. It says that the four canonical Gospels were anti-Jewish and wanted to portray Judas as the archetypical Jew. In other words, the authors wanted to take advantage of the situation. This is false. One of the Gospels is specially designed for Jews. The Bible says nowhere that Jews cannot be saved.

Ignatius has been really attacked for no reason. According to NG, Ignatius imposed the 27 canonical books on the church, and that before that; Christianity had been a very diverse religion with many gospels circulating and being accepted. This is the pit of falsehood. The true early Christians had the four gospels early on, and accepted them, because they knew the authors. The message agrees with everything else. Then the Gnostics came in and proclaimed their falsehood. Some were taken in, but not many. Gnosticism was recognized immediately for what it is: heresy. The NG account makes it look like Ignatius was the first one to say anything. In reality John speaks against it in Rev. 2:24.

Another thing is that NG attributes the “popularity” of the four canonical gospels to a hunch on the part of early Christians. The article paints the picture of predominately poor Christians coming into a book copying shop and asking for John’s Gospel, Luke’s Gospel, etc. The early Christians were not poor! Joseph of Aramethea had money, so did Philemon, Priscilla and Aquilla, etc.

As I notice with many other documentaries on this subject, the sources of truth for this article are liberal scholars who don’t give a whit about the Bible. They would be happy to accept anything that undermines God’s Word.

Again, I have to say that just because they wrote back then doesn’t mean everything they wrote was true. Fiction has been around for a while.

A Sad Commentary

Okay, so Mousauii just got the official verdict of life in prison.

That's just sad. It shows where this country is going. We are heading for complacency, injustice, and social ruin.

At least he is going to be confined by himself with no one else near him. At the end of the trial he walked out and said, "I won, America lost."

He sees the truth, why don't we?

Global Warming: The Great Evolutionary Oppurtunity

So evolutionists say that mutations are one of the best things that can happen to mankind. (Or any other type of life, for that matter) If this is true, why are mutations so feared?

In Chernobyl, after the radioactive leak, there were several mutants that arose from the radiation. Only problem is that after they arose, they fell. All the mutants died out almost immediately. This happens with all mutants. This is interesting, because mutants are supposed to be good things that survive.

Another problem with mutations is that the "good" ones are way too rare in the cells where they matter (reproductive cells) for any type of order or progress to be achieved. If one "good" trait evolves, fine. But that trait is useless unless it is developed along with other traits that profit the species. "Natural selection" is not going to see any profit in the trait.

For example, with the bombardier beetle, you have many chemicals and enzymes that must mix in the right place at the right time in order for the beetle to fire the mix without blowing up himself. If one of the components evolved (and that's a stretch of the mind) without the others, Mr. Beetle is going sky high. As someone once said, "nothing works until everything works"

In the whole hubbub raised about global warming, which itself is unproven and questionable, it is intriguing that the scientists who support it are saying that the deterioration of the magnetic field and other things are going to cause increased rates of mutation. The result, they say, is not wonderful evolutionary progress, but cancer and disease that will kill millions.

Hiroshima, Japan, and the U.S.

In the recent discussion about nuclear weapons, some people say, including Iran, that the U.S. has used nuclear without need against countries, but doesn’t want any one else to. Therefore, they say, we are hogging the power and want to te the world. However much I can agree with the last statement, the U.S. did not use atomic weapons against Japan for no reason.

It was clearly evident in the months leading up to the end of the war that Japan was becoming more and more desperate. With Japan in the early ‘40s, “desperate” meant “suicidal.” In Okinawa, the Japanese fought to the and many American lives were lost because we had to kill every single one of the enemy. That battle was the terminus of a growing tendency of . The kamikazes were becoming more and more devastating to our navy by the day.

This mentality is a direct result of Shintoism. Shintoism worships the ancestors. You’re supposed to please your ancestors the best way you can. The best way to please them is to become a warrior and (preferably) die. This fanaticism lead to, in this case, the Japanese generals attempting to wrest control from the emperor, because he wanted to surrender to the U.S. after the had been dropped.

Anyway, the plan of invasion, though probably successful, would have ended up in millions of lives lost on both sides. The Japanese were developing kamikaze subs, tanks, , and everything else that blew up. They were also mounting defenses on the shore. The government was educating the people on how to resist the American forces and how to die in honor. For the invasion plan, go here.

If the U.S. were intent on being cruel and ruthless, we would have dropped a nuke on Tokyo, Kyoto, or some other more populous city. That would have had a larger effect in lives. But that was not our intention. We dropped it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were strategic places and did not involve a catastrophic loss of life.

Not to mention that after the surrender, we came in there and general Macarthur rebuilt the country. We required them to give up radical Shintoism and the worship of the emperor. We gave them a constitution that promoted growth and wealth. Wait a second; maybe that’s what we should do in Iraq. Oh yeah, we are under the U.N. now, which forbids anything that might solve a situation. Anyway, this productive reform instituted by us is why Japan is such an economical super-power today.

I hope you anti-Americans will realize now the facts of Hiroshima and move on to something else.

A Good Kind of Stem Cells

There has been much talk recently about stem cell research and the moral, ethical, and medical consequences of it. Most people don’t know about the other alternatives to embryonic stem-cell research.

In all the discussion, no one seems to mention that embryonic stem cells have never cured anyone. They talk so much about potential, but never bring up any instances of real cures. However, progress has been made in other kinds of stem cell research. One area I am particularly exited about is umbilical cord research. People have been healed by this method. It has much potential. The stem cells from this method have almost no chance of being rejected. Diabetes and other diseases are being healed. For a lot of stuff about it go to this article in World. There are many other sites about it too.

But one thing that is slowing the progress is the lack of funding from the NIH. This, even though it is the only kind of stem cell that has yielded a cure. The only reason apparent is that harvesting umbilical cord stem cells does not involve embryos. If it doesn’t advance the liberal agenda, it doesn’t get funded.

Anyway, I hope this research goes far in helping to cure diseases the right way, without the loss of human life. Now wait a second, isn’t that in the Hippocratic oath somewhere? Oh yeah, doctors don’t follow that anymore because it isn’t popular. That fact says volumes about the state of standards in this country.