Bye-Bye, Blogger

I hate to say this, (not really) but Pro Rege Papers will no longer be hosted or serviced by Blogger. While I love Blogger's design and quick-and-easy usage; I needed a little more.

My new site, prorege.org, is my own, and I am therefore independent. The actual blog is at http://www.prorege.org/papers01. I hope you enjoy the new format, which includes trackback capabilities.

The blogging software I'm using is WordPress. WordPress is a great blogging tool that has many really cool features, like automatic backup, easy managment of posts, etc., wysiwyg editor, categorizing ability, comment updater, and many, many other things that Blogger doesn't come close to.

I hope you like the new blog that includes all the previous posts and comments. Feel free to make any suggestions.

Abortion

Axinar wrote a post about abortion in his blog. It started when I said that Andrea Yates’ killing of her five children was not an insane act, but a desperately wicked act. Then I said that, “there are many, many, mothers who kill their own children, and no one calls them insane. In fact, the government even helps them. It's called abortion: the now legal murdering of a mother's children by her willing consent.” That comment got Axinar going, and he published a lengthy response to me about abortion. Here is my answering comment (which ended up being as large as his post):

Are you saying that I quote the Bible a lot, or that I'm solid in my position, or that I present the evidence and (if I do say so myself) win the argument?

BTW, your link to the Marie Claire article is invalid. If you could get that working, I could understand your points more.

Some women have "post-partum depression" where they are fairly dehabilitated, but there are very few women who are unable to take care of their baby. So you are questioning the intelligence of those women that regretted having an abortion by saying that they didn't remember the circumstances.

"Lifelong grinding poverty?" That's an extreme generalization. There are many single mothers that survive easily. They can also marry. Besides, with today's government welfare and private charity, very few people are "grindingly poor."

"Health risks staggeringly greater than abortion?" Not with today's technology and techniques.

"Bringing more humans into an already over-crowded world." You're talking about cities, Western Europe, China, and Japan. In every other part of the world there's room for more people. There is such a surplus of food that the prices are so low that farmers have to rely on government subsidies.

If the mother does not want the child, (or if it was an "accidental" pregnancy) adoption is a wonderful way to give unwanted children a home with parents who can't have any, or want more children.

Your answer "no" to those questions is purely opinion.

"Do we consider a miscarriage a death by natural causes?"

Yes, we do. Once the sperm and ovum unite, that is a human being. It is very small, but it is a human being. If it is human being and it miscarries, then that is a death by natural causes, rather than man-made causes in abortion.

"Do we name a miscarriage?"

Yes, we do. My mother miscarried two babies, Jonah and Jirah. Babies were traditionally named, even if they died. Many mothers still do today.

"Do we cremate or bury a miscarriage?"

In ceremony some people do. Of course it is optional, but it doesn't really matter.

"Do the cells a woman passes in a miscarriage constitute a human being?"

Yes, they do. They contain all the genes for a human being. They comprise a human being, even though he/she is very small.

The cells cannot survive outside the mother's womb, they need to be protected, just as a little child cannot be expected to balance his finances to provide food and shelter for himself. But the cells are still fully human.

"Legalized abortion SAVES lives - the lives of [single mothers, etc.]"

So you're saying that if you have a child you're destined to die early? That's just false.

"...countless millions who either aren't ready or have absolutely no business being parents in the first place"

In the first place, those who aren't ready (or "who have no business" trying) to have a baby should not even have sex. In the second place, if the person has a baby but doesn't want it, adoption is a perfectly valid option, as I explained before.

Nazism as Opposed to Conservativism

Two of the favorite appellations leftist liberals use to describe conservatives are “NAZI!” and “FASCIST!” In doing this, liberals show that they don’t want to pay attention to history. They just blurt out what sounds interesting and incriminating against Bush and Republicans. They don’t examine the sharp contrasts between Nazis and Conservatives, Hitler and Bush, Germany in the 1930s and America in 2006. The fact that they (and the MSM) are even permitted to rant and rave about this is proof in itself that we are not equal to the Nazis. We are far from the condition Germany was in under Hitler.

Fascists, Nazis, and practically every other totalitarian dictatorship stifle all dissent to their regimes. They take control of all media outlets and sources of information. They take over and/or direct the companies to do their will. They carry out their agenda with brutal force and intimidation. They use the military for operations on the people, as well as to expand their domain. They consolidate all control of government in a central location. They create a one-party system with fake, staged elections.

Does any of this sound like the Bush administration or conservativism? Just because they tapped phone calls and Internet records (which is not very kosher, I’ll admit) looking for terrorists doesn’t mean that they are Nazis. It means that they overstepped their authority. The New York Times and all the leftist bloggers are free to criticize Bush as much as they want. The Bush administration has not imposed military rule over the country; they have not instituted a secret police; they have not gotten rid of the Democratic Party, they still acknowledge state and local governments.

We have a Constitution that is designed to keep people from taking totalitarian power. But liberals are doing all they can to ignore or “interpret” away those restrains on a central, broad government. One of the main points of conservativism is limited government. Liberals today are working toward socialism, which takes more of our freedoms away and resembles Fascism much more than conservativism. But we don’t call them Nazis, because that would not be completely accurate. (It is also considered and insult, as well. No one who is interested in a sensible discussion should insult the other side wrongly.)

If you disagree with the President, disagree with the President, (so do I on some issues) don’t slander him or characterize him as something he is not. Articulate your thoughts and pay attention to history as you make comparisons. Remember, he is our President, and he deserves respect as such.

Quote of the Month - July

This is the original Bill Keller quote from the interview with CBS that Michelle Malkin made semi-famous.

“…if you're under the impression that the press is neutral in this war on terror, or that we're agnostic—and you could get that impression from some of the criticism—that couldn't be more wrong. We have people traveling on the front lines with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've had people who've been murdered in trying to figure out the terrorist threat. You know, we live in cities that are targets, proven targets, for the terrorists. So we—we're not neutral in this.”

Bill Keller, the editor of The New York Times, is obviously not clear on the situation. The Times does not need to “figure out the terrorist threat,” it needs to report what is going on. The terrorist threat was figured out on (and before) 9/11. Government officials are the ones who figure out what terrorists are up to, and The Times is not helping that effort at all by revealing the ways in which we fight terror, and thereby helping the murderers of those Times reporters that Keller was talking about.

Of course you always have that last clause: “…we’re not neutral in this.” Keller does not specify which side he is on, if he’s not neutral. It certainly is not clear that he’s on the American side, since he’s published nothing that congratulates our forces or helps them. There’s also nothing to signify that he’s not on the terrorist side, since he uncovers national secrets to the advantage of organizations like Al-Qaeda.

Two of My Main Sources

I highly recommend A Basic History of the United States, by Clarence B. Carson. It is a good sum-up of United States history from the early 1600s till the beginning of 2001. Comprising six volumes, it would be useful for those of you who want to brush up on American history. He has written other books as well that go into economics, government, communism, etc.

Carson goes through all of American history and examines the development of political theory, capitalism, and American culture. The books contain some very intriguing ideas about what could have happened. I draw on many of those ideas for posts. For example, he had a short paragraph that postulated what could have happened if government hadn’t funded the development of railroads so much. I extrapolated on that point in my post, “Railroads and the Civil War.”

Rousas J. Rushdoony is also very insightful on a number of subjects. I drew on his knowledge for a number of posts, for example “Voting in the early 1800s.”

If you’re looking for some good reading, I highly recommend their writings.

Very Interesting

Answers in Genesis has an article that reports the story of one professor in a prominent American university who taught a class that examined evolution fully with all the arguments for and against it. The university, professor, and students are all anonymous for reasons of the professor’s job security, etc.

The students' comments and the survey at the bottom of the page show handily that if you look closely at the facts and consider all the evidence, evolution does not make much sense.

I hope more classes like this will be taught in other universities.

Martyrdom

Muslims have twisted a word that previously was respectable, and turned into something vile and filthy.

The word martyr comes from a Greek word meaning “witness”. The Early Church adopted the word to describe those Christians who died as a result of “witnessing” for Christ. These were people who were evangelizing, or just refusing to bow down before the Roman emperor or his gods. They were given a mock trial and promptly killed in a number of ways if they didn’t recant.

The Roman Catholic Church also increased the number of martyrs in the 1500s and onward by murdering thousands of Protestants all over Europe. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre was one of the worst and most infamous of these slaughters.

There continue to be many martyrs today that die under Communist regimes, and other repressive governments. Islam has been a major source of severe persecution in recent decades, with the butchering of converts and missionaries. The Hindus in India torched several church buildings in that country over the June-July weekend, as well as killing or maiming pastors and congregants.

You can see the history of this word and the people that have been killed for their faith, but the Muslims have perverted the word and applied it to their horrible activities. The way Muslims become martyrs is by strapping themselves up with a bomb and committing suicide, while killing countless other people who they view as infidels who have no right to live. There are other ways, such as dying in a jihad, while fanatically shooting an AK-47 at soldiers while being protected behind a wall of women and children. The Islamic clerics and imams assure them that by doing this they will gain salvation.

This behavior is not martyrdom; it is suicide by fanatical people who have been deceived by their local mosque. Christianity does not tell its followers to commit suicide; it does not tell people that dying in a holy war can save them. (The Roman Catholic Church promised this in the Crusades to willing knights, but that was because the old pope needed the money and prestige. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that dying in war can save you.) Christianity tells its followers to evangelize, to live their lives in the service of Christ, to follow the Bible, and to worship God and Him alone. For these reasons persecutors throughout the ages have murdered Christians.

Islam has polluted a term to describe valiant Christians, and warped it to describe fanatical Muslims.

The Cartoon Says It All

I just found a really good cartoon on Saber Point that illustrates the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah. It's really true for all wars the US has been in since Vietnam. The Somalis, Iraqis, (the formal army under Saddam) and terrorists in general have all used the same tactic. They have such a lack of civilization that they have to prey on our decent behavior.

Stogie posted it on his blog, but the original source was View from the Right.

The Dreamworld of Socialism

An integral part of Karl Marx’s theory of communism is that the supposedly poor workers (proletariat) are being oppressed by the supposedly rich capitalist employers. Collectivists say that the proletariat is in a very bad condition. They insist that they are much worse off than the capitalists. However, these are comparative terms that communists are using.

The question is: “What are they comparing present conditions with?” It is certainly not the past. The working population is better off and richer than ever before. Capitalism got the proletariat out of serfdom to feudal lords in the Middle Ages. As far as I can see that’s a change for the better, not worse.

So if they’re not comparing it with the past, they must be comparing it with the future. This is obviously the case. Utopians have given us a picture of a glorious, peaceful world that can be brought about by instituting socialistic programs. Novels like Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy gave this impression, and urged us to move civilization forward by their ideas.

Now, I’ll admit, the present can look very gloomy compared with an imaginary paradise. However, that hardly means that the imaginary future will come about by the programs that socialists propose. It hardly proves their theory. Nor does it prove that things are horribly bad now.

Besides, those utopias have not come about. Looking Backward was supposed to be fulfilled in 2000. It's 2006, and we still don’t have a paradise, even though many of Marx’s ideas have been put into law. There have even been some groups that have followed Marx’s instructions to the letter, but all attempts have failed.

Socialists need to get into reality, and look at where we are compared to where we have been, not what someone wishes we were.

The 17th Amendment and States' Rights

The ­­first clause of article 1, section 3, of the Constitution states:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”

This very important aspect of the office of the Senator has been revoked today. It was changed by the ­17^th amendment, ratified on April 8, 1913. This amendment has weakened the integrity of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers originally designed the Constitution as a delicate system of checks and balances. They assigned the different responsibilities to different branches and subsections, elected by different means. The Senate was designed to be the realm of the states. The state legislatures would elect the Senators, and thereby have this check on federal government. All bills, treaties, and appointments would have to be ratified by the Senate in order for them to become valid. The states could then make sure that the feds didn’t encroach on their rights and privileges.

This is as opposed to the House of Representatives, which is elected by the people directly. This house of Congress originates all the tax laws and other things. The normal citizens of the U.S. would naturally be concerned about that, so they have power over that side of law making.

However, in the early 1900s, the Progressives were pushing for more of their programs. They were in favor of a democracy, as opposed to the originally designed republic. They wanted the people to control all aspects of government more directly. This was a façade, behind which they could institute greater governmental controls over people’s lives. In fact, on February 13 of the same year, the 16^th amendment was ratified by Progressives, giving government the power to levy an income tax.

However, this change to the Constitution has resulted in less representation of the states in federal government. They have lost their voice. The two houses of Congress are now basically the same, except for their duties. This decreased responsibility has resulted in various usurpations by Washington, leading to decreased freedoms.

We need to restore the Senate to its original position as the representative of the states in federal government. We need to repeal the 17^th amendment to take back the strength of the Constitution.

Nicea and the Divinity of Jesus

Many people believe or are coming to believe certain parts of Dan Brown’s book, The Da Vinci Code. This book contains many lies about divinity of Christ. The recently translated Judas Gospel is also urging people in the same direction.

One of the primary lies that The Da Vinci Code perpetrates that people believe is that Jesus was made God by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. They say that before 325, practically no Christian believed that Jesus was divine. Some of them also believe that it was a very narrow vote that made Jesus God.

People who say this reveal a blatant ignorance of history as well as Christianity and the Bible. The Gospels, all of which being written before 70 AD, testify that Jesus is divine. The whole New Testament, for that matter, which was written in the 1^st century, assumes and/or says plainly that Jesus is divine. After the writing of the Bible, and before the Council of Nicea, you have theologian after theologian, preacher after preacher who is documented as saying that Jesus was divine.

The whole point of Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, is that Jesus is divine, not just a good man. People in the early Church were converted from Judaism to Christianity. If the divinity of Christ were not widely accepted, they would have stayed in the synagogue. The unbelieving Jews persecuted the Church because they viewed the doctrine of the divinity of Christ as blasphemy. They murdered Christ because He declared himself to be God. (By the way, if Christ said it, wouldn’t that kind of dictate it for Christianity?) It is a central doctrine of Christianity.

The Council of Nicea was held in 325 to oppose an error introduced by Arius, a heretic from North Africa. He said (as the Jehovah’s Witnesses say today) that Jesus was not eternal or divine, but subordinate to God. This crafty, handsome, and superficially intelligent man started to hold sway with some pastors. The Council of Nicea was called to unify the Church on that issue. Athanasius, a bishop from Alexandria, led the way in opposing Arius’ theology. The vote was 250+ to 2. That’s closer than the chances a Republican has for getting elected in Boston.

If you characterize the whole of early Christianity by one heretic in the 4^th century, you’re getting an extremely skewed view. You can’t describe the whole by an exception.

Russia and Tyranny

Russia has this thing with dictatorships. They can’t get rid of them. They come, one after another, and the Russians do nothing about it.

Russians have this fatalist attitude toward hardship in their lives. They just accept it, and don’t do anything about it (besides maybe drowning it in vodka). They allow strongman after strongman to dominate their lives. The Russian Orthodox Church also has much to do with this mentality. Its form of church government is largely a dictatorship. That system is impressed upon the people’s minds day after day. The Russian Orthodox Church is very influential in government as well. Have you ever noticed that the Kremlin is filled with Russian Orthodox cathedrals?

So let’s look at the history. Russia was a group of freezing, pagan Slavs all through history until 988; when their ruler, Vladimir I, adopted Eastern Orthodoxy as the official religion. There’s nothing like getting off to a bad start.

In 1237, Mongolian raiders invaded and destroyed Kiev, the capital of Russia at that time. The Russians continued under that occupation for a long time until some forward-thinking man decided that it was possible to overthrow an oppressive government. So they rebelled, succeeded in recapturing Kiev, and established a monarchy with the capital at Moscow.

The Czars (the Russian word for Caesar) ruled the land until 1917. They were extremely oppressive. They ruled the people (who were reduced to serfs) as feudal lords for about 450 years. They kept power by stifling all opposition, and periodically using pogroms (massacres and deportations) to keep the population free of radicals and ethnic minorities.

In 1917, Vladimir Lenin, influenced by Marx’s communism, organized a revolt that ousted the czars and set up a communist state in Russia. He used the same tactics as the czars to stifle opposition. The USSR continued for 80 years, exporting its communism to Eastern Europe and Asia, killing off or sending to the gulag all dissenters, and doing all the things that a proper tyrannical state should.

Then, in 1989, the Poles stood firm against their Communist oppressors, starting a chain of events that lead to the liberation of Eastern Europe, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Now, we have Vladimir (a very popular name among Russians) Putin, who is systematically wiping out all antagonism to his “administration.” The government now owns all of the TV stations, and is forcing the radio stations to not broadcast The Voice of America, The Voice of Free Europe, or other free media outlets. They control the newspapers, and are advancing their agenda in a way that we have seen is very popular among Russian rulers.

Get ready for Russia to become totalitarian again.

Protest Warrior

A conservative website, ProtestWarrior, has some pointed posters that get right to the center of the issues at hand. The site, which was hacked by leftists, has an amazing video series that reveals the extreme amount of tolerance and patience that liberals have toward anyone who disagrees with them. It also shows the Pillsbury doughboy peacefulness of the anti-war protesters. Some of it is just laughable as to the hypocrisy.


While I don't necessarily recommend their tactics, they have some very good points. In never realized the extent of the lunacy of some of these fanatics.

An Escalating Conflict

Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that practically owns southern Lebanon, has kidnapped three Israeli soldiers in the past two days, and is now launching rockets into Israeli cities near the border of Lebanon and Israel. In retaliation, Israel has started an offensive (or rather defensive) that has penetrated the Gaza strip, enforced a naval, land, and air blockade on Lebanon; and sent troops into the southern part of that country.

If Iran does something stupid, then we're in for it. (The following is a not so likely, but possible scenario)

Iran will launch missiles at Israel, causing havoc. Other Middle-Eastern nations may follow suit. The United States will act in retaliation, and bomb Iran. North Korea will take advantage of the situation and launch missiles against Japan, while invading South Korea. The United States troops there will react and drive the North Koreans back. Kim Jong Il will appeal to China for help, and China will nuke the USA, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan; while sending its army into the Korean peninsula. Russia will now be furious and invade China, which will have all of its military branches strained from the nuking of its cities and military institutions, and the several fronts that have opened up. The oppressed Chinese will rise up against the weakened Communists, and take back the country. Meanwhile, the United States and the European nations will be invading Iran, and assisting Israel, who is fighting desperately against Syria and Lebanon.
Iran will be subjected, and a new free republic set up there, only to fall again before an Islamic revolution. North Korea and China will be reformed, and the Korean peninsula will be united. Israel will have all the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. The United States and other Western nations will be rebuilding after nuclear bombs have devastated several cities.

Now wait a second, that is way to optimistic. You have almost all the world's diplomatic problems solved right there.

Okay, tomorrow we'll get back to something serious and more on the topic of this blog.

NOTE: Complements to the BBC for the map.

Socialism's Growing Acceptance

Socialism is being accepted in America. Slowly but surely it is coming about. It has slowed a little since the ‘80s, but it is gradually enveloping America.

In the United States, we prefer the gradualist (or evolutionary) socialism. This is opposed to the revolutionary socialism espoused by Karl Marx, also known as communism. Communism declares that there is a huge gap between the rich capitalists and the poor workers, and therefore the poor workers need to rise up against the capitalists and take over the economy, thereby equalizing wages for all and ushering in a worker’s paradise. They need to abolish government in one fell swoop and have the collective decide things (for some of the ideology behind socialism in general, read the beginning of my post on labor unions).

Gradual socialism on the other hand, while accepting the basic premises and views of revolutionary socialism, prefers to bring about the change in a different way. This form says that government should be used to gradually bring down capitalism by the use of laws, labor unions, court decisions, etc. The government should gradually get rid of private property, take over certain services and industries, and increase taxes so that eventually the middle class will be destroyed, the rich brought down, and everyone will be poor together.

Essentially, you have two different methods of accomplishing the same thing.

The Fabian Society in Britain is a prime example of this latter type of socialism. You can see the results in the modern-day UK. I saw an Englishman’s comment on a blog recently, talking about how you have to have a TV license from the government in England if you want to watch TV or video feeds on the Internet. Just imagine: All of us living in the good ‘ole USA are watching TV freely and without government harassment, while our fellow men in Britain are paying the government for the privilege to watch the BBC (which itself has a monopoly on TV and radio programming in the UK).

In the United States, utopians and muckrakers had much influence on convincing the American mind that there were horrible evils being perpetrated by the big companies on the people. Americans began little by little to accept the basic premises of socialism, while rejecting the results. They began to view government intervention as the only way to solve problems in society. While they hated and rejected anything that actually called itself socialism, they accepted programs that advanced the socialist agenda. That’s why you won’t find anyone today who calls himself or his program socialist. They know that they won’t be able to pass it, so they put it under the guise of “democracy” or “nationalism” or some other innocent-sounding word.

The gradualist socialism was carried out by the Populists, Progressive Republicans, and Democrats, consecutively. The Democratic Party today is the main driving force behind many socialist programs. Though now Republicans are being drawn in as well. We need to stop the gradual overtaking of our country by socialism.

Reformation vs. Revolution

Many people call the War of Independence the “Revolutionary War”, or the “American Revolution.” They compare our independence with other guerrilla wars that thugs and criminals propagate. However, the word “revolution” does not necessarily apply to what we did in 1775-1781.

A revolution refers to a complete turn-around of all society. It is an abolishment of all that was before. It is a 180 change in direction. This is the sort of thing that happened in France and Russia. The government was abolished, society was completely changed, and institutions destroyed. Revolution is a proper term for that type of rebellion.

However, the War of Independence was not a bunch of lunatics going around burning houses down and murdering people. It was an organized rebellion against an authority that had over-stepped its boundaries. The events of 1775 were the culmination of a long train of abuses by the British. In response, we organized the Stamp Act Congress, the First Continental Congress, and the Second Continental Congress to combat the oppression of the English king. The leaders of our rebellion were respected men whose aims were not to destroy the lifelines of society. Our war was merely for the purpose of changing government.

John Calvin said that a revolt against the established government is acceptable when that power has been abusive for a long time. He also said that the leaders of the rebellion should be “lesser-magistrates” who understand the workings of government. That way, the result will be an organized government that accomplishes the ideals of the rebellion, and not anarchy or tyranny. This model set forth by Calvin is what happened in the United States. We reformed government; we didn’t destroy it. That is why the War for American Independence has been one of the most successful rebellions in history. All others (e.g. Haiti) go nowhere. Sometimes they actually make things worse.

World Cup 2006

Italy has won World Cup 2006. They triumphed over France, who had eliminated Brazil earlier in the tournament.

France’s star, Zinedine Zidane, got an early goal for France, but Italy rebounded with a header by Marco Materazzi that flew past France’s goalie. Zidane got angry with Materazzi and head-butted him in the chest. He was red-carded, and left the field as a disappointed Frenchman.

The real heroes of the World Cup are Germany. They played well as a team and had so much skill; it was amazing to watch. In the third place game against Portugal, they delayed until the end, giving a final score of 3-1. After a while, it was evident that Germany was just playing with the Portuguese. In my opinion, the final should have been Italy vs. Germany, but things just don’t turn out my way consistently.

Blog Warfare

Okay, so the blogosphere apparently cannot survive without me. While I was having a peaceful, quiet vacation away from the computer, conservative websites were being hacked like crazy. Protein Wisdom was hacked, and leftist maniac (a psychology professor at the tax-supported University of Arizona) Debb Frisch posted comments there that threatened (as in the life/death kind of threatening) Jeff Goldstein’s (the writer) two-year old son. I would not advise reading those comments unless you want to see how bad the left really is (those under 18 should not read them either). Muslims also hacked Hosting Matters, a blogging server that hosted a conservative blog, Aaron's CC, that posted an updated form of the Danish Muhammad cartoons.

I guess the left just can't stand our views, and have to go on a tolerance rampage.

Two Last-Ditch Arguments

There are two major arguments that I have noticed that evolutionists always use after you present solid evidence against their theory. These are things that they mention as a last resort before walking away (or not responding, in the case of the Internet).

Those who are not scientists, and who are desperate humanists (or very young), will swear at you and tell you that you’re a religious nut and therefore cannot be listened to. In other words, if you differ from his view, you are not allowed to speak (or exist). That of course is not logical at all and we’re not going to deal with that extensively.

Those who are scientists (or very scientific) will say that Creationism has not been approved by the leading scientific boards and societies, and is therefore not up for discussion and must be false. Now let’s just pretend that science only stayed in one position and never changed its stance on a subject. Then we wouldn’t have nearly all the discoveries that have come about since the beginning of time. The fact is that most of the leading scientific boards are loaded with evolutionists. Why? It’s because the board would reject any creationist that would want a seat. If an editor of a scientific journal decides to publish an article that suggests an ID perspective, he gets booted from his job (that really happened, by the way). So the sensible evolutionist is really saying, “My side doesn’t accept your view, therefore your view is false.” Well of course the evolutionist side wouldn’t accept the creationist view; they’re polar opposites. That statement is illogical. It doesn’t prove anything besides the fact that two sides disagree. Not to mention that there are plenty of creationist organizations and societies out there that have a growing membership.

Another facet of this false argument is that the Darwinists always pooh-pooh the lists of scientists that are members of creationist societies. They scoff at the lists of astronomers, biologists, geologists, etc., etc., etc., that are enrolled in creationist ranks. They claim that those fields are not science, and those people are not scientists, because they don’t accept evolution when they do their work. I guess they’re just disappointed that we don’t have 3,000 evolutionary biologists working for us who plaster feathers onto reptiles and put knee joints on ape bones.

Okay, that was being overly sarcastic, but I can’t resist poking fun.

The Declaration of Independence

The declaration of Independence is one of the greatest works of all time. In commemoration of its adoption by the Second Continental Congress, here is the transcript:

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

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

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

· He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

· He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

· He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

· He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

· He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

· He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

· He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

· He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

· He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

· He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

· He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

· He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

· He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

1. For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

2. For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

3. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

4. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

5. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

6. For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

7. For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

8. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

9. For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

· He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

· He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

· He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

· He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

---

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Brazil is out of the World Cup!

The heavy favorite in this World Cup, Brazil was beaten 1-0 by France this afternoon. The five-time winner of the tournament is now out of the 2006 World Cup.

In a major upset, France beat Brazil by deploying its best men and connecting its passes. The star of the game, Zinedine Zidane, crossed the ball over to Thierry Henry, who pounded the ball into the back of the net with a great header. France was playing wonderfully the whole game against a weak Brazil. It was only a matter of time before Brazil felt the pressure in goals.

Brazil's three star players seemed to not be prepared sufficiently for the game, and couldn't get any momentum against a pumped France.

It now seems that Germany and France will play each other in the Final. They each have to get through a semifinal against Italy and Portugal, respectively, in order to make it that far though.

Portugal blasted England out of the Cup earlier today in a tense penalty shoot-out.

A Good Joke

What do you get when you have an agnostic who is dyslexic and suffers from insomnia?

Answer: A person who stays up late every night wondering if there really is a Dog.