February 26, 2021
I've known Obama was the guy running Biden all along. Anyone who thinks Screwless Joe is the man at the helm is bats.
Meet the New President of the United States...Barack Obama
"Trust me, I was Obama's classmate at Columbia University. I know how he thinks. I understand his plan. This has Obama's fingerprints all over it. This is the Cloward-Piven plan we learned about at Columbia almost 40 years ago.
This isn't Biden. This is the third term of Obama. In his first two terms, Obama tried his best to destroy the economy, high-paying jobs, health care, the U.S. energy industry, the great American middle class, our relationship with Israel, American exceptionalism and capitalism itself. He damaged us badly, but he fell short.
Now he's back to finish the job."
Mail-in ballots and voting machines banned in France
Hat tip: Andy Garcia
Many in recent times have lamented the state of American Christianity, pointing out that nowadays a great many churches prioritize wokeness over holiness. But thereâ€™s no such issue in St. Henryâ€™s Parish in Buckeye, Arizona â€” at least not when Father William Kosko is giving the sermon.
Arizona Priest Torches Biden Voters - and the Catholic Bishops
It's good to see there are a few strong Priests left. So few remain. I know a black priest who I went to high school with. Now, normally he would have gone on to be a bishop in this current era BUT he's pretty old school and so he's been exiled to minor parishes despite being very smart and dedicated; the Archdiocese doesn't want a man of strong faith in a position of authority, it seems. It's little wonder the Church is shrinking away. I'm glad we still have a few men like Father Kosko.
regard to my reading assignments connected to my doctoral studies with
Corban University, Dr. Henry Morrisâ€™s book entitled, "The Long War
Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/
Morris spends some time detailing how archaeology has uncovered the exact opposite of what evolutionism normally teaches with regard to ancient history. The typical storyline of how ancient tribes were veritable cavemen who worshiped nature and animals before evolving into more sophisticated religious doctrines like polytheism, monotheism, and pantheism, is everywhere betrayed by the actual archaeological evidence. Morris notes how there are still some savage tribes who are alive today, which by itself undercuts evolutionary theory. Morris thus further points out, "even the most â€˜savageâ€™ tribes today, as well as the earliest traditions of the nations of the past (Egypt, Sumeria, India, China, Greece, etc.) manifest an original belief in a high God who originally made the world. In other words, within animistic tribes and cultures, their primitive monotheism had degenerated into pantheism, then polytheism, and finally into crude animism.â€ The truth of the matter is thus the opposite of what is normally presented in modern education. Morris also notes how the fossil evidence demonstrates massive extinction rather than evolution. He then states how the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in science can easily explain what the Bible has said all along with regard to creation. Originally there was a good God who created a good world that is still being conserved, but that the law of increasing chaos, something which the Bible presumes is the the Fall, is also very much at work leading to increasing entropy, loss, and eventually destruction.
Contrary to popular opinion, Morris thus makes the argument the doctrine of evolution has deep religious roots going back to the ancient pagan past long before philosophy or science or even modern Darwinism took center stage. Starting from ancient nature worship and idolatry, Morris discusses how evolutionism undergirded such myths, whether that be with regard to the early Sumerians, or the ancient Egyptians and/or the Chinese, or other pagan cosmogonies popularly held by many tribes and groups across the planet which later showed up in India and Greece as well. Even Israelâ€™s fight against Baalism had an evolutionary tinge to it that is often overlooked, but Morris leaves this argument undeveloped.
Of special note were the early Greek secularists who predated Socrates and Plato. Morris describes how early Greek scientists and thinkers like Xenophanes, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus, and Leucippus passed on their evolutionary views to Lucretius and Epicureanism a few centuries later. Morris then drops this line, "Thales and Anaximander taught that men evolved from animals, animals from plants, plants from organic elements, and all these from water. Xenophanes argued, on the basis of fossil shells on mountains, that land animals had evolved from marine animals. Both Heraclitus and Empedocles held that random changes led to development, which involved a form of struggle for existence and natural selection, long anticipating Darwin.â€ Democritus emphasized that "all things were made of fundamental invisible particles, which he called â€˜atomsâ€™ (he coined the word, in fact).â€ In Acts 17, St. Paul later famously debated with Epicureans on the streets of Athens at the marketplace. Paul also debated their cousins, the Stoics, in Athens as well. The Stoics were pantheistic, but still were evolutionists. Moreover, many Greek cosmogonies actually taught that while the universe was essentially eternal, the material world we live in today came about through a process of de-evolution â€“ a backward or downward view of evolution that played no small role in the rise of Gnosticism against the early church.
Such Greek cosmological ideas were then carried over into the church through the teachings of Aristotle and Plato as many Christian scholars unwittingly sanctified both of them to argue against paganism. While Platonic Christianity dominated the early church, Aristotelian Christianity dominated the medieval church, with no small thanks to Thomas Aquinas. Here, the Greek emphasis upon the "Great Chain of Beingâ€ going back to Plato played a large role in developing Christian natural theology of the Scholastic period, which then later helped kick off the Renaissance. Morris writes that the "Great Chain of Beingâ€ is where "living organisms can be arranged in a continuous linear scale, with man at the top and the simplest at the bottom. Below this are stones, metals, earth, water, air, and ether. Above man are higher worlds, angels, cherubim, and finally God. In this ideal construct, there are no gaps,â€ which were later filled in with evolutionary time and the mutability of all natural forms as they were continuously being made and processed.
One of the great ironies here is how
Galileo later was heavily criticized for rejecting Aristotelian
Catholic cosmology, but that evolutionary theory later regurgitated
Accordingly, but unfortunately also
left undeveloped in his book, Morris mentions how perhaps even more
fundamental to the development of Darwinism were German scholars rather
than French ones like Lamarck. Morris points out how early German
evolutionists in the 1700's and early 1800's were transcendentali
Humboldt is one of the early fathers of German nativist and/or racial ecology which circulated in the anti-Judeo Christian academic brew of the European Academy of the 1800's. Even Darwin's original subtitle in his Origin of the Species was blatantly racist. Morris then goes on to show how both Nazism and Marxism were heavily indebted to Darwinism, with no small help coming from German Social Darwinist, Ernst Haeckel, who coined the term ecology in 1866, both of which were used to create a grand socialist slaughterhouse that was the 20th century.
Neither is it a coincidence that Hegelâ€™s philosophy of history based on philosophical-s
Thanks to all
this, virtually all of education is now largely based on evolutionary
theory in one form or another, and too many Christians, according to
Morris, have contributed greatly to this by refusing to stand up for
biblical creationism. Morris bitingly writes how it was the Christians,
steeped in the progressivist natural theology of the 1800's of the
European Academy rather than in the Bible, who were among the first
ones to help promote Darwin's theory rather than the scientist of the
This is the same CDC that we allowed to shut America down.
CDC estimated a one-year decline in life expectancy in 2020. Not so â€” try five days
In science accurate predictions verify a theory; failed predictions falsify it. This shows the CDC is not doing good science at a minimum.
The CDCâ€™s mistake? It calculated life expectancy using an assumption that is assuredly wrong, which yielded a statistic that was certain to be misunderstood. Thatâ€™s exactly the type of misstep the agency canâ€™t afford to make. Not now, not after former President Trumpâ€™s relentless attacks on its credibility. Not after his advisers were caught altering and editing the agencyâ€™s monthly reports to downplay the pandemic.
To review: The CDC reported that life expectancy in the U.S. declined by one year in 2020. People understood this to mean that Covid-19 had shaved off a year from how long each of us will live on average. That is, after all, how people tend to think of life expectancy. The New York Times characterized the report as "the first full picture of the pandemicâ€™s effect on American expected life spans.â€
But wait. Analysts estimate that, on average, a death from Covid-19 robs its victim of around 12 years of life. Approximately 400,000 Americans died Covid-19 in 2020, meaning about 4.8 million years of life collectively vanished. Spread that ghastly number across the U.S. population of 330 million and it comes out to 0.014 years of life lost per person. Thatâ€™s 5.3 days. There were other excess deaths in 2020, so maybe the answer is seven days lost per person.
No matter how you look at it, the result is a far cry from what the CDC announced.
So to project the life expectancy of people born in 2020, the CDC assumed that newborns will face the risk of dying that newborns did in 2020. Then when they turn 1, they face the risk of dying that 1-year-olds did in 2020. Then on to them being 2 years old, and so on.
Locking people into 2020 for their entire life spans, from birth to death, may sound like the plot of a dystopian reboot of "Groundhog Day.â€ But thatâ€™s the calculation. The results: The CDCâ€™s report boils down to a finding that bears no relation to any realistic scenario. Running the 2020 gauntlet for an entire life results in living one year less on average than running that same gauntlet in 2019.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has a problem with the New York City Police Department's new robot dog. The squad member is upset the new robot dog is being tested on "low-income communities of color..."
"Now robotic surveillance
ground drones are being deployed for testing on low-income communities
of color with under-resourced schools."
END OF QUOTE
The schools are closed. Does AOC now want to force the big Democrat voting and donating teachers unions to reopen classrooms? Who exactly is going to do this counseling and in what open buildings?
Robot dogs also don't carry guns. Often criminals will give up at the sight of an aggressive dog out of pure fear. Would AOC not protest huge dogs with the biting force over ten times that of a human being deployed to save officers' lives? As the author notes, "A lot of cops are attacked in the congresswoman's district. Does AOC ever think about them?"
A judge has released the Dominion Voting Machine report.
Yes, there was fraud.
Hat tip: David Bryce
February 25, 2021
Biden plans to implement Barack Obama's tyrannical Operation Chokepoint.
Yes, Biden will make it impossible to do banking or fly on airplanes or do other things if he deems you to be a radical meaning an opponent of the junta.
February 24, 2021
If you ever watched South Park, â€˜blame Canadaâ€™ was quite the tune. Well, as Texas has plunged into a deep freeze due to widespread power outages after a historic and brutal winter storm, maybe we should look to Canada regarding how they keep their power grids running amid frigid conditions. Itâ€™s not what you think. It actually proves our point about energy production, which is why the liberal media and the environmental Left probably donâ€™t want you to read this thread about Alberta, Canada.
How are they able to keep the lights on? Itâ€™s simple coal and gas. The two sectors the Left wants to ax from our production capacity. Iâ€™ve seen all the so-called fact checks. Wind power isnâ€™t why Texas lost power. Renewable energy isnâ€™t the reason, except that it is. Sorry, the facts are the facts. This push for heavily subsidized wind energy thatâ€™s wholly unreliable is what caused the blackouts. The turbines did freeze up. and the wind was responsible for over 40 percent of Texasâ€™ energy. In short, the California model is a good foundational policy to give your residents unreliable energy. The Wall Street Journal torched this green energy push, aptly noting that this policy has put more people in danger than so-called global climate change.
"Windâ€™s share has tripled to about 25% since 2010 and accounted for 42% of power last week before the freeze set in. About half of Texans rely on electric pumps for heating, which liberals want to mandate everywhere,â€ they wrote. "But the pumps use a lot of power in frigid weather. So while wind turbines were freezing, demand for power was surging.â€
A number of Tweets, which I can't reproduce here, from an Alex Epstein, explain a lot. And we continue:
Go here https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/02/23/with-texas-frozen-heres-why-greenies-probably-dont-want-you-to-read-about-albe-n2585183 for the Tweets and the rest of the article.
"The media want you to believe that TX's failure to handle spiking demand during cold temps proves that a fossil-fueled grid can't handle such a challenge,â€ Epstein wrote on Twitter. "They don't want you to know about Alberta, CA--where a fossil-fueled grid handled a far bigger challenge with relative ease.â€
Alberta also endured a record-high energy demand. The province managed because they invested in fossil fuels and not wind, which Epstein noted is "unreliable.â€ And both Texas and Alberta work on isolated grids. This is a very fixable issue.
"Alberta proves with 100% certainty that coal and gas plants can easily run in far more adverse conditions than Texas had. That's why the anti-fossil fuel media do not want you to know the story of Alberta,â€ he added.
Nothing will beat fossil fuels in terms of efficiency and reliability. It works. What doesnâ€™t work are these so-called alternatives that conk out when some snow hits.
February 23, 2021
Read the rest here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-riot-was-a-coordinated-attack-security-officials-testify-in-hearing These men sound serious. Not at all in CYA mode.
Security officials testified Tuesday that they believe the Capitol riot on Jan. 6 was a "coordinated attack" as they were pressed by senators over the circumstances leading to the security failure.
Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger and former House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving, as well as Metropolitan Police Department acting chief Robert Contee, appeared before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday, in the first Senate hearing to examine the "security failures" that led to the breach of the U.S. Capitol last month.
Committee Chairman Gary Peters, D-Mich., questioned the officials over whether they believed there was coordination with regard to the attack.
"These people came specifically with equipment. Youâ€™re bringing climbing gear to a demonstration, explosives, chemical spray â€“ youâ€™re coming prepared," Sund testified. "The fact that the group attacked our West Front 20 minutes before the event at the Ellipse ended â€“ they were planning on our agency not being at full strength at that time."
Sund was pointing to former President Trumpâ€™s rally, which took place at the Ellipse near the White House just before the riots began.
Sund added that U.S. Capitol Police were "dealing with two pipe bombs, specifically set right off the edge of our perimeter to draw resources away."
"I think there was a significant coordination with this attack," Sund said.
Contee also said rioters used "hand signals and radio communication," as well as a "coordinated use" of chemicals.
"I certainly believe it was coordinated," Contee said, pointing to the "placement of pipe bombs in the area, all of those things, and plus, adding to what we know in hindsight, now, as a result of the ongoing investigation of the FBI."
"As they continue to scrub social media, we are learning more and more and more that this is clearly a coordinated effort," Contee said.
And Irving agreed.
"Based on the information provided by Contee and Sund, I would agree," Irving said. "The evidence would indicate a coordinated attack."
Peters said that extremist groups, like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, have been identified in intelligence reports, and that the committee plans to hold future hearings to discuss that intelligence.
The Capitol Riot followed Trumpâ€™s rally, in which he encouraged his supporters to protest Biden's Electoral College certification.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci's often inconsistent comments and mixed messages on the coronavirus pandemic are prompting renewed scrutiny as debate rages over reopening schools and businesses nearly a year after the lockdowns started.
"Dr. Fauci is a very good public-health official. His job is to advise policy makers and inform the public," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said on Tuesday. "But his job is NOT to decide what we can do, where we can go or which places can open or close And his job is NOT to mislead or scare us into doing the 'right things.'"
"Why should we trust Fauci with a national plan? Back in March, Fauci famously told Americans, 'Thereâ€™s no reason to be walking around with a mask,'" wrote David Harsanyi in the National Review. "(Fauci now says we should wear two masks. No thanks, Dad.)"
Fauci in an interview on "60 Minutes" in early March of last year warned of "unintended consequences" of masks, saying "people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face."
(I have to admit I fall into that category, especially when in the supermarket. In order to open those flimsy polyethylene bags you put your vegetables in, I have to lick my thumb and forefinger, which means that under the mask they go -- my skin's too dry to get the bag open otherwise.)
Yeah, we're heard 'em all. Those of us who are still paying attention. Lots of us have stopped.
On masks, Fauci and former Surgeon General Jerome Adams â€“who also warned against buying and wearing masks in spring 2020 â€“said officials recommended against wearing masks early in the pandemic because at the time there was a massive shortage of PPE for medical workers who needed it most. Further, more evidence of asymptomatic spread of the virus later came out.
Fauci later enthusiastically embraced wearing masks.
"What has changed in our recommendation?" Adams said in a White House briefing in July."We now know from recent studies that a significant portion of individuals with coronavirus lack symptoms."
Now, Fauci more recently has backed recommendations that Americans wear two masks instead of one if possible in order to keep the masks tighter on people's faces.
"If you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective," Fauci told NBC News last month. The CDC officially put out double-masking guidelines this month.
Another issue on which Fauci has adjusted his stances is on exactly what level of vaccination is necessary for the U.S. to reach herd immunity to the virus. Fauci previously said the percentage of Americans who need to be vaccinated to reach that goal was 70% before revising that number up to higher than 80%.
This inspired a story in the New York Times that accused Fauci of "quietly shifting" recommendations. Fauci then explained to the paper that he was taking public opinion polls into account in how he shaped his comments.
"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75%," Fauci said, according to the paper. "Then, when newer surveys said 60% or more would take it, I thought, â€˜I can nudge this up a bit,â€™ so I went to 80, 85."
He continued: "We have to have some humility here ... We really donâ€™t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90%. But, Iâ€™m not going to say 90%."
And on returning to normal after Americans get their vaccines, Fauci has made several different comments that are not necessarily consistent.
He reminds me of the doggerel poem:
"Yesterday upon the stair I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today. Oh, how I wish he'd go away!"
Get lost, Doc. And folks, you can read the article here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/faucis-mixed-messages-inconsistencies-about-covid-19-masks-vaccines-and-reopenings-come-under-scrutiny
A friend who is a superb doctor sent along this communication from Fairview/University of Minnesota Health Services:
Got that? Vaccination changes nothing! Wear masks, wash your hands frequently, socially distance andâ€“above allâ€“stay home! "Until itâ€™s gone,â€ which is never. My friend comments:
They're never going to let up. Never give up their emergency powers. You'll never be allowed to take your mask off. But look at that last, about not being able to travel outside the state without a quarantine! What idiocy!
From an experienced medical facility, I expect better. It will never be gone, we will have it like every other coronavirus, like every other flu. Unlike smallpox, it is impossible to eradicate.
Thus, we are reaching the endemic COVID phase soon, the post-pandemic period. So I am guessing they want us socially distanced forever?
For background, this came in an email with a demand we do not travel outside the state without taking a 14-day quarantine.
One reason conservatives never saw a culture war they couldnâ€™t lose is that they insist on using Queensberry rules, even as the Left fights no-holds-barred. Consider, for example, two scenarios.
When leftists discover someone "committing conservatismâ€ â€” such as when former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was found to have donated $1,000 to Californiaâ€™s Proposition 8 â€” they accept nothing less than the personâ€™s termination. In fact, they never want him to work again. Ergo "cancel culture.â€
When leftists effect something truly outrageous, such as the anti-white "Deep Equityâ€ school curriculum being implemented nationwide, the reaction is different. Conservatives may fight back against it as they did with Deep Equity in Chandler, Arizona, but theyâ€™re generally satisfied if the social engineering is abandoned. They donâ€™t go for blood. In fact, so often have I heard prominent conservative figures say in such a situation, "Look, I donâ€™t want anyone fired.â€
Well, I do.
I say this not with just a vindictive spirit. Liberals make sure to administer a coup de grÃ¢ce generally driven by anger and hatred, emotions epitomizing them. Yet slightly more thoughtful leftists may have an additional reason and understand something: Culture wars are zero-sum games. And winning a battle but leaving your adversary in place to fight another day is no recipe for victory.
With respect to school indoctrination, consider: If you caught a teacher trying to molest your child, would you be satisfied with an apology and continue leaving your kid in his care?
Why should it be any different when a teacher visits upon your child the rape of mind, heart and soul?
The point apparently missed is that in such a situation, the problem is not that the educator tried to effect a given type of toxic indoctrination.
Itâ€™s that heâ€™s the kind of person who would effect toxic indoctrination.
This wonâ€™t change just because you successfully mitigate an obvious symptom of his moral disease. Heâ€™s still infected; he still is what he is. And while Iâ€™m no fan of Maya Angelou, some of her words should be heeded here: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.â€
"I remember first hearing these words in my early twenties. I heard them,â€ she continued. "I just didnâ€™t follow them. Hence, I brought myself a whole lot of painful lessons and needless suffering because I always wanted to give people a second chance, and a third, and a fourthâ€¦.â€
Implementing a planned program of leftist insanity isnâ€™t just a momentary lapse in judgment such as an angry outburst, regretted soon afterwards, that resulted in calling a child a derogatory name. It bespeaks of a twisted world view, of a lack of virtue. And when you identify a cancerous tumor, you excise it; you donâ€™t leave it in place so it can metastasize further and affect the healthy tissue around it.
A teacher imbued with leftism will corrupt everything he touches, whether he wants to or not. For he cannot help being what he is. As with virtues, vices are caught more than theyâ€™re taught. Itâ€™s whatâ€™s assumed thatâ€™s learned best, and an educatorâ€™s basic assumptions will always come through to his students one way or another.
This said, a left-wing teacher will usually seek to intentionally indoctrinate his charges even after being caught with his ideological pants down. Heâ€™ll just be more subtle about it.
If my prescription still sounds harsh, know that thereâ€™s a difference between being virtuous and being a "niceâ€ guy â€” and that nice guys finish last. Iâ€™d also implore conservatives to stop being conservative, as in being defensive, as in conserving our now leftism-forged status quo.
Iâ€™d further say, look around you. Do you not realize that our culture is being undone root and branch? Have you not noticed the statues coming down, the traditions torn up, the names of Founders and other historical heroes being stripped from buildings, the history being rewritten, and the morality being turned on its head? Do you not see that weâ€™re facing our own Year Zero?
This is happening, too, partially because of the educational indoctrination of the past many decades, which conservatives didnâ€™t effectively combat because, in part (though there were other reasons), they "didnâ€™t want to see anyone lose his job.â€
But conservatives, one might hope, would understand the importance of accountability. In fact, we find it maddening, and complain, when we see conservatives crucified for saying "booâ€ (e.g., Roger Stone) while left-wing criminals such as John Brennan and Jim Comey are allowed to skate. Yet are we doing any better?
A threat of merely having to stop your social engineering (perhaps only temporarily) if itâ€™s discovered is no threat at all. Loss of employment, however, sends a message. And donâ€™t confuse a soft head with a soft heart. It matters little here that a propagandizing ex-teacher may have trouble paying the rent; it matters much that our culture is being rent stem to stern.
The accountability being prescribed here should, of course, be applied beyond education and to all our institutions, from government bureaucracies to film studios. But education matters because as the apocryphal saying warns, "The teaching in the schools today will become the politics of tomorrow.â€
"Tomorrowâ€ is now because yesterday too many of us were distracted, lukewarm, inattentive, and complacent â€” and too busy being "nice guys.â€
Really, we need to become as "intolerantâ€ as leftists accuse us of being and 10 percent as intolerant they are.
As the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen put it in 1931, "America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance â€” it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.â€
Tolerance of evil is evil itself. Go Roman, conservative brethren, or go home.
February 22, 2021
A Missouri County has authorized its Sheriffs to arrest any Federal authority who attempts to seize guns from the citizens.
Sheriffs Can Arrest Feds Who Violate Citizen's Gun Rights
Of course the Feds will simply strangle Newton County until they submit.
Making Lemon Ice from Lemons. This guy deserves the MacGyver Award.
Texas man uses new 2021 Ford F-150 to heat home, power appliances during blackout
Yes, he really DID power his heat and appliances with his F-150!
Iran is not letting inspectors into their nuclear facilities, despite Biden's promise to reinstate the nuclear deal.
Iran limits access for U.N. nuclear inspectors in
Why, if they have nothing to hide? We know the answer.
The Political Bias Of Victoria State Police Is Clear - It's Time Victorians Said It Is Not OK
Avi Yemini Is A Reporter For Canadian News Channel Rebel News. He's Been Arrested Or Forcebly Removed 5 Times In Victoria When Legally Reporting On Protests.
The mainstream media ignored the police moves against freedom of the press because the the police left them alone at those protests. The elitist mainstream media don't consider Avi Yemini 'one of them', so there was no solidarity.
Besides, the mainstream media didn't want to give the causes Avi Yemini was covering any publicity because they were protests against the lock-downs, and they were pro Australia Day. The leftwing mainstream media were definitely pro Labor's Premier Daniel Andrews world record lock-downs, and they are more supportive of BLM and 'Invasion Day' protests, than anything which could be considered patriotic.
Yesterday, Daniel Andrews personal security forces, formally known as the Victorian Police, arrested a Herald Sun journalist and photographer in very much the same way they have been dealing with Avi Yemini.
They were manhandled by police, despite not resisting, hand cuffed, and frog-marched away from the protest site. All the while declaring that they were authorised media reporting on the event. That didn't matter to the arresting police.
Because Facebook has blocked Aussies from linking to news sources. I've attached a screenshot from the Herald Sun, and here's a cut and paste from Murdoch News.
'Victoria Police has apologised after a journalist and photographer were arrested while reporting on an anti-vaccinatio
Herald Sun reporter Olivia Jenkins and senior photographer Jake Nowakowski were led away by police in handcuffs as anti-vax demonstrators clashed with officers at Fawkner Park.
In a statement on Sunday afternoon, a police spokeswoman said the force was "very sorryâ€ the two were caught up in the incident and confirmed they would not be fined.'
This apology was hastily issued as soon as Twitter exploded with mainstream media complaining one of their own had been arrested. Victoria police issued the apology as soon as they realised they had arrested the wrong type of reporter. That is, a reporter who is normally in lockstep with the left wing Labor government.
The grovelling apology went on to try to justify the 'accident'.
'"In the past 12-months months, Victoria Police has seen an increase in hostile and at times violent protests throughout the state,â€ the statement read.
"(Saturdayâ€™s) protest at Fawkner Park was no different and during a very dynamic situation, a journalist and photographer were caught up with the protesters and arrested.
"To be clear, it is not our intention to arrest journalists who are simply doing their job."
"However, the reality is we have seen an increased number of protesters claim to be media in order to actively avoid police enforcement.â€
Victoria Police said the journalist and photographer were placed under arrest until their identity could be verified.'
I've seen the reports on Avi Yemini's arrests and removals. He has a government media accreditation. He reports for an admittedly small news network, but it has a strong global reach. Avi was simply reporting on the protests when arrested and removed.
It's clear the police know who he is. In one incident he was prevented from attending a media conference because the premier's PA had said he wasn't welcome. It is certainly not an issue of mistaken identity with Avi.
Furthermore, from the footage I've seen, it is the police who have escalated matters creating violence at protests which don't have the Dan Andrews seal of approval.
At the Black Lives Matter, and Invasion Day protests, when the government had expressed supportive sentiment, the protests, while illegal, were relatively peaceful because the police simply stood back and let it proceed.
With the anti-lockdown, Australia Day, and this Anti-Compulsory
It shouldn't matter what your political views are, you should be concerned when it becomes clear the police are being used as a political tool.
It's worth watching Avi Yemini's 5 minute video report which you will find if you search: Rebel News This Is Why Media Should Stop Ignoring What Happened To Avi
It's appropriate to cite the of a post-war confessional prose by the
German Lutheran pastor Martin NiemÃ¶ller (1892â€“1984). It is about the
cowardice of German intellectuals and certain clergyâ€”includin
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
The Government, with the help of the police, are silencing any opposition at all costs, and the bulk of the population are OK with it.
In Victoria they came for a pregnant woman in her home who simply posted about an anti-lockdown protest.
They arrested a mother going for her one hour exercise while in lock-down. Her crime was carrying a placard against the lockdown. She was separated from her crying young child.
We've seen police dash across open fields to arrest a person standing alone, without a facemask.
We've seen the government use health mandates under the State of Emergency to block protests they don't approve of, while allowing protesters by patrons of their political party.
This is not OK. Victorians need to stand up against this totalitarianism
Jim Church was discussing the Freedom from Atheism Foundation and Willis Eschenbach took umbrage with that outfit for being Intelligent Design theorists. An interesting argument about God v. Nature resulted.
Willis Eschenbach states:
This argument is often presented in the form that when we see a mechanical wristwatch, say a Rolex, it is so complex and well-made and finely crafted that we have to assume there is a watchmaker ... which is the argument above, with God as the watchmaker.
The problem with that argument is that the watchmaker must perforce be much more complex, well-made, and finely crafted than the watch.
So if you assume the watch must have a watchmaker, you perforce must assume that the watchmaker must have a watchmaker-maker ... and so on ad infinitum.
Jim Church says:
it takes a whole lot more faith to believe that Nothing creates something, a finely tuned something at that, than that there is intelligent, discoverable design created by an Intelligent Designer. Agnostic David Berlinski, "The Devilâ€™s Delusionâ€, makes a strong case along this line as does John Lennox in his rebuttal of Stephen Hawking, "God and Stephen Hawking, whose design is it anywayâ€.
Willis that is actually an old argument going WAY back. God was sometimes referred to as the "unmoved mover" and it was introduced into astronomy by Ptolemy (the "Primum Mobile") It was thought that God was the first source of the movement of the stars. I understand your dislike of the argument, because it is "elephants all the way" BUT one must expect God not to conform to the normal laws of cause and effect, because He is outside of the Universe and universal laws. Like singularities around black holes, the human mind balks at the concept. But what could God be but the Granddaddy of all singularities? God would be outside of our ability to understand rationally, which is limited by our physical universe. That's why religion is a matter of faith and not reason alone. But there are plenty of scientific arguments that do not prove the existence of God but provide evidence (enough to get a Grand Jury to act). There is the Anthropic Principle, for instance, which argues that the Universe is uniquely tailored to us and we would be impossible if any one aspect of this universe were slightly different. (The Many Worlds hypothesis is an attempt to break out of the Strong Anthropic Principle and winds up requiring even more faith than does just believing in God, in my opinion.) You have the Big Bang, which is eerily similar to the Book of Genesis. You have a lot of stuff in mathematics that suggests some sort of design or order in the Universe. I could go on but you get the point. There is no smoking gun proof but there is some tantalizing evidence. And if we are to assume our existence has a purpose (something human beings are compelled to do) we would assume that God wouldn't show Himself for the very reason that then we would be compelled to obey the rules out of our knowledge of His existence and fear of punishment rather than out of our own volition. In other words, free will. It would completely distort the purpose of life (assuming it has a purpose, which an atheistic universe, self-created out of nothing and having no ultimate destiny except heat death or the big crunch). And I would add belief in a God or gods is ubiquitous in the human condition and apparently the default "programming" of human beings. One must ask why. (The Bible says there is an inborn belief in everyone.) It is often argued that it is a way to explain what is unknown, but why do that? Why wouldn't human beings simply say "I don't know" and set out to find the answers? To create fanciful explanations where none is required makes little sense. It's rather as though there is a natural inborn sense of a deity while a lack of specific knowledge. I would add when Yahweh appeared to Moses He called himself "I Am" meaning "none of your business" when Moses asked who He was. At any rate, I didn't mean to ramble on. I just wanted to clarify my and others position here.
Jim Church adds:
To follow up on Timothyâ€™s comment: And to deny all of the evidence of Intelligent Design/Designer appears to be much like the Climategate reveal exposing the deniers of the Medieval Warm Period: "we will have to find a way of making it disappear,â€ or words to that effect. When the obvious makes one feel uncomfortable we have to either make up our own facts, like climate alarmists do, or humble ourselves and accept those facts explain reality â€” even though there is a whole lot of that reality we still donâ€™t fully comprehend!
So the answer is, a watchmaker perforce requires a watchmaker, and a watchmaker perforce requires a watchmaker-maker we call "GOD" ... but the watchmaker-make r arose spontaneously in just exactly the manner that you deny that life could arise, because reasons.
Please understand, I do believe that "there is a fountain that was not made by the hands of men".
I also believe that life emerged spontaneously, in the same way that a thunderstorm arises spontaneously. A thunderstorm is a huge unimaginably complex phenomenon ... but we all seem to agree that it can arise spontaneously.
Funny world, huh?
Jim Church replied:
Actually it would appear to me, forgive me if Iâ€™m wrong, that you have been hoodwinked by Dawkinsâ€™s "argumentâ€ of infinite regression, as have many. As an old Irishman once said, "Well, such an argument proves one thing â€” if they had a better argument they would use it.â€
By asking the question Dawkins shows he has a created God in his own mind. And it is then scarcely surprising that he calls his book "The God Delusionâ€. Because that is precisely what his created god is, a delusion by definition. A better title would have been "The Created-God Delusionâ€.
On the other hand the God who created the universe, and all of its discoverable laws, was not created as Dawkins speculates. He is eternal. He was not â€˜madeâ€™ and therefore subject to the laws that science discovers. It is He who has made the universe with its laws. And that constitutes the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. He existed before the universe and is independent of it.
Dawkins is more akin to the ancient Greeks and their notion of gods descended from the heavens and earth and are therefore themselves created. Iâ€™m sure we have graduated in our understanding far beyond those Ionian philosopher â€” although it would appear Dawkins may not have!
Certainly that is not the picture painted for us in the Bible. One Saul of Tarsus, now renamed Paul, no intellectual slouch, coming from the university city of Tarsus, well versed in Greek thinking and philosophy, had much to say to the sophisticated crowd in Athens. After noticing their plethora of created gods, about which they like Dawkins held many delusional and inadequate ideas he addressed the philosophical school of the Areopagus. In doing so he did not fit into the stereotype of an anti-intellectual fanatic, but knew their worldviews. He pointed out to them that one of their own poets had grasped that human beings are creations of God. He then drew the logical inference for them to consider: "Being then Godâ€™s offspring we ought not to think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by art and the imagination of man.â€
You see the Bible long ago anticipated Dawkins false representation of God and the inherently infinite regression argument.
The real issue between Dawkins and a believer in God is NOT whether it makes sense to question ultimate facts â€” I have MANY questions! â€” it is rather which facts are ultimate? Dawkins ultimate â€˜factâ€™ is matter. The theistâ€™s ultimate fact is God. It takes more faith to believe that life emerges from nothing as he postulates than to accept the Divine intelligently created all of this glorious and, to us, complex world which He affords us to study intelligently.
Thanks, Jim. I fear that waving your hands and saying God is Eternal and God is not subject to natural laws and the like is NOT an argument against the idea that life arose spontaneously. In fact, it's not an argument at all. Look up "Deux ex machina".
Look, I have no problem with the idea of God. And I see no contradiction between that idea and the idea that life arose spontaneously.
But saying "life is complex therefore there must be a God" is not an argument. It is a statement of faith, fine as far as it goes, but not a logical argument of any kind.
Finally, if life has taught me one thing about scientists, it's that outside their specialized field they are often idiots. Using a Nobel Prize winning Christian to state your belief is just an admission that your argument is very weak.
Willis Eschenbach I don't think Jim Church is arguing there are no natural processes in play in abiogenesis and the evolution of life, but that isn't what most atheists argue anyway. They tend to make a straw man arguments so they can say there is no God. OF COURSE there are natural processes involved, and that isn't in dispute (at least not in the intellectual circles.)
The final argument comes down to whether the universe spontaneously created itself and life - including intelligent life (which even includes some human beings - Democrats and Progressives exempted, of course). In both cases it is impossible to prove the assertion of whether God exists or not.
Nobody can prove the universe created itself any more than they can prove God created the universe. The evidence is entirely too marginal. But that is what we should expect given our limitations and very scant knowledge on the subject. It DOES come down to testimony and faith.
That is why the persecution of the early Church was so important; a bunch of people died horribly rather than recant their faith. Why? What did that accomplish? A great deal insofar as it showed they were willing to be put to death (often horribly tortured in the process) because they believed it. Testimony. As I said earlier, it's not something that can be proven beyond doubt but could be acceptable in a court of law.
There are miracles that have been chronicled over the years, too. Now I know a lot of people will scoff at that, which in it's own way is the point. Again, I point out that the majority of people have an innate sense of the Divine, and belief in God or gods is ubiquitous. Remember, the Founding Fathers believed even when they didn't; they were big on Natural Law, which presupposed the existence of "Nature and Nature's God". That presupposed a kind of law built into the universe.
Your statement "But saying "life is complex therefore there must be a God" is not an argument. It is a statement of faith, fine as far as it goes, but not a logical argument of any kind" can equally apply to the argument there is no God. It is an article of faith, not of fact. There are no facts at this level of reality. We can either believe the evidence for God or against God. It ultimately is a matter of choice. Many people believe in String Theory too with about as much evidence as there is for the existence of God. I would point out that multiple legends in science - Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell,, and a host of others were devout believers. What does that prove? Perhaps nothing, but it shows there is no contradiction between faith and reason.
So why believe? Well, there is Pascal's Wager to consider. Of course, in the end, what does anyone hope to achieve in life? Life is a pretty bad joke if there is no God. The universe is pointless, and the fact so many young people now are taught that is why they commit suicide at record rates and embrace socialism so readily; they seek to make an Earthly paradise. Nobody wants their lives to be pointless.
I know that doesn't mean it's correct, but at the same time it doesn't make it incorrect either.
I do not think Intelligent Design is a smoking gun piece of evidence. I think it has the same problems that every argument for or against God suffers. But it's just one more part of the total, like the shutting down of vote counting at three a.m. is part of the total picture of vote fraud in the last election; it doesn't PROVE anything but does give some tantalizing evidence.
Willis you say:
"I fear that waving your hands and saying God is Eternal and God is not subject to natural laws and the like is NOT an argument against the idea that life arose spontaneously. In fact, it's not an argument at all. Look up "Deux ex machina"."
Perhaps, but isn't the point of science to provide the mechanisms of HOW a natural process worked? Isn't that the whole point? To say "it just happened" is the Original Sin of science. So the burden of proof is on those who claim it just happened. They must provide the mechanisms. Those who believe in God have made it plain Faith plays a critical part. And remember, it was Christianity and the Church which invented the Scientific Method and the other aspects of Science - the Greeks had philosophy, not science as we know it. The very thing attacking religion now is the stepchild of that very religion, which sought to promote an understanding of the universe as a means to understand God.
There are other arguments too, such as the Aquinas' moral arguments. This discussion could go on for a long time and I doubt you want to spend all your time at it. I would say your "deux ex machina" argument applies doubly to the claim the universe created itself and life spontaneously generated - in a universe governed by entropic decay. I have yet to see an iPhone spontaneously generate around my cat's leavings in his box.
Jim Church adds:
But of course there is no credible science that would affirm the alarmistâ€™s claims that humans would expire at any level up to and even exceeding 1,200 ppm. Indeed submariners and astronauts survive much higher dosages with no ill effects.
Climate alarmists think that theory actually creates actions rather than explains them. Their theory can do neither!
Similarly Stephen Hawking invented a theory out of whole cloth which he claimed was â€˜the Theory of Everythingâ€. It was a deceptive way of avoiding his previous conclusion that the fine-tuning of the universe pointed inexorably to a Grand Designer. But he, like the AGW theorists failed in basic science in that their theories are not supported by observations.
Roger Penrose, Hawkingâ€™s one time close colleague, called Hawkingâ€™s TOE "just a nice ideaâ€, nothing more. He went on to say, "Itâ€™s very far from any testability...itâ€™s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations.â€ Hawkingâ€™s book, The Grand Design, said Penrose, "is a bit misleading. It gives you the impression of a theory that is going to explain everything; itâ€™s nothing of the sort. Itâ€™s not even a theoryâ€ and "hardly scienceâ€.
The same could be said, and has been, by eminently insightful people, about AGW "scienceâ€. It has been created, not from sound observational science, but purely speculative, self-serving hubris masquerading as â€˜scienceâ€™. And the more they cling to their ideology through bullying and censorship the less and less credible they become in the eyes of reasonable people who carefully try to weigh all the evidence.
That is what I appreciate about Willis and others who work through the actual evidence and seek to come to reasonable and supported conclusions, all the while admitting there are vast areas of relevant science which we really do not yet know a whole lot.
There may indeed come a final climax to human civilization but it wonâ€™t come by accident, and the AGW theory certainly wonâ€™t make it happen.
Jim Church you say "Roger Penrose, Hawkingâ€™s one time close colleague, called Hawkingâ€™s TOE "just a nice ideaâ€' That's why the atheists in science are going after things like the Big Bang theory these days; they are an embarrassment to the claim the universe is self-created. If it has a beginning and an end it suggests there is a Creator. That's also why there are so many who support the Many Worlds hypothesis; it is a way out of the Anthropic Principle which argues the universe is designed for us, not the other way around. (The AP says that if even one condition here was slightly different life would be impossible, so the Many Worlds gets around it by postulating infinite numbers of universes each slightly different so it was inevitable one would exist that was capable of creating and supporting our kind of life.)
February 21, 2021
The entire article is here: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-iran-nuclear-deal-rushing-ahead-fred-fleitz
Last week, the Biden administration made a major step toward rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran when it announced it was willing to begin talks with the Islamic republic without preconditions and accepted an invitation by European states to broker an initial meeting. A meeting may take place this week.
The administration also dropped several sanctions placed on Iran by the Trump administration, including travel restrictions on Iranian officials.
The timing of the Biden administrationâ€™s announcement was curious in light of a surge in threatening and belligerent actions by Iran, such as a Feb.15 rocket attack against a U.S. base in Irbil, Iraq, by an Iranian-backed militia and stepped-up attacks against Yemeni civilian targets and Saudi Arabia by the Houthi rebels, an Iranian terrorist surrogate.
Iran also recently accelerated its nuclear weapons program by producing uranium metal and increasing uranium enrichment.
In addition, Tehran has threatened to expel International Atomic Energy inspectors if oil and banking sanctions are not lifted by Feb.21 and issued a list of seven preconditions for the United States to meet before it will agree to resume nuclear talks. Iranian officials also have insisted that they will refuse to discuss any changes to address flaws in the original agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or a follow-up deal.
It also is strange that a new president would plan to make such a huge policy change so early in his administration before conducting a full policy review.
Typically, new presidential administrations contemplating significant changes in foreign policy will spend several months consulting with allies and reviewing applicable intelligence as part of a policy review to generate policy options for the president.
For example, the Trump administration did a 90-day review of the JCPOA from April to July 2017. President Trump delayed withdrawing from the nuclear agreement to give U.S. diplomats an opportunity to work with European leaders and members of Congress to find ways to fix the JCPOAâ€™s flaws or negotiate a better follow-on agreement. When these efforts failed, Trump pulled out of the JCPOA on May 8, 2018.
By contrast, without conducting any internal review and with only a few brief discussions with foreign officials, Biden officials are planning to transform U.S. Middle East policy and U.S. policy toward Iran even though President Biden has not been in office for a full month. As of today, Biden has only spoken to one Middle East head of state â€“ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Making this more worrisome, Iran is far more dangerous to the region and the world than when Biden was vice president.[...]
So why is Joe Biden in such a hurry to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal?A significant reason appears to be Bidenâ€™s obsession to quickly reverse everything Donald Trump did as president. This has been evident in the dozens of executive orders Biden has signed since his first day in office.
The new president is probably especially committed to rejoining the JCPOA as soon as possible because Trump made a big deal of trashing this agreement, which most Democrats regard as President Barack Obamaâ€™s legacy foreign policy achievement. For Biden and his aides, returning to the Iran nuclear deal is payback â€“ and personal.
The second reason for the haste probably is because Bidenâ€™s aides, many of whom worked on the JCPOA during the Obama administration, think they know all they need to know about the JCPOA and therefore donâ€™t believe a policy review is necessary. They didnâ€™t see any need to consult with Middle East leaders before Biden agreed to send U.S. diplomats to a possible EU-brokered meeting with Iranian officials.
Such know-it-all arrogance was common in the Obama administration and is the reason Obama usually didnâ€™t meet with his daily intelligence briefers. This attitude hurt Obamaâ€™s foreign policy making, especially on the threat from ISIS, and could hurt the Biden administration because, despite their experience working on the Iran nuclear issue, they would learn a lot by going through intelligence on this issue from the past four years and carefully consulting with foreign leaders and U.S. government experts. Biden officials will find after speaking with Middle East leaders that most supported Trumpâ€™s Iran policy and strongly oppose the U.S. rejoining the JCPOA.
And finally, Biden may be moving so fast on opening nuclear talks with Iran due in response to the recent surge in Iranian provocations and threats. This would be very disturbing if true since it would mean Biden is giving into Iranian blackmail and would telegraph to Tehran that it can manipulate Biden policy making by committing acts of violence. Biden officials must reassure the American people and the world that this is not the case.
Sound and competent foreign policy making canâ€™t be rushed. There should be careful deliberations and reviews of intelligence to ensure the president makes decisions based on the best possible and most objective information. Rushing into a decision to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal because of hatred of Trump, a know-it-all attitude by Biden aides or Iranian threats is certain to result in a bad outcome that will endanger U.S. and global security as well as Americaâ€™s global credibility.
Read the rest here: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/woke-american-military-danger-us-newt-gingrich Newt always explains things well. And we need to find ways to combat this before it infects people who may have to go into combat.
The recent revelation that a senior Navy task force is proposing an oath to be taken by every member of the Navy was a warning of how deep woke-think has penetrated American institutions â€“ even the Defense Department.
Consider this pledge proposed by Task Force Navy One, which was formed in June to develop strategies to combat discrimination in the Navy:
"I pledge to advocate for and acknowledge all lived experiences and intersectional identities of every sailor in the Navy. I pledge to engage in ongoing self-reflection, education and knowledge sharing to better myself and my communities. I pledge to be an example in establishing healthy, inclusive and team-oriented environments. I pledge to constructively share all experiences and information gained from activities above to inform the development of Navy-wide reforms."
Reread this pledge and think of the young men and women who will be asked to commit to it.
First, how many new recruits will have any idea what this "intersectionality" they have pledged to advocate for and acknowledge actually is?
As wikia.org defines it:
"Intersectionality is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another."
The website goes on to say it is "largely used in critical theories, especially Feminist theory, when discussing systematic oppression."
It is profoundly wrong to have our young men and women in uniform take a pledge like this.
Since most of the sailors will not know what "intersectionality" is, they will be instructed by woke professionals who make a living teaching wokeness in government, corporations and educational systems. There is now an entire industry of woke instructors and woke experts who make pretty good livings putting on mandatory woke lessons â€“ where people are trapped by the power structure and forced to learn left-wing nonsense as a condition of keeping their jobs.
So, should this pledge be instituted, we will soon have a brainwashed military spouting largely partisan ideological nonsense. Members will be told their survival in the military and their chance for promotion is dependent on learning left-wing baloney.
This isnâ€™t what we want in a military.
We want a military dedicated to war fighting, learning the lessons of military history, and preparing to defeat our opponents if we are militarily threatened. The kind of potentially heroic young men and women who rally to the flag to fight for America are not going to be strengthened in their dedication to winning by having to learn an ideology that has been foisted on a gullible country by woke flim-flam artists (the modern grifters of phony sociology and politics).
47 queries taking 0.1827 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.