Socialism

Our Nation is in Danger
Politics is a dangerous subject that I never intended this blog to discuss. However, I feel that our nation is currently headed toward destruction, and in order to turn around, the people of America need to speak out, and take action.

Consequences of Socialism
Obama has been a socialist from the moment he entered the race for president. America didn’t see the danger until it was too late, and now we are stuck with the consequences of America’s choice. These consequences will include nationalized healthcare, government ownership of GM, Banks, and other large companies, Cap and Trade, and more to come. These might not sound all that bad to you, so I will explain why I call them consequences.

Nationalized Healthcare
First, nationalized healthcare is a socialistic ideal that makes healthcare extremely inexpensive, or even free. However, since the government must pay the hospitals, the government also controls who can get help, and to what extent. This makes it hard for older people to receive special treatment, since the government will choose to help younger people who have more life ahead of them. Nationalized healthcare in Europe has resulted in overcrowded hospitals, since it costs relatively nothing to get a checkup, or get a prescription for a sore throat. So, the minor ailments often are over treated, and people who really need help wait days before they can get attention. I heard a story about a woman who got in a car accident, and waited three days in a stretcher in the halls of a hospital in London before anyone even looked at her. Nationalized healthcare costs the government billions of dollars that they don’t have, and forces citizens to pay high taxes so that other people can get treatment that they could otherwise do without.

Corporate Government
Government ownership of large companies increases the power, and role of the government, by making us dependant on their products. Now that the government controls GM, they will undoubtedly start to limit the size, carbon footprint, and power of cars that we buy. This will no doubt sound appealing to the environmentalists, but mankind only produces less than one percent of carbon, and other greenhouse gasses, and we are already an exceptionally clean nation. Earths water and air are cleaner now than they have been in decades. More fuel efficient cars come at the expense of comfort, and safety. And if these companies get into debt, it will be our taxes that bail them out.

Tax on Life
"Cap and trade" is a bill that Obama is trying to pass gives the government control over what we can buy and sell. If this bill passes, your house will have to pass government mandated appraisals, (to make sure your house is “Green”) before you are allowed to sell it. Industries will be taxed heavily for every bit of pollution they create, and will pass this expense on to their customers. No one will be exempt from this rise in living expenses, and it is questionable whether or not future generations will be able to support themselves.

Hidden Motivation?
Does Obama really think all these changes will help? His solutions to our problems only create new, worse problems. If you doubt this, don’t take my word for it, do your own research. Obama’s nation that he is creating is not a nation that will last. He is spending billions of dollars that we don’t have on quick fixes. Don’t think I am trying to be offensive, but I don’t think Obama is dumb enough to think he is helping America. If you notice, there is a trend in his bills; they all give him more power. Is Obama a power hungry lunatic? I am not accusing him, but I don’t think it is an impossibility. I think we need to be careful how much power we are giving to our president, because if we wait too long to take action, it might be too late. This is the fourth of July, and I am proud to be an American. Our nation is the most beautiful, powerful, and free nation on the face of the world and I want my kids to grow up as free as I am.

Intelligent Design in Schools

Don’t Get the Wrong Impression
Most people are under the impression that Intelligent design is nothing more than Christianity under a new name. And everyone knows that Christianity is no more than a delusional religion about God, for emotionally crippled people who would rather feel good, than get real and be rational. With this perspective it is no wonder intelligent design is not allowed in schools. Why would people want to harm their children’s intellect over some irrational belief in God? People tend to get rather defensive when people like me talk about intelligent design in schools, but what I want to do is clarify exactly what intelligent design is, and how I want it taught in schools.

Presuppositions
Intelligent design is not a religion, it is a scientific hypothesis. The reason most people associate it with religion is because, in order to be valid, me must assume that God exists. But is it not equally religious to assume that God does not exist? The point is, both Intelligent Design, and Macro Evolution are based on presuppositions. But this alone does not make either of them less credible. Every day, we must assume, for instance, that matter exists, and that what we see is not a delusion. We must presuppose that language and numbers are adequate to explain our universe. And we must also presuppose whether or not the existence of God is possible. Both presuppositions are equally viable by themselves. You cannot prove if God exists, or does not exist. What we can do however, is see which presupposition seems to fit the scientific evidence the best. For instance, although we cannot prove that matter exists, we can observe the consistency of physical laws, and can realize that the best explanation for this consistency is not illusions, but physical substance, governed by mathematical laws. In the same way, intelligent design is a theory that starts with the presupposition that God could exist. If you observe the universe with an open mind, I think you will find that this is the most reasonable presupposition.

Observation
As you already know, the hypothesis of intelligent design starts with a presupposition. The next step is observation, and our primary observation is the complexity of the universe. I don’t have time to go into detail about the hundreds of complex things that make up our universe. Life for instance, is so complex that we cannot even begin to understand the complex chemical reactions and processes that make it work. But the point is, these things are so complex, that we must find some way to explain this complexity. Our second observation are the geological features that indicate a huge catastrophic event. And a third observation would be the Age of the earth, (which 80% of tests show to be under 10,000 years). The most popular Hypothesis is that macro evolution caused the complexity by a roundabout way involving very gradual change and natural processes. But in forming our hypothesis we take into account that macro evolution has failed in its attempt to explain the universe. And that leads us to the third step, hypothesis.

Hypothesis
Our scientific hypothesis is that a supernatural force intervened with nature, and caused the complexity and organization we see in the universe today. Also, we believe that a worldwide flood caused the geological formations that we observe. This explains the complexity and beauty of our universe, as well as why the earth tests to be young, while showing geological features that would take millions of years to form normally. In fact, my personal hypothesis, as well as many other creationists, and because these events fit so perfectly with the Bible, is that the Biblical creation story, as well as the flood story, and all other stories, are legitimate, and should be taken seriously, just like any other history book. So the next step is to ask the question, “is there any evidence to support this idea”. Since both the creation event, and the flood cannot be repeated, we must rely on a method in which we predict what evidence these events would leave behind, and then go out, and see if the evidence is there.
Theory
I don’t have nearly enough time to go into all the predictions that intelligent design makes, or explain all the ways that the evidence supports these predictions. That is a topic for another post. The reality is, there is no evidence out there that can’t be explained with Intelligent Design, and in fact, a huge amount of evidence supports it. And an even larger amount of evidence shows that macro evolution is so close to impossible, that it is not even worth consideration. Once again, the rest of the posts on this blog will discuss this in greater detail. Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, but it is questionable whether or not macro evolution still is. Science has changed so much from when Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, and his theory is simply being torn apart. So why is Intelligent Design treated with such scorn in the scientific community? I think it’s because in our present culture, most people have the presupposition that God does not exist, and there is a bad “blind faith” stereotype for people who think God does exist. If you get rid of the stereotype, and give the existence of God a chance in your mind, Intelligent Design suddenly makes sense. But because most scientists are stuck with the idea that so called, “religion” is not for scientists, they don’t give it a chance. And of course, the general public believes whatever scientists say without question.

What is Being Taught?
Today students are taught macro evolution as if it were fact. When students question evolution they are often ridiculed by classmates and teachers alike. Here’s the story of a 4th grader who stood up under this persecution. “Apparently at lunch some of the kids started trying to make him believe evolution (note that this is a 4th grade class) by teasing him about believing creation. His science teacher also joined in this by trying to “prove” evolution and by e-mailing some random biology professor to tell him this. From what I gathered, the teacher at one point told him that, from all the information she had provided him, he “has to believe” evolution. Now for the good news: The kid stood strong on the Word of God. He didn’t compromise and didn’t flinch under the persecution.” This kid was obviously too young to be able to defend his position. This is an example of a teacher taking advantage of a student by superior knowledge and vocabulary. In these situations, students are forced to believe what their teachers tell them unquestioningly. Evolutionary textbooks are full of out of date information, and often go just deep enough into subjects to make them seem like evidence for evolution without discussing the glaring problems with the hypothesis. One example would be the chart that shows horse evolution. this chart arranges the horses from smallest to largest, but bypasses the fact that the horses are found together in the same rock strata, and show no indications of gradual change except in size.What

Should Be Taught?
Intelligent design is more than valid enough to be taught in schools. I have no problem with macro evolution being taught in schools. But it should be taught as the failing theory it is, not like a law. I think it should be taught alongside creation as the naturalistic hypothesis Vs. the supernatural hypothesis, that way students can compare the two side by side, and see which one is really backed by the evidence. Teachers and curriculums should not take sides like they do now, and should recognize the scientific validity of intelligent design. Another problem that needs to be corrected is the out of date, or false information found in text books. I don’t want to teach “religion” in a public school, all I want is for a scientific theory, (and one that I believe is more valid than the evolutionary theory), to be studied in schools as at least an equal to evolution. Ultimately, if schools would give intelligent design a thought, I think everyone would see how well it fits the evidence, and how science makes so much more sense when it’s put into perspective with a supernatural creator. Until our schools allow both theories to be taught honestly for what they are, we are actually violating the true meaning of the first amendment. By this I mean that the state is endorsing one religious idea, (that God does not exist) while preventing discussion of Intelligent Design, (which is no more religious than macro evolution) in schools, by supporting, or denying the validity of the theory that is based on its respective faith assumption. The purpose of the first amendment was never meant to keep “faith assumptions”, (or what is more commonly called religion, or church) out of the government, it was designed to keep the government from controlling, or endorsing one over another. And this is exactly what I see happening all over America.

Our Constitutional Rights

Freedom of Speech
On March 20th 2009 Pastor Walter Hoye was imprisoned in a California jail in a cell filled with 29 other prisoners. He was sentenced to 30 days in prison for speaking at an abortion clinic. Walter began his ministry in 2006 because of the sky high abortion rates among African-Americans. Once a week, he would stand quietly outside the “Family Planning Specialists” clinic with a sign that read, “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help” when people approached the clinic he would ask if he could talk to them about alternatives and give them pamphlets describing available help. His quiet approach was peaceful and calm; nothing aggressive or threatening. It began to get ugly when pro-abortion “escorts” began arriving in groups surrounding Walter and blocking his path. They held up sheets of cardboard to block his sign and shouted down his quiet plea for life.

City Ordinance
When Walter still persisted, clinic managers got the city council to institute a ordinance that made it illegal to approach within eight feet of anyone approaching the clinic within 100 feet of the building, (funny, they were fine with “escorts” surrounding people and shouting in their ears). Hoye said “This law in extremely unconstitutional, it allows abortion clinics to decide which U.S. citizens are allowed to retain their constitutional right of free speech.” Hoye continued his work, and was charged with “unlawful approaches to women” and “force, threat of force, or physical obstruction” to those seeking to enter the clinic. Even after security camera tapes proved the testimony of his prosecutors false, and even after clinic escorts admitted that Walter was always cordial and never obstructed anyone’s path or used threats or force, the jury refused to admit he was innocent. They gave him the choice of two years in jail, or a stay away order that would involve giving up his constitutional rights. Refusing the stay away order, Walter eventually received a short 30 day sentence.

Follow the Money
I don’t care how long his sentence was, Walter Hoye was doing nothing wrong. His presence was inconvenient to the multi-million dollar baby killing industry. They claim to stick up for a mother’s freedom of choice, but how am I supposed to believe this when they disregard the constitution and imprison people for trying to save lives? Wake up people! They aren’t concerned about helping people plan their families; they are making a lot of money, and making sexual immorality cheap. This story is not an isolated incident, it is happening more and more commonly and it isn’t just abortionists who are taking away our freedom of speech. It is understandable that abortion clinics don’t want anyone physically assaulting their clients, for that matter, it is extremely constitutional to defend citizens from danger and abuse. But our government cannot be allowed to control what we say. Our government applies to actions only, not opinions or speach. We have a right to free speech in America. And if this freedom is revoked, the government, the abortion clinics, NASA, and public schools can tell us whatever they want, and we can’t question it. This is communism, and we already have our foot in the door.

Separation of Church and State

Jefferson’s Letter
This topic one of the most misunderstood topics in America today, so be prepared to hear this in a way you may have never heard it before. Today, separation of church and state is an argument that is used by the ACLU to outlaw Christian idea’s and symbols from anything associated with government. The actual phrase was coined from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The story goes like this; the Danbury Baptist Association was concerned that in their state, religious rights were not recognized as “Inalienable Rights” but as “Privileges” granted by the government. In response, Jefferson wrote a letter that basically says that he thinks government should have as little to do with enforcing religion as possible. Here is what he said.

…"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state”…

Did you catch that? Sure the phrase is in there, “wall of separation between church and state”. But what about the context? It says that legislature should make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That’s exactly what the ACLU is trying to do. It appears that those who use this phrase are severely taking it out of context to fit their anti-Christian agenda.

The First Amendment
Anyone who has heard the phrase “separation of church and state” will have probably heard of the first amendment of the constitution, (even if they didn't know what it was). In fact, most people associate separation of church and state directly with the first amendment.

“The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

When I read this, my suspicions were confirmed. Separation of church and state, as it has become today, is unconstitutional. By writing the first amendment, our founding fathers weren’t making our government religiously neutral, (which is in fact, an impossible task) they were making sure that the government didn’t control our religion. As Jefferson’s letter says, “legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions”.

“Offending Someone”
Today the ACLU is pressuring our government to reach further than actions. Already it is illegal to pray in schools, wear Christian T-shirts in schools, display the Ten Commandments in courthouses and soon, “in God we trust” may be removed from our currency. Why? Because it might “offend someone”. For this same reason I’ve heard that a library is Colorado is refusing to fly our nation’s flag! Strangely enough, the same people who are pushing Christianity out of our country, (with separation of church and state), have no problem with Muslim prayers, songs about Hanukkah, and homosexual awareness days in schools. I heard that a school near where I live was actually studying the Muslim “steps to heaven” or something like that. I have nothing against Muslims, (except the extremists who want to kill me), but it cannot be right to Give them the freedoms that Christians are loosing. The American constitution supports freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So anyone who is offended by the ten commandments needs to, (pardon the expression) suck it up and deal with it. Nowhere will freedom ever be complete while offending someone is considered a crime.

The ACLU

Define “Liberties”
I recently read a tract titled “The ACLU vs. America”. What I read was so disturbing that I decided to write this post to inform you what measures are being done by the ACLU to destroy the freedoms of Americans. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is a multimillion dollar corporation that “defends” our civil liberties, (at least, the liberties they think should be defended) by pressuring authorities and filing huge lawsuits to anyone who opposes their practice. Let’s take a close look at the “liberties” that the ACLU defends to get an idea of what they stand for.

The ACLU vs. Prayer
In 1963 the ACLU outlawed prayer and the devotional reading of scripture in public schools in Pennsylvania. Since then they have banned graduation invocations, pregame voluntary prayer, and even moments of silence, from schools nationwide. Not only have the ACLU targeted our public schools, but in one case in Louisiana, they actually “demanded jail time for any politician who prayed in a manner they disapproved of”. In South Carolina and Virginia they threatened those who used “Jesus’ name” in prayer with lawsuit. Although against Christians praying, in Virginia the ACLU filed suit demanding that a wiccan witch be allowed to pray during a town meeting. They also work to prevent Christians from sharing the gospel in Public places.

The ACLU vs. Family
The ACLU has also tried, (and failed) to force Boy Scouts of America to accept homosexual scout leaders. “Since the ACLU’s founding in 1920 its leaders have sought to redefine marriage and the family in a relentless campaign to separate sexual activity from morality and responsibility”. The ACLU is currently fighting for same-sex “marriage” in states coast to coast. The ACLU also stands for the degrading of human life from conception until death, and defends the distribution of childhood pornography.

The ACLU vs. God
It’s easy to make excuses to do what we want to do. We could sell murder as a “civil liberty” since we have the right to be happy and do what we want. But the truth is, we are not free to do whatever we want to do. Christians believe that God decides what is right, and what is wrong. Unfortunately, it seems that the ACLU doesn’t understand this. Maybe it’s because we stand up for absolute morals that they attack us so consistently. In my family the ACLU will always be the “Anti-Christian Lunatics Union”. When you give a liberty, you often have to take one. When you give people the liberty to not hear Christian ideas in school, you take away a Christian’s liberty to talk about those ideas. The ACLU is not fighting injustice, they are fighting God. and this is why they can’t win.