Barbaric! Barbaric! Barbaric!

I am changing my planned posting once again. I will begin posting the Creationism posts in August. Consequently, the first one will probably be either Wednesday night or, more likely, early Thursday morning. I will deal with each comment received in the order that I received them. Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am again sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

http://www.childpredators.com/

http://www.lifedynamics.com/

http://www.aclj.org/

http://www.libertylegal.org/

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/

http://www.searchtv.org/

“How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?” I’ve been posting this sentence every post for awhile. I started this year but I don’t remember exactly when and I didn’t bother to check to find the first one. After July 20, 2007, I added the word “barbaric” to the sentence. I did so because I heard a news report from CNN Radio News on the 8:00 a.m. July 20, 2007 report that prompted the change.

The report contained an audio comment from Democratic United States Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, who was first elected to the Senate in 1958 and was reelected to the Senate last year—2006. The Senator was giving a speech about dog fighting because of the recent accusations that professional football player Michael Vick was involved in illegal activities in relation to dog fighting. The following is a direct quote from that audio broadcast.

“Barbaric!” “Barbaric!” “Barbaric!” Each “barbaric” was louder than the first with the third and final one being an almost shouting of the word “barbaric.” If dog fighting is barbaric, what does he consider the murder of unborn babies? Isn’t the murder of innocent life that much more BARBARIC! BARBARIC! BARBARIC!

Do you think the Senator ever, at any time, publicly pronounced the murder of unborn babies as barbaric? Did the Senator ever passionately denounce the murder of unborn babies? EVER?

How morally corrupt is a nation when its Senators loudly condemn dog fighting and yet passionately defend the murder of unborn babies? How morally corrupt is a nation when Senators use as a guideline for approving appointments to the Supreme Court and other courts the question of whether or not the appointees support the murder of unborn babies? These Senators, of course, demand that appointees support the murder of unborn babies. How morally corrupt is a nation when Senators and Representatives falsely claim that the murder of unborn babies is a health issue? How morally corrupt does a nation have to become before the citizens including especially Christians, who should know the different between right and wrong, demand an end to our moral corruption? How much more morally corrupt will our nation become?

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” Proverbs 14: 34 (NIV)

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

Illegal immigration and Christians

Tonight is my second post directly answering the specific question: “What if someone is starving and destitute? As Christians, I thought we live by a higher law and that we see other people through the eyes of God, not through the eyes of any sort of nationalism.”

After I finish the immigration posts, I will do the Creationism posts as also stated earlier. I will deal with each comment received in the order that I received them. Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

Repeating some of what I last posted. To answer the above question, I think it is important to divide it into two segments—the appropriate response by government and the appropriate response by Christians. Tonight is the appropriate response by Christians.

I am not certain what is meant by “through the eyes of God.” I am going to define that phrase as through the WORD of GOD as given in the Bible. Of necessity then, my response is based upon my understanding of the WORD of GOD. Others may disagree with my understanding of what the Bible says. I can’t control that; I can only attempt to answer based upon my understanding.
I don’t intend to give what I want the Bible to say but rather what I understand it to say. In my opinion, just as the Supreme Court over the last 40 plus years has disregarded what the Constitution says, many people today try to reinterpret the Bible based upon their desires not upon what the Bible actually says. I have read articles written by so-called ministers who declared that the Bible is wrong in certain areas. I don’t believe we have the right to rewrite the Bible to serve our desires or to declare sections we don’t approve of as being wrong.

Tonight’s post will deal with the appropriate response of Christians:

First, as I stated in the last post, I know of no place in the Bible where we, as Christians, are told to delegate our responsibility to serve GOD to the government. The primary, first responsibility of any government is to protect its own people. That is why governments were created and exist. In contrast, Christians’ primary, first responsibility is not to serve man including caring for the starving and destitute. We are to do that, but it is not our first responsibility. Our primary, first responsibility is to love and serve GOD.

When JESUS was asked to identify the greatest commandment in the Law, “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest command. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commands.’” [Matthew 22: 37-40 (NIV)] Jesus also said “‘If you love me, you will obey what I command.’” [John 14: 15 (NIV)] The apostle John wrote in I John 5: 3a (NIV), “This is love for God: to obey his commands.”

What is the most important event in a person’s life? Is it getting married? Is it having children? Is it having a successful career? Is it having wealth? Is it having the necessities of life? Is it avoiding starvation and being destitute? Is it having health? Is it being born in the first place? I don’t think so. I would say the must important event in anyone’s life is becoming a Christian.

The Bible clearly teaches that at the end of our physical life there will only be two groups of people—those who are Christians who have been obedient to GOD and those who are not. Christians are guaranteed eternal life. Those who are not are guaranteed eternal punishment. People may not like that. People may not agree with that. However, that is what the Bible—the WORD of GOD—clearly proclaims.

Therefore, if we really love our neighbor as ourselves, if we really love GOD, we will “‘Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holly Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.’” [Matthew 28: 19-20a (NIV)] We show our love for others by teaching them the WORD of GOD and making disciples of them. We can not make them become Christians. That choice can only be made by each person. Our primary responsibility to people, as we serve and love GOD, is to give them an opportunity to know the TRUTH. Our primary responsibility to people is to give them an opportunity to accept or reject GOD, JESUS the CHRIST, and the HOLY SPIRIT. Does it seem strange that GOD would allow us to reject HIM?

Does that relieve us of the responsibility to help others? No. Our first responsibility is to teach people the TRUTH about GOD, JESUS the CHRIST, and the HOLY SPIRIT. However, that is not our only responsibility. The apostle Paul writes “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” [Galatians 6: 10 (NIV)] Notice though that there is an order to what we, as Christians, are commanded to do. First, is to teach others about GOD. This is an obvious necessity. How can people be expected to repent, turn away from their sinful life, and turn to GOD if they are not taught the TRUTH? Next, we are to do good especially to fellow Christians. Then, we are to do good to all people.

Now, the question becomes: “What is meant by doing good?” Does that mean allowing people to do that which is right in their own sight? No! Such action is not according to GOD’S WORD. We are to do that which is right according to GOD not that which is right according to man or ourselves. The Bible clearly declares that “law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” [I Timothy 1: 9 (NIV)]

Repeating the last portion of that verse, “and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” [I Timothy 1: 9b (NIV)] Whatever is good MUST “conform to the glorious gospel of the blessed God….”

As I said in the previous post, Paul may not be directly referring to laws passed by governments. However, the concept is the same. Laws are not passed (or at least should not be—governments can become corrupt) to prevent righteous, just, and good people from doing good. Laws are passed to prevent people from doing that which is wrong as defined by the government and to provide a punishment for doing that wrong. Commands given by GOD are for our direction. They are given so that we will know good from evil and so that we will do good NOT evil.

I think it is significant that the quote from Galatians about doing good is the end of the paragraph and begins with “Therefore.” What is the first sentence of that paragraph? “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” [Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)] If you do evil, if you sin, if you violate the law, you will reap destruction. Christians do not encourage people to sin—period!

The account of “The Good Samaritan” as told by JESUS in Luke 10: 25-37 (NIV) was an account of helping and showing mercy to the victim of a crime not of helping the robbers who attacked the Samaritan. Note also the conversation between JESUS and the expert in the law right before JESUS gave the account. “On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherent eternal life?’

‘What is written in the Law?’ he replied. ‘How do you read it?’

He (the expert in the law—my addition) answered: “‘Love the Lord you God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’’” [Luke 10: 25-27 (NIV)]

As I have said before, I know of no place in the Bible where man is commanded to reward others for the sins that they commit. This, of course, is logical because that would just encourage people to sin. Illegal immigrants are not the victims of a crime. They are the criminals. They are the ones who are sinning and violating law.

The conclusion is the same. Illegal immigrants should not be rewarded for their illegal activities. To do so is to pervert the WORD of GOD. It is not love to encourage individuals to violate GOD’S law or to violate the legitimate laws of a nation. “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” [Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)]

Now, I don’t think it is necessary to say that all illegal immigrants should be permanently denied American citizenship. However, they should be required to return to their home country and go through the same legal process that all other law abiding individuals must go through to enter the United States. They must, in practice, proceed from the beginning following the legal, required procedures. Any deviation that gives an advantage to those who have deliberately violated our laws would be a mockery of our laws and an affront to all those who have followed the prescribed provisions of our laws.

It would be saying ME first regardless! It would be encouraging people to sin against GOD and encouraging them to violate the laws of the nation. It would be rewarding sinful, illegal behavior. It would be wrong!

Illegal immigration and the government

Tonight I begin answering the specific question: “What if someone is starving and destitute? As Christians, I thought we live by a higher law and that we see other people through the eyes of God, not through the eyes of any sort of nationalism.”

After I finish the immigration posts, I will do the Creationism posts as also stated earlier. I will deal with each comment received in the order that I received them. Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

To answer the above question, I think it is important to divide it into two segments—the appropriate response by government and the appropriate response by Christians. To do so however, I think I need to clarify a few things. First, I am not certain what is meant by “through the eyes of God.” I am going to define that phrase as through the WORD of GOD as given in the Bible. Of necessity then, my response is based upon my understanding of the WORD of GOD. Others may disagree with my understanding of what the Bible says. I can’t control that; I can only attempt to answer based upon my understanding.

I don’t intend to give what I want the Bible to say but rather what I understand it to say. In my opinion, just as the Supreme Court over the last 40 plus years has disregarded what the Constitution says, many people today try to reinterpret the Bible based upon their desires not upon what the Bible actually says. I have read articles written by so-called ministers who declared that the Bible is wrong in certain areas. I don’t believe we have the right to rewrite the Bible to serve our desires or to declare sections we don’t approve of as being wrong.

Tonight’s post will deal with the appropriate response of government:

First, I know of no place in the Bible where we are told to delegate our responsibility to serve GOD to the government. The primary, first responsibility of any government is to protect its own people. That is why governments were created and exist.

I know of no place in the Bible where GOD specifically is opposed to “any sort of nationalism.” GOD is a righteous GOD. He is concerned with righteousness whether as a nation or as an individual. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” [Proverbs 14: 34 (NIV)] By making such a statement, GOD, through the author of Proverbs, recognizes that nations are, in fact, a reality and have decision making power that influences others.

Further, it has been argued that GOD chose to create nations. Genesis 10: 32 (NIV) states “These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.” Genesis, Chapter 11 tells of the tower of Babel and GOD confusing the language of the various peoples. The conclusion of the account declares “So the Lord scattered them from there (the area around the tower of Babel—my addition) over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.” [Genesis 11: 8-9 (NIV)] The apostle Paul when speaking to the men at Athens declared “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.” [Acts 17: 26 (NIV)] I would think that Paul is referring to the tower of Babel episode where men where scattered over the world and formed nations. GOD was directly involved in the formation of nations according to the Bible.

Also, GOD directly created and blessed a specific nation. “The Lord had said to Abram (whose name was later changed to Abraham—my addition), ‘Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’” [Genesis 12: 1-3 (NIV)] The nation, of course, was the Jewish people who formed the original nation of Israel. (By the way, that blessing today is carried forward not by Israel but by Christians through the church of which JESUS the CHRIST is the head.)

The apostle Paul writes in I Timothy 1: 9 (NIV) “We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”

Now, Paul may not be directly referring to laws passed by governments. However, the concept is the same. Laws are not passed (or at least should not be—governments can become corrupt) to prevent righteous, just, and good people from doing good. Laws are passed to prevent people from doing that which is wrong as defined by the government and to provide a punishment for doing that wrong. For example, people shouldn’t have to be told not to murder. However, if there was no law against murder, there would be people, because of their sinful nature, who would commit murder. The law tells them that they are not allowed to commit murder and they will be punished in a certain manner if convicted of murder. The absence of law is anarchy. Every society because of our sinful nature needs rules (law) to define right from wrong.

The United States, as has every other nation that I know of, has established laws to govern the immigration of people into the United States. Those laws were established according to the recognized procedure prescribed by the U.S. Constitution which is our “Supreme Law of the Land.” If so desired, Congress could have allowed immigration into the country based upon individuals starving and being destitute. Congress did not. As far as I know, no country in the world has used that as a criterion for entrance into that country.

If an individual violated a law against bank robbery by robbing a bank, would it be acceptable to allow the bank to be robbed because that individual was starving and destitute? That might be a mitigating circumstance for deciding the appropriate punishment. But to allow a bank robbery to occur because of a personal circumstance is to invite anarchy.

Any individual can claim they are starving and destitute. That has not been made an exception to the law nor should it be. It would be allowing the individual to write the law the way he wants the law to be in order to satisfy his own perceived needs over the needs of all others—that is anarchy and also known as man doing that which is right in his own eyes. The Bible repeatedly condemns the concept of man doing that which is right in his own eyes. I know of no passage in the Bible which allows people to sin because of a specific circumstance—situation ethics is not a concept that is approved by GOD.

When an individual enters the United States illegally, he has declared that he is above the law of the country. He, not the country, has the right to decide whether or not he will entry the United States. Not only does he violate our law by entering the country illegally; he continues to violate our laws by illegally working within the country. He also is encouraging American businesses to violate the law either unknowingly or explicitly. Illegal immigrants often also use fraudulent documents. He also harms American citizens by working jobs that are then not available for American citizens. Consequently, illegal immigrants don’t just violate the law regarding entrance into the United States. They violate other laws and continue to do so.

My argument has always been that I personally and philosophically basically support open immigration. That is not practical today for several reasons including the continuing threat of terrorists coming into the country. But, more importantly, that is not the law of the land. These individuals are violating our laws. It is insanity to grant citizenship to people who have deliberately and knowingly violated the laws of the United States. It also punishes all those who have obeyed our laws. That’s nonsense!

The proposal to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants also violates our own concept of due process and equal protection of the law. The proposal would reward individuals who have unquestionably violated our laws and penalizes those individuals who have followed our laws by agreeing to go through the legal process to come to the United States and become American citizens.

It is a statement by the law breakers that they decide what laws apply and what laws they will obey. Why would a government want to reward people who deliberately violate our laws for their own perceived benefit and punish those who obey our laws? Where is the equal protection of the law?

The people who benefit are the ones who violate our laws and the ones who are punished are those who obey our laws. It is a topsy-turvy world of illogical nonsense. How can any law abiding citizen or foreigner respect a Congress that rewards criminal behavior against its own laws and punishes those individuals who have chosen to obey those same laws?

Congress can not even argue that the end justifies the means. This proposal will not, in all probability, end illegal immigration into the country. In fact, it will most likely increase illegal immigration. How can one say that? Because we have granted amnesty once before. That first program was supposed to curtail illegal immigration. It did NOT!!!

Now, we have a similar proposal that we are promised will be successful this time. Why should it be? Illegal immigrants now have two examples of the topsy-turvy, illogical “cures” being touted. Why not try for a third time? This time those who have been following legal procedures may well decide it doesn’t pay to follow the rules. They may well be part of the new wave of illegal immigrants. Who can blame them? It will have worked twice before if Congress agrees to this flaunting of the laws they passed in the first place.

There is absolutely no logical, governmental reason to reward illegal immigrants with citizenship. There are a lot of reasons to not grant citizenship to illegal immigrants. One of the most important is to maintain the integrity of our laws. People who violate our laws should not be rewarded for violating our laws with citizenship! It’s just common sense. Why are there some people in Congress who just don’t get it?

A Presidential debate?

I am sorry and do apologize. I had planned on answering the specific question: “What if someone is starving and destitute? As Christians, I thought we live by a higher law and that we see other people through the eyes of God, not through the eyes of any sort of nationalism.” However, I read a newspaper article that led to a change of mind. The plan is to revert back to immigration and the specific question after this one night of straying from the plan.

After I finish the immigration posts, I will do the Creationism posts as also stated earlier. I will deal with each comment received in the order that I received them. Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

As you may know, there was a so-called Presidential debate on July 23, 2007 between Democratic candidates. I say so-called because such “debates” seem to venture further and further way from the traditional debate format and purpose. According to the newspaper article in the Peoria Journal Star (July 24, 2007, page A3), “‘Wassup?’ came the first question, from a voter named Zach….” I guess such should be expected in the media age we are in.

I did not watch the event nor would I. I think the “debates” as done today are of almost no value. It is theater and gamesmanship without sufficient time to really adequately respond. Plus, I’ve said before that until Democratic candidates repent and stop supporting the murder of unborn babies among a slew of untenable positions, I will not vote for a Democratic candidate in any race. And yes, I, at one time, voted a straight Democratic ticket. The first Republican I ever voted for was George Bush in 2000. To my ever lasting regret, I voted for Bill Clinton twice.

I will not vote for Hillary “We are the President” Clinton. I have written a post specifically refuting her “It takes a village to raise a child” concept. Her comment “Abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.” is an admission, as far as I’m concerned, that abortion is the murder of an unborn child. It is an admission of the same because if abortion is not murder, there would be no reason for abortion, an egregiously immoral action, to be rare. Her husband while President approved of United Nation sanctioned murder of unborn babies worldwide and vetoed a bill to outlaw “partial birth abortion.”

That said, I have a comment (or two) about one item mentioned in the newspaper article. Quoting from the article, “When was the last time a presidential candidate was forced to promise to work at minimum wage? That is effectively what happened when a voter asked whether the candidates would serve four years at $5.85 an hour rather than the president’s annual $400,000 salary.

‘Sure,’ replied Clinton.” (Peoria Journal Star, July 24, 2007, page A3) The article did not mention her voice inflection and, of course, I did not hear her statement so I don’t know if she was serious with her response or not.

That said, do you think she replied “Sure” because she knows that is the actual value of her labor and she doesn’t want to rip-off the American people any more than she already has?

Do you think she replied “Sure” because she has already ripped-off the American people sufficiently through her and Bill’s books and Bill’s speaking fees charged around the world so that he can spread his immoral beliefs?

Do you think she would actually only receive $5.85 an hour if she actually did become President? Do you think she would claim she worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Do you think that was her response because that is what she thought the audience wanted to hear? Sure.

Just asking.

Illegal immigration, a personal solution

Tonight is the second post of an anticipated four posts on immigration that I said that I would do.

After I finish the immigration posts, I will do the Creationism posts as also stated earlier. I will deal with each comment received in the order that I received them. Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

I received the following e-mail approximately the same time that I received the e-mail about the new law in Arizona (my last post). It doesn’t offer a solution but I believe that it shows the frustration of many citizens over the alleged compromise that was considered in Congress. I’m posting it tonight without comment and not necessarily because I agree will it. Again, I think the frustration over Congress’ inability to come up with a reasonable plan seems to be indicated here more than anything.

“Just a note to tell you that my mailbox is being flooded with mail concerning gas prices and illegal immigrants. To boycott oil companies or not; to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants or not, etc.

Since I have become jaded to the various solutions proposed by the Republicans, Democrats, Sierra Club, ACLU, etc., I have elected to solve the problems as they affect me.
My response solves both my gas and illegal immigrant problems:

I have hired illegal immigrants to push my car. They're plentiful and cheaper than buying gas. Then I pay them in Pesos so they have to go home to spend it. Don't you love it when a plan comes together?”

On my next post, I begin answering the specific question: “What if someone is starving and destitute? As Christians, I thought we live by a higher law and that we see other people through the eyes of God, not through the eyes of any sort of nationalism.”

Hiring of illegal immigrants banned

To “Anonymous” who has responded to my Iraq post and all other readers: I do intend to response to your comments. However, it will not be right away. I will first do my posts on immigration that I have been saying that I would do. They begin with this post.

After I finish the immigration posts, I will do the Creationism posts as I’ve been saying that I would. I will deal with each comment received in the order that I received them. Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

The following AP article was sent to me by e-mail. I do not know the accuracy of it because it is second hand but it reads like it is authentic. I don’t have any further reference for it because it was sent to me. I post it first because it deals with an important aspect of the present immigration problem (I’ll discuss it in a later post) and I’m from Tucson, Arizona and the immigration issue is a persistent concern along the Arizona border and within the State. The e-mail as received:

“Arizona Governor Okays Bill Banning Hiring of Illegal Immigrants

PHOENIX (AP)—The governor of Arizona—the busiest illegal gateway into the U.S.—signed into law Monday a proposal that prohibits people from hiring illegal immigrants and requires all businesses to verify the employment eligibility of workers through a federal database.

The goal is to weaken the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano said the law has major flaws, but she acted because the federal government hasn’t done so.

Napolitano said while immigration issues were a federal matter, she signed the law ‘because it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs.’

‘I signed it, too, out of the realization that the flow of illegal immigration into our state is due to the constant demand of some employers for cheap, undocumented labor,’ the Democratic governor said in her signing statement.

Last week, a much-debated bipartisan immigration bill that would have eventually offered lawful status and citizenship to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants was quashed in the U.S. Senate. It is unlikely that major action on the immigration issue will be taken in Congress until after the 2008 presidential elections.

Illegal immigrants account for one in 10 workers in the Arizona economy, according to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center. Arizona is one of at least 11 states that have considered employer sanctions proposals this year.

Advocates for tougher border enforcement said state punishments were needed because the federal government has failed to adequately enforce a federal law that already bars employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

But many businesses and immigrant advocates question the state's legal authority to regulate immigration and said the new state law would weaken Arizona's business climate.

Under the new law, employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants could have their business license suspended for up to 10 days. Second-time violators would have their business license revoked permanently.

The proposal would give a measure of legal protection to employers who can prove they have verified the eligibility of workers through a federal records database. Employers would be required to begin using the database next year.”

What will Al-Qaida do if we leave Iraq?

Here is my anticipated schedule. I did not expect the Peoria Journal Star to print my letter about Creationism. I have received three responses—two posted comments and one by mail which have not yet been read. I also received one comment from my second to last post on Iraq. (“What happens if we withdraw from Iraq?” It was posted early Monday morning on the 16th.)

I have pushed back a response to a post on immigration that I will answer before dealing with the creation responses. I believe the immigration posts will take four or five. (I’ll try for four.) Therefore, it will be next week before I begin to respond to the material dealing with creation. I will deal with each one in the order that I received them. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

The following post is speculation on my part. The ideas are my own and I certainly hope that they will not be followed by Al-Qaida or any other terrorist group. Here is the idea.

If Congress should force a scheduled withdrawal from Iraq, what might Al-Qaida do because of that American retreat and abandonment of Iraq? Using the proposal that troop withdrawal would begin in October of 2007 and be completed by April 1, 2008 (with or without a small contingent of remaining U.S. forces); this is what I would do in a general way if I was Al-Qaida.

During the retreat, I would not end operations in Iraq but I would curtail them. It would require a balance of enough to know that danger was still present but not so intense as to cause second thoughts and cause a reevaluation of the withdrawal. With the Democrats in Congress, that is not too likely but just to be on the save side—now is not the time to intensify the attacks within the country.

Most of the attacks would be made to look like it is a case of Shiites attacking Sunnis and/or Sunnis attacking Shiites and then retaliation of the other group against the first. This has been successful already in generating fighting between the two religious groups and should continue. Also, add in a Kurdish element as needed. This will be the continuation of the three way triangle of mistrust, fear, terror, and loathing between the groups. Also, continue to attack American troops upon occasion to remind the Democratic Congressmen that the troops are still in danger in Iraq.

Once the troops have been withdrawn, I envision two possible scenarios depending upon their goals. If Al-Qaida desires to remain in Iraq to use as a safe haven and to train their fellow terrorists, I would have an all out, intensification of attacks on all three major groups. Some of these attacks would be as Al-Qaida; some as one of the other three groups. The goal is to promote civil war among the three groups while also letting all three groups know that Al-Qaida is a force to be reckoned with.

It is not necessary and actually not desirable to topple any government unless a puppet government can be installed. Al-Qaida does not want to take direct control over the operation of the government. The hand behind the government would be desirable but even that would not be necessary as long as they have freedom to do as they wish within the country. While the American troops were being withdrawn, Al-Qaida should concentrate on regrouping, recruiting, restocking, infiltrating, preparing and planning for the attacks immediately after the withdrawal deadline. The attacks should be swift, bold, and filled with terror—particularly filled with terror.

If initially unsuccessful which is unlikely, try, try again. The government has just been abandoned by their major ally, the three major groups distrust each other, and the country has been rocked by terror for four years. It should not be too difficult under those circumstances to achieve your desired goal whatever it may be. To believe that all will be well after the protective force of U.S. troops is removed is as ludicrous as believing that abortions don’t murder unborn babies. Democrats might even secretly applaud the success of Al-Qaida since they helped in a major way to bring it about.

However, Al-Qaida may not be interested in staying in Iraq after an American retreat. They will have scored a major, stupendous propaganda victory over the “Great Satan.” They will undoubtedly claim a major victory over the “Great Satan.” They have already boasted that they were responsible for the Democratic victory in the 2006 Congressional election. They will claim a great “god led” victory in any abandonment of Iraq. It will be the most powerful recruitment tool yet.

The next step is to benefit from that declared victory. If Iraq is not the target, the more unstable countries that support America and Israel should be—but not mainland America just yet. The terror should be as intense and terrifying as possible. It should almost be a mocking attempt to goad the United States to send troops to that country or countries.

But, the United States will not. The nation will have learned this lesson. “Fighting for freedom elsewhere is not worth the cost.”

I would wait until the Presidential election of 2008 is just completed before attacking the United States again. For obvious reasons, November 11, 2008 would be a prime date to kick off a new round of terrorist attacks within the United States itself. If not then, the day after Thanksgiving or the day before Christmas would be good alternatives. I would attack six primary targets with synchronized precision. For example, targets in New York City, Chicago, and Hollywood. Or, targets in Boston, St. Louis, and Hollywood. Or, targets in Miami, New Orleans, and Hollywood.

(Hollywood because the entertainment industry has helped make Americans a gullible and vulnerable people. It would be symbolic justice. A country that is more concerned about Paris Hilton’s time in jail than the murder of millions of unborn babies is a country on the brink of destruction.)

Three major cities and three midsized cities should be targeted throughout the United States to spread the terror from coast to coast. One of the targets would also be in the home State of the newly elected President whoever he may be. Who knows better how to spread terror than terrorists?

Until then and after the completed retreat from Iraq, I would claim that every wild fire in the West, every industrial accident, every train derailment, every airplane crash, every hurricane or flood, and every other disaster that occurs within the United States is the work of Al-Qaida and the god that has blessed their victory over the “Great Satan.” There are people who believe that the Bush Administration was responsible for 9/11. There are people who will believe any lie if repeated often enough and convincingly enough. I would claim that Al-Qaida’s hand is in every calamity that occurs. There are some who will be true believers and terror feeds upon terror.

Spread the terror with lies and action. See if America won’t beg for peace at any price. Appeasers are very good at what they do. Spread the terror; watch for the appeasement. They will shout “Let us negotiate.” “Let us negotiate.” Let us reason together.” “Surely we can work out a reasonable solution.”

If the terrorists do not intensify their attacks after our abandonment of Iraq, this conclusion can be drawn. Our troops did much more damage to Al-Qaida that has been reported or believed by libertine Democrats. If they are so powerful that they can drive us in retreat from Iraq, they will intensify their terror. If they have been weaken by fighting in Iraq even as they claim victory, they will not intensify their terror. Either way, the Democrats will have allowed a major terrorist group to claim victory over the “Great Satan.” It is not good policy!!!

I pray that this does not happen. However, a nation blind to its own corruption and decadence will also be blind to its own destruction. Will the United States repent before it is too late? Will the United States seek GOD’S forgiveness? Or, will the United States declare “What is that to us?” “Let’s eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.”

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)

Why stay in Iraq?

Coincidentally to my blog tonight, Cal Thomas has a very good column published in the Peoria Journal Star on July 19, 2007, page A4. In the Journal Star, the column is entitled “Democrats hit the sack.” Also, “Royce and Roger” (July 19, 2007, between 7:30 am and 8:00 am) the morning radio program on 1350 AM in the Peoria area replayed an interview that occurred in May with retired Four-Star General Wayne Downing who has recently died. A portion of that interview was about Iraq and, although brief, was enlightening. Some day soon, I may do a blog or two about the column and the interview.

Here is my anticipated schedule. I did not expect the Peoria Journal Star to print my letter about Creationism. I have already received responses—two posted comments and one by mail which have not yet been read. I also received one comment from my second to last post on Iraq. (“What happens if we withdraw from Iraq?” It was posted early Monday morning on the 16th.)

I begin answering that comment tonight. I have pushed back a response to a post on immigration that I will answer before dealing with the creation responses. I believe the immigration posts will take four or five. (I’ll try for four.) Therefore, it will be next week before I begin to respond to the material dealing with creation. I will deal with each one in the order that I received them. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

Tonight’s post is my first post responding to the comment posted yesterday in relation to my asking Congressmen to answer these questions. “What will happen in the next year after the United States leaves Iraq? What will happen in the next five years after the United States leaves Iraq? How will pulling out in Iraq make the United States safer in relation to the War on Terror? In short, what will be the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq?”

The reader may want to check the post “Iraq comment” to understand what I am referring to in the following paragraphs.

I was going to argue that Iraq is a democracy but I decided not to. I was going to argue that it is the height of arrogance to proclaim that Iraq can not be a democracy but I decided not to. I was going to argue the same was said of Japan after World War II but I decided not.

I was going to argue that Iraq was not in a civil war but I decided not to. I was going to argue that Iraq was more like our Revolutionary War but I decided not to. I was going to argue that a righteous nation (See previous posts.) does not create an unstable situation in another country and then abandon that country but I decided not to. I was going to argue that a righteous nation does not create an unstable situation in another country and then declare “What is that to me?” (See previous posts.) but I decided not to.

I was going to argue that wars are expensive both in terms of lost men and material but I decided not to. I was going to argue that this War on Terror was not of our choosing but I decided not to. I was going to argue that it was not probable that money spent on this war would be diverted to education but I decided not to. I was going to argue that all the education in the world will not help us if we continue to be a slave to sin but I decided not to. I was going to argue that we spend billions of dollars a year to entertain ourselves (How many millions of dollars were spent last week to watch a Harry Potter film?) and yet are not willing to spend money to protect our nation from terrorists, whose stated goal is to destroy us, but I decided not to.

I was going to argue that the United States mainland has not been successfully attacked since 9/11 but I decided not to. I was going to argue that retreat and defeat will not make us safer and I decided that should be the main thrust of tonight’s post.

There is a Democratic Senator who has already declared that the United States has already been defeated in Iraq. What nonsense militarily. Unfortunately, it seems to be the defeatist attitude of the Democratic Congressmen in this country and way too many of our citizens. If they would have had expended the same energy to end our barbaric murdering of unborn babies we would not have murdered about 45 million of our own citizens over the last 34 plus years. But then, it is not surprising that many of the same people who support the murder of our unborn babies are also clamoring for our defeat and retreat in Iraq. The ability to immediately sin is more important to them than protecting and preserving our nation’s liberty. Immediate gratification!!!

However, the truth is that you can not defeat terrorism by giving in to that terror. Every time terrorism is successful it reinforces the terrorists’ belief that terror is the answer to their problems. Just as you do not allow bullies to get away with bullying, you can not allow terrorists to be victorious. It will only encourage more, not less acts of terror. A basic tenet of fighting terrorism is to never let terrorists win.

You don’t win wars by allowing the enemy to win important battles particularly when their victory comes because we quit!!! Now, this may surprise you but, even if we stabilize Iraq and most, if not all, of Al-Qaida withdraws, the war will be far from over. The advantage of fighting a war based on terror is that terrorists CAN NOT be conquered just by taking over a country. They simply will withdraw and generate terrorist attacks elsewhere. This war, if we ever decide to seriously fight it, will probably take years. They have the patience to wait us out. Do we have the patience to defeat them at every turn?

If we abandon Iraq, it will reinforce the idea that terrorism can be successful and that all they need to do is to continue their acts of terror on an ever increasing scale and to be more patient than we are. Which it seems will be rather easy to do because we are an extremely impatient society at the moment. I don’t think the majority of this society could have ever established a new nation, won the Civil War, conquered the West, or won World War II. And yes, there were people in each one of these cases who screamed “All is lost!!!” “We can not possibly be successful.” “The cost is too great.” “We have been defeated!!!” “Wave the white flag of surrender!!!”

We are not the only society who has been like this. Read the Old and New Testament. Soon after Moses led the Jewish people out of Egypt, they were crying to go back to Egypt and back into slavery when the going seemed to be a little more difficult than they thought it should be. When they reached the Promised Land, after spying out the land, 10 of the 12 spies convinced the people that they could not possibly defeat the nations that occupied the land. What is that? The majority of the people were wrong? As a result of their disobedience and fear, GOD forced them to wander in the wilderness for 40 years until that generation died off. Only after this punishment were they allowed into the Promised Land. Within the land, as they continued to be disobedient and sin against GOD, GOD punished them with war, captivity, and exiles until the nation was finally scattered after the death, burial, and resurrection of the SON of GOD.

Our decadence, if it continues without repentance, will be our downfall. We seem to be willing to continue our moral slide into the abyss rather than fight to preserve freedom in another country and our own as well. Eventually if we do not wake up, our unwillingness to defend even our own freedom will be our undoing. Our abandoning Iraq will be a modern day version of appeasement just as Hitler was appeased by most of Europe before World War II. Except this time, there will be no United States to save us. We will not be capable of saving ourselves because of our continuing sin against GOD. If you think you can’t fool mother nature, rest assured, you definitely CAN NOT fool GOD!!!!!

I firmly believe, and you can disprove it anymore than I can prove it, that the growth of terrorism is being used by GOD to punish the United States for the slide into immorality that we have been engaged in over the last forty or so years. In some respects, I see the country finally trying to right that slide. However, if we don’t stop murdering our unborn babies, allowing and even encouraging immoral activities, attempting to remove GOD from the public arena, and a whole host of other sins that are so prevalent today, it doesn’t matter if we are victorious in Iraq or not. We will, when GOD decides it is time, go the way of other nations who have put self above GOD.

That is true as far as I am concerned without question. I don’t know when it will happen but it will happen if we continue our mad dash into sin. The War on Terror and our own sin are linked together. Both must be defeated. However, for any lasting solution, repentance must also occur.

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)

Is this what you thought I would say? Tomorrow: What I would do if I were Al-Qaida and the United States Congress sets a time table to withdraw by early spring of next year.

Iraq comment

Here is my anticipated schedule. I did not expect the Peoria Journal Star to print my letter about Creationism. I have already received responses—one posted comment and one by mail which have not yet been read. I also received one comment from my second to last post on Iraq. (“What happens if we withdraw from Iraq?” It was posted early Monday morning on the 16th.)

My plan is to post that comment about Iraq with this post. I will then cut short some of what I was planning on writing about Iraq to either two or three additional posts (hopefully two) as I respond to the comment. I have pushed back a response to a post on immigration that I will answer before dealing with the creation responses. I believe the immigration posts will take four or five. (I’ll try for four.) Therefore, it will be next week before I begin to respond to the material dealing with creation. I will deal with each one in the order that I received them. Thank you for your understanding.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

The following is a comment posted in response to my post on “What happens if we withdraw from Iraq?” which was posted on July 16, 2007. Although I disagree with almost all that he says, I must congratulate him for speculating about the future consequences. His statements in that regard are more than I have heard or seen from those in Congress who are demanding a pullout from Iraq.

I do agree with one aspect of his comments though. We can not know with certainty the result of any action we take today until after the fact. That is one reason why I believe it is important to ask—no demand—that those who so desire a withdrawal give us some reasonable expectation of the consequences of that withdrawal. He has attempted to do so although I don’t believe his conclusions are accurate. I will begin answering his question “Now you tell me what you believe will happen if we stay or if we leave.” with the next post. (The LORD willing.) Probably, we will both be wrong to some extent and one of us will be very wrong. However, it is still important to know what the decision makers (which neither of us is ultimately) have concluded will be the consequences of their demand for almost immediate withdrawal.

The following is as written except for some slight cleaning up of spelling and punctuation on my part and putting it into the format I use for posts.

“Anonymous said…

What will happen in Iraq over the next five years is what will eventually happen even if we stay.

First, there is not nor will there be a democracy in Iraq. However, there is a civil war which will be concluded at some point regardless of how long we stay.

Each year that we are in Iraq equates to 1200 dead US Soldiers, 10,000 wounded, and 100 billion dollar’s (our tax dollars) wasted—as a former school teacher, think of the positive effect that putting 50 billion dollars of new money each year in our schools would have had over the last five years.

This is what is going to happen in Iraq whenever we leave. There will be a civil war. The Shiites will form an Iranian style Islamic government with all of the suppression that goes with it. The Kurds will form an autonomous region in the north (Turkey will love us for that happening). The Sunni will most likely be allowed to form a semi autonomous region somewhat under their control. This will happen because Sunni Saudi Arabia and allies and Shiite Iran and Syria will find it to be in their national interests to see that this happens. Will the civil war be bloody? Of course. Will there be ethnic cleansing—yes.

Will the USA be safer—yes. One of the first groups that will be purged as a result of the civil war will be Al-Qaida.

Is the USA now safer because it invaded Iraq? No, but leaving Iraq will make the U.S. safer than it will be if it stays in Iraq.

Now you tell me what you believe will happen if we stay or if we leave. After 5 years, I’ll revisit your blog and see who is correct.” “7:56 PM”

Creationism: Refute it if you can!

I don’t usually post during the day. I am doing so today because I was surprised this morning; almost shocked. On June 30th, I wrote a post on creation and sent a letter to the Journal Star in response to a letter to the editor. I didn’t think it would be published. It was this morning.

In it, I challenged anyone to refute what I had written about creationism/evolution in previous posts. Since the Peoria Journal Star printed it, the attitude of the editors has changed or they believe that what I have written can be and will be refuted. Good! This is one reason why creationism should be honestly taught in schools. Honest debate helps in the learning process.

To anyone who wants to refute what I have written. This post includes the letter I wrote as edited as well as my original post of June 30th which is at the end of this post. It lists all the other posts I have written about the subject. Read through this entire post. Refute what you like. However, don’t do it in the comment section of the original post. I don’t search back looking for comments from posts that far back.

Instead, mail any refutations to Don L. Vance, P.O. Box 481, Morton, Illinois, 61550. I promise I will post all comments as written (without obscenities). Because I try to limit each post to 4 or 5 pages of Word, Time New Roman, 12 point, it may be posted over several days. I also expect that I will comment on all such refutations. I don’t check my P.O. Box every day put I will post any information sent. I don’t know how to post pictures so please don’t bother.

To my regular readers: This is my post for today. Next one, hopefully, will be about Iraq again. Thank you. Let the debate begin!

I’m sorry! I do plan on answering the question on immigration asked recently. However, that will not happen immediately. I hope I will begin answering the question later this week. What I want to write about Iraq keeps expanding. I continue to apologize for the change in plans!

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

“Discover the truth about creation

Re. June 27 Forum, ‘In support of real science’:

Letter writer Joshua Hinman wrote, ‘An explosion in a junk yard only produces smaller pieces, no matter how big the bang. But in the vacuum of space, the gravity exerted by the particles attracts them to one another. I’m only a junior in high school and I know that gravity is the attractive force that caused the formation of stellar and planetary objects in space.’

I’m sorry, but Joshua knows no such thing. He has been told that lie by others who do not know the truth. Tell us of the scientific studies that have been duplicated by other scientists that prove that statement to be a scientific fact.

Then tell us where all the mass in the universe came from.

In the last three years, I have written about 25 internet posts on evolution and creation at www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com Read and refute them. This offer is open to anyone, including university professors and scientists.

Don L. Vance
Morton” (Peoria Journal Star, July 17, 2007, page A4)

Saturday, June 30, 2007 Creation and my response to a letter to the editor

I’m not going back to my immigration topic with this post. I sent a letter to the editor yesterday in response to a letter that was printed in the Peoria Journal Star that was a response to an earlier letter printed in the Journal Star. It is my practice to also post all letters I write to the editor because the letters tend to be edited in ways that alter the intended comments. By posting the letter, people in the Peoria area can read both the original and the edited version. Also, because of word limitations followed by the paper, I usually can not write as much as I’d like. On this post, I will post the letter, my response as sent to the paper, and then additional comments on the letter. The letter to the editor that I am responding to was published by the Peoria Journal Star on June 27, 2007 on page A4. The letter to the editor:

“Re. Al Matheny’s ‘Junk Science’ letter of June 25:

An explosion in a junk yard only produces smaller pieces, no matter how big the bang. But in the vacuum of space, the gravity exerted by the particles attracts them to one another. I’m only a junior in high school and I know that gravity is the attractive force that causes the formation of stellar and planetary objects in space.

It’s easy to take the information that supports one’s opinions and to ignore other scientific evidence. If that is how one views scientific data, then it certainly is ‘junk.’ But to truly gain an understanding of the universe surrounding us, one needs to analyze all of the data and then make a model that reflects everything, not just what supports his or her hypotheses.

There was a time that the Earth was flat and the sun wasn’t the center of the solar system. Since then, we have more accurate models. Just because one wants to believe that evolution and big bang theory are not true, that doesn’t mean that science should ignore the evidence that supports them.”

My response to the above letter:

Joshua Hinman wrote “An explosion in a junk yard only produces smaller pieces, no matter how big the bang. But in the vacuum of space, the gravity exerted by the particles attracts them to one another. I’m only a junior in high school and I know that gravity is the attractive force that caused the formation of stellar and planetary objects in space.”

I’m sorry Joshua but you KNOW no such thing. You have been told that lie by others who do NOT KNOW the truth.

Tell us the scientific studies that have been duplicated by other scientists that prove your statement to be a scientific fact. You can’t because there are no such studies. Then, tell us scientifically and factually, where did all the mass (particles) of the universe come from?

In the last three years, I have written approximately twenty-five posts on evolution/creation including sources at www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com Read the posts and refute them. This offer is open to anyone including university professors and scientists. Send any and all responses to me at P.O. Box 481, Morton, Illinois 61550. I promise to post anything you send with my comments. Deal? Waiting for your response.

In September of 2005 I wrote: “When is the Journal Star editorial staff going to actually read the Constitution? A quote from an editorial on 9/7/05, ‘The wall between church and state is not as sturdy as once it was but it has not come tumbling down, either.’ The ‘wall between church and state’ is a fiction created by the Supreme Court.
I challenge the editorial board, any professors from any university, or anyone else to give the Article and Section or Amendment where that phrase is used in the Constitution. Then, quote that portion of the Constitution. It won’t happen because it is not in the Constitution!

I am anxiously waiting to be enlightened.” I was not enlightened! Will someone please enlighten me this time!

My continued response to the letter printed on June 27, 2007.

I’m a political scientist not a natural scientist. How do I know that there are no “scientific studies that have been duplicated by other scientists that prove your statement to be a scientific fact”? Very simply, if any such valid studies existed, the mass media would have trumpeted the results of the studies to prove to the world how wrong Christians are.

Furthermore, how are any such studies going to be scientifically accomplished? Scientists would have to create a tremendously large vacuum, blow something up within that vacuum, and then observe the result. That will not occur because even according to there own nonsensical concepts, it still takes years and years for the particles to form together to form new bodies.

Then, they still will have to explain how the mass used in the study came into existence. That they can not do now and never will be able to explain. Why? Because it is unexplainable by any scientific explanation. Scientifically, you can not get mass from nothing. Where did the mass come from? There is only one logical explanation—GOD. These atheistic scientists will never accept this logical explanation because they don’t believe in GOD—as if their not believing in God can some how change the truth that GOD is.

The letter writer also declares “It’s easy to take the information that supports one’s opinions and to ignore other scientific evidence. If that is how one views scientific data, then it certainly is ‘junk.’ But to truly gain an understanding of the universe surrounding us, one needs to analyze all of the data and then make a model that reflects everything, not just what supports his or her hypotheses.”

In writing the above, he destroys his own argument against the previous writer. The fact is that atheistic scientists refuse to accept the possibility that GOD CREATED. They are the ones who refuse to analyze all the data available!!! If they did analyze all the data available, their only rational, reasonable, valid conclusion would be that GOD created the universe because all other possible explanations are, in fact, impossible!!! Why? Because among other reasons, no one will ever be able to explain, without putting GOD in the middle of the equation, how nothing became all the mass of the universe.

He concluded his letter by writing “There was a time that the Earth was flat and the sun wasn’t the center of the solar system. Since then, we have more accurate models. Just because one wants to believe that evolution and big bang theory are not true, that doesn’t mean that science should ignore the evidence that supports them.” Again, he is destroying his own argument. The Earth was flat according to scientists!!! They were wrong!!! They are wrong now!!!

Just because some scientists BELIEVE that evolution and the “big bang” theory are true does not mean that they are true. In fact, his so called models are models that are crafted by people who have automatically rejected the possibility that GOD could have created the universe. They craft the models not on scientifically valid research but rather on their own believes on what may have happened in the unobservable past. Then, they declare their models to be true because to them that is the most credible explanation for what happened. It is not based upon scientifically observed experimentation. It is based upon their preconceived ideas on what happened in the past which they then declare to be scientific facts. How utterly unscientific!!!

Here’s my prediction of what portion of my letter, sent to the Journal Star, will be printed, if any. They will only print the first three paragraphs. They will not print my blog address nor will they print my challenge to Joshua or anyone else to prove my posts to be incorrect. Therefore, they will not print my comments that I had earlier challenged anyone to prove that there is a “wall of separation” between church and state. This is the typical Peoria Journal Star response to letters.

Here is a listing of my previous 25 posts on creation/evolution:

This may not be complete but it is probably close to all of them. A note of warning. The titles should be correct, although not all posts were titled, but the dates may not be totally accurate. I dated the posts based upon when I wrote them which is not necessarily the same day that they got posted. However, it should be approximately the correct date. From oldest to the newest posts on evolution and/or creation:

“Creation” Tuesday, August 9, 2005
“Teaching about Creation” Saturday, October 8, 2005
“Evolution or GOD” Saturday, October 29, 2005
“Evolution and GOD, part 2” Monday, October 31, 2005
“Evolution and GOD, part 3” Tuesday, November 1, 2005
“Untrue headline” Saturday, November 12, 2005 (This is not an actual column on creation. I had told someone that I would try to find some sources and this is a short listing of those sources dealing with evolution and/or creation. I believe mostly on creation.)
“The Case for a Creator” Wednesday, November 16, 2005
“References for GOD created the universe” Tuesday, April 25, 2006
“References for GOD created the universe, part 2” Wednesday, April 26, 2006
“Missing link found” Wednesday, June 21, 2006
“Evolution, today’s alchemy” Thursday, June 22, 2006
“Evolution vs. evolution” Thursday, July 27, 2006
“Ignorance: thy name is evolution” Friday, July 28, 2006
“Evolution and Presidential candidates” Monday, May 14, 2007
“Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 2” Tuesday, May 15, 2007
“Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 3” Thursday, May 17, 2007
* “Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 4” Friday, May 18, 2007
* “Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 5” Saturday, May 19, 2007
* “Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 6” Monday, May 21, 2007
* “Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 7” Tuesday, May 22, 2007
“Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom” Thursday, May 24, 2007
“Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom, part 2” Friday, May 25, 2007
“Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom, part 3” Thursday, May 31, 2007
“Updated References for Creation and Intelligent Design” Friday, June 1, 2007
“Updated References for Creation and Intelligent Design, part 2” Saturday, June 2, 2007

* quotes New Testament Scripture referencing creation

“You worry me”

The following “open letter” was sent to me Monday morning. It doesn’t go along exactly with what I have been writing about but it does deal with a problem that has developed because of terrorist attacks in general and 9/11 in particular. It also probably has some immigration ramifications. I’m posting it “as is” without comments because I was asked to pass the letter along. Posting it does not necessarily mean that I agree with all of it. Also, the copy I received had some errors in it and was without paragraphs. I tried to clean it up and put it into paragraphs.

I’m sorry! I do plan on answering the question on immigration asked recently. However, that will not happen immediately. I hope I will begin answering the question later this week. What I want to write about Iraq keeps expanding. I continue to apologize for the change in plans!

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

“You worry me!

The newspaper stated today that some Muslim doctor is saying we are profiling him because he has been checked three times while getting on an airplane. The following is a letter from a pilot. This well spoken man, who is a pilot with American Airlines, says what is in his heart, beautifully. Read, absorb and pass this on.

'YOU WORRY ME!’
By American Airlines Pilot—Captain John Maniscalco

I've been trying to say this since 9-11, but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me. I notice you because I can't help it anymore.

People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks. On September 11, nineteen ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers.

The Palestinians celebrated, the Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world. So, I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that have destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help.

As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist. How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim-Americans and the Arab/Muslim terrorists in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter these same good neighbors and children?

The events of September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me. I want to know, I demand to know, and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America?

Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation, that he will protect and prosper it? Or do you pray that Allah will destroy it in one of your Jihads? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.

Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to actively protect the United States of America. Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent because I worry about who you regard as innocent. No more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks because I worry about what is unprovoked to you.

I am not interested in any more sympathy. I am only interested in action. What will you do for America—our great country—at this time of crisis, at this time of war? I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting 'Allah Bless America' I want to see young Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time, and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole.

The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC (World Trade Center—my addition) attack. Many of these people live and socialize right now in Muslim communities. You know them. You know where they are. Hand them over to us, now!

But, I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisals.

The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing 'leaders' like Khadafy, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat.

If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good, and pure, and true, when your 'leaders' are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance? It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if huge numbers of the world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion.

A form that has been demonstrated to us over and over again. A form whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.

We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us: Our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Arab/Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family. I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand. Until then; YOU WORRY ME!

THIS IS TOO GOOD TO JUST READ AND DELETE. LET'S SATURATE THE USA WITH THIS ONE.”

What happens if we withdraw from Iraq?

I’m sorry! I do plan on answering the question on immigration asked recently. However, that will not happen immediately. I hope I will begin answering the question later this week. What I want to write about Iraq keeps expanding. I continue to apologize for the change in plans!

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

On my post last week entitled “What is that to Us?” I said the following: What questions should be asked of every Congressman and of every U.S. citizen who is demanding that the United States abandon Iraq? Demand that they truthfully, realistically answer these questions. What will happen in the next year after the United States leaves Iraq? What will happen in the next five years after the United States leaves Iraq? How will pulling out in Iraq make the United States safer in relation to the War on Terror? In short, what will be the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq? If they can not truthfully answer these questions, why are they demanding and supporting the abandonment of a newly established democratic country that we established in the first place?

The House of Representatives has voted to pullout from Iraq. “Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.” (Peoria Journal Star, July 13, 2007, page A1)
“A few hours after Bush’s remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train troops, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.” (Peoria Journal Star, July 13, 2007, page A7)

Let’s see if I understand the logic of the last sentence above. The U.S. military has not been able to defeat Al-Qaida and other terrorists within Iraq to this point. We are pulling the troops out to save American lives. Yet, we are going to keep “a limited residual force to train troops, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.”

Does that mean that the limited residual force will be safe? Will the limited residential force be able to accomplish what the much larger American contingent could not? Will the limited residual force be more effective than the larger American contingent? Who made Congress the Commander in Chief of the armed forces? It sure wasn’t the Constitution of the United States!!!

The concept of “The measure envisions a limited residual force to train troops, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.” seems ludicrous given the Democrats advocacy that troops should be withdrawn to protect lives!!! Perhaps that is why the legislation (resolution or whatever it is) requires the pullout to be accomplished by April 1. It seems a perfectly rational “April fools” joke dreamed up by people who have no business trying to fight a War on Terror by legislative enactment.

However, the larger questions listed earlier are the ones that should and must be answered by every House member who voted for this nonsense. On this post however, I want to discuss one specific question. How will pulling out in Iraq make the United States safer in relation to the War on Terror? There are basically only three possible answers: 1) there will be no change in relation to our safety and the pullout from Iraq 2) the United States will be safer because of the pullout from Iraq 3) The United States will be less safe after the pullout.

Logically, let’s examine this question. I heard that a Democrat, I don’t know who it was, claimed on a talk show this weekend that our presence in Iraq has increased recruitment for Al-Qaida and increased the terrorist group’s power. I don’t know if that is true or not and actually neither does he because he can not possibly know what the conditions would be like if we had not been in Iraq. But in fact, that statement is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because we ARE in Iraq and that can not be changed. One CAN NOT make decisions with hind sight.

However, here is the real question (which also can’t be answered with absolute certainty). Won’t our pulling out of Iraq be an even more powerful recruiting tool? Whether or not it is true, Al-Qaida will immediately claim (at least, I would if I were a member of the terrorist organization) that they have defeated the “Great Satan”—they have defeated the United States of America. Won’t claiming to have defeated the greatest military power in the world draw recruits into Al-Qaida? Won’t our withdrawal embolden Al-Qaida to intensify their efforts to defeat the United States throughout the world including attacking once again within the United States? (Complain as they might, no one can claim that Al-Qaida has successfully attacked within the United States since 9/11!) Why won’t Al-Qaida be willing to increase their attacks both within the United States and throughout the world? They defeated the “Great Satan”!!!

They will have learned that the United States does not have the patience to withstand terror. If we can’t win in a few years, we abandon the effort. In the Battle of Iwo Jima during World War II, the United States lost 6,800 men in fighting from February 19 through March 16 to capture one small Pacific island. In the Battle of Gettysburg, which lasted from July 1 through July 4, 1863, the United States suffered approximately 23,000 casualties and the Confederate States of American suffered approximately 25,000 casualties. (Casualties being defined as killed or wounded.)

Today, it seems that the United States is willing to fight a war only if there are no casualties on our side. No War on Terror will be won without casualties. No War on Terror will be won if the United States is not willing to engage the enemy and suffer casualties. No War on Terror will be won by retreating and allowing the terrorists to claim victory. No War on Terror will be won if we do not accept that we are at war.

Do those members of the House, who voted for withdrawal, really believe that if we leave Iraq the terrorists will stop and say “Wasn’t that fun! Now let’s go home and live out our lives in peace and security.” The stated goal of Al-Qaida is to destroy the “Great Satan”—the United States.

Again, demand to know from every House member who voted for withdrawal: How will pulling out in Iraq make the United States safer in relation to the War on Terror? Get their response in writing for future reference!!!

Benchmarks anyone?

I’m sorry! I do plan on answering the question on immigration asked recently. However, that will not happen this week. I hope I will begin answering the question next week. I apologize for the change in plans!

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.aclj.org

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org


Let’s talk benchmarks. Iraq has been given benchmarks as a measurement of their progress. Some (the usual suspects) are complaining because Iraq has not yet met those benchmarks.

Now, let’s consider the situation. Iraq was a dictatorship for years under the control of a despot. Just a few years ago they elected their first democratic government. Understandably, I would think, they are not going to operate as effectively as a government that has experienced democracy for, let’s say, about 190 years. They just might have some kinks to work out.

Then, Iraq is in the middle of a war. Bombs are killing civilians almost daily. Terrorists have done what they intend to do—terrorize the population. People are dying and some are fearful of dying. Understandably, I would think, the government is not going to operate as effectively as a government that does not have a war waging in their front yard.

Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about democracies knows or should know (and I’m thinking specifically of those Democratic Congressmen who are doing all of the ranting and raving) that democracies by their very nature are not very efficient. If you want efficiency, dictatorships are much more efficient. Dictatorships have some major drawbacks but they do tend to be efficient. Understandably, I would think, a democratic government is not going to operate as effectively as a government that is under dictatorial control.

Now, let’s look at an American example. The State of Illinois has been a democracy since it became a State in 1818—approximately 190 years ago. The State of Illinois is not at war. Bombs are not exploding daily in Springfield, the capitol, or anywhere else in the State. (Except maybe Chicago but they would deny that, I’m sure.)

By law, the State of Illinois is suppose to have a budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year passed by the beginning of the fiscal year which is July 1, 2007. They do not. They are working under a temporary budget that is to end at the end of July. The Governor, who is a Democrat, has called a special session to pass the budget. Both the House and the Senate in the General Assembly have a majority of Democrats. Yet, the State of Illinois is still not able to pass a budget.

In fact, the Peoria Journal Star on July 7, 2007, page B5 printed this quote from a Democratic member of the legislature: “‘We have a madman (as governor),’ Rep. Joe Lyons, D-Chicago, said to reporters, ‘The man is insane.’” Or, this comment concerning the governor on the same page from the same story: “Rep. Jim Watson, R-Jacksonville, said the meeting (budget meeting between the Governor and General Assembly members—my addition) was an eye-opener.

‘We could all see for ourselves how there is no real dialogue. There’s no compromise or give and take.’ Watson said. ‘This is his (the Governor’s—my addition) view: ‘I’m willing to negotiate as long as you agree with my views.’’”

Now, answer me this. If the State of Illinois can’t reach a decision on the State budget with Democrats in total control in the legislature and the executive branch, how do these Congressmen expect the war-torn nation of Iraq to just waltz along and quickly and effectively automatically meet these benchmarks established not in Iraq but in Washington D.C.? It seems to me that there just might be more than one government official (and Congressmen are government officials) who could be called insane! What do you think?