Huckabee endorsed?

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

On my first endorsement post, I rejected all Democratic candidates for the Presidency and Republican Rudy Giuliani because they all support the murder of unborn babies. I have since rejected John McCain and Mitt Romney as possible Republican candidates for endorsement in the primary. Tonight I discuss Mike Huckabee.

First though, being President of the United States is unlike any other elected governmental position in the nation. Counting George W. Bush, only 42 people have held the office in our history. Obviously, none of the present candidates have ever held the position. Being governor of any State is not even close to being the President of the United States. Consequently, no one knows with certainty how any of the candidates will actually perform in the office or whether or not they will have a successful (How does one define successful?) administration. Some Presidents grow substantially while in office; some falter. We will NOT know the result until after the fact and even then there will be disagreement (sometimes—often—violate disagreement) over whether the administration was a success or not. That’s politics in the United States.

For President of the United States, I want a candidate who believes and supports the policy and the principles he advocates. I do not want a President who bases his latest decisions on the most current public opinion polls or changes his positions based upon the office he is running for or qualifies his answers if he believes it is politically expedient. That is not leadership!!! That demonstrates an abysmal lack of leadership. I want a leader who will lead the nation; not a follower who follows the latest whims as determined by some public opinion poll which are often wrong (or at least misleading depending upon how the questions are worded and a whole host of other variables) and which almost never measure the intensity of the opinions. I want a leader who has established his deep convictions and principles and sticks with those established convictions and principles. I don’t want a leader who qualifies his principles and convictions for political gain. I don’t want a leader who declares “I believe in ‘A’ but I can support part of ‘B’ which contradicts ‘A’ if it helps me get elected.”

Earlier this year in May, I wrote a series of posts entitled “Evolution and Presidential candidates.” Below are two portions of those posts that pertain to Mike Huckabee and whether or not I am willing to endorse him for the Presidency. It might be of benefit to go back and read the two posts in their entirety.

“Evolution and Presidential candidates written May 14, 2007

Science writer Randolph Schmid should realize this as well. What Christians do not accept as true is species evolution. They do not accept it because it has never been shown to be true and it is contrary to the WORD of GOD. There is no factual, scientific evidence to support the theory that species “A” evolved into species “B” which evolved into species “C” which evolved into species “D” which through continuing species evolution eventually over millions and/or billions of years evolved into man.

That theory has never been demonstrated scientifically to be true! That theory in fact can not be demonstrated to be true without first proving how nothing became something. Then, how that something which did not have life; suddenly and miraculously became alive?

Two other questions that evolutionists ignore. They ignore them because they can’t possibly answer the questions scientifically. When the first whatever evolved into man, how did the man reproduce? Did the first woman also miraculously evolve at just that exact time? Did evolution occur at numerous points where there were a flock of men and they didn’t have to reproduce for awhile? If so, why did that process stop and reproduction become necessary?

This is a problem not just in relation to man. What of all the other species that require a male and female for reproduction? What a miracle. The male and female must have evolved at just the same time!!! Miraculous!!! But then, Darwin’s theory needs a lot of miracles!!!!!

Also, why did evolution stop at man? Our science fiction writers think up superior species all the time. We even make movies about them. Yet, none of them exist. We are all just men and women? Why? What stopped the evolutionary process?

You know the evolutionist rationale don’t you? ‘Well, we need a couple of more millions of years for that to happen.’ Of course, they won’t be around to know if it happens or not—at least not in their present physical bodies. Just like the global warming alarmists, they seem to think they can predict the future.

And they claim to be scientific!!! Not a chance. It is all speculative garbage when they claim man evolved through the centuries from a beginning single celled thing. Garbage!!! And they teach that garbage in schools as truth!!!”

Here is a qualification on what I had written above. I may have used the term “species” somewhat incorrectly. I confess it has been a while since I’ve had a science class and my concept of “species” may not be the same as used in science classes. The idea is correct though. Never has any scientific data shown that a tiny single celled creature changed to another “kind” of creature (I’m currently reading Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph. D. with Mike Matthews and he asserts creationists should use the term “kind”, which is the biblical term, instead of “species”.), which changed to a different “kind” of creature, on up the ladder to some “kind” of creature—monkey or whatever—which changed into a man. NEVER!!! Nor will it ever scientifically be proven because it is not scientifically possible!!!”

“Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 3 written May 17, 2007

Next VandeHei asked: Is there anyone on the stage who doesn’t believe in evolution? Three raised their hands—Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. (The response, or lack thereof, of the other Republican Presidential candidates helps narrow down the choice of who to support for President. What Christian could support any of the other candidates who did not declare that the lie of slime to man is not only idiotic science but is also directly contrary to the WORD of GOD. Open up the Bible. What is the first sentence in the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible? “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1: 1 (NIV) If a Christian does not believe that relevant statement, how can he believe any part of the Bible? If that statement is not true, how can one claim to believe the WORD of GOD? Those who do not believe that GOD created are declaring that the WORD of GOD begins with a fundamental lie. That too is nonsense. Either Darwin’s slime to man is wrong or the WORD of GOD is wrong!!! It can not be both!!! Who should Christians support? Hasn’t it been narrowed down? Who were the three candidates on that stage who declared that they believe the WORD of GOD? The only three mentioned in the article were Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. This was a good question!!! It helps Christians know who actually believes what the WORD of GOD says rather that humanistic lies and unscientific nonsense.—my addition)”

“In a conversation after the debate, Huckabee said, ‘I wish life were so simple. If it were, we’d be in a game show and not running a presidential campaign. … If I’d had time, I would have asked whether he meant macro or micro evolution?’ (Is Mr. Huckabee trying to hedge his response? The question was understood. Is he also trying to walk the fence? The question most assuredly was in reference to slime to man. That is the controversy. Why ask an uncontroversial question about something that is not normally considered a political question?—my addition)

That’s a different sort of answer than what is inferred from a simple ‘no’ forced by the manic pace of a 90-minute ‘debate’ among 10 candidates, none of whom is qualified to seriously debate scientific theory. Nor, as president, should they try. In fact, Huckabee says he does believe in evolution (with qualifications) and thinks Darwin’s theory should be taught in schools. (I also believe Darwin’s concept of slime to man should be taught in schools. Does that surprise you? I believe it should be taught as an example of unscientific nonsense which can be latched on to by humanists who are supporting beliefs over the truth. It should be recognized as the lie that it is. It should be used as an example of how not to use the scientific method. It should be taught as an example of how the “squeaky wheel” can abuse the concept of scientific discovery. It is a prime example of how not to be scientific. It should be taught that slime to man is a humanistic lie. Do you think that will be taught? Now the choices are down to two of the Republicans who were on that stage that night and one question mark.—my addition)”

Since those posts were written, both Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado have dropped out of the Presidential race—of the three only Mike Huckabee remains. Mike Huckabee is no longer a question mark. As I stated above, I don’t want a leader who declares “I believe in ‘A’ but I can support part of ‘B’ which contradicts ‘A’ if it helps me get elected.” I want a candidate who believes and supports the policy and the principles he advocates. I do not want a President who qualifies his answers if he believes it is politically expedient. That is not leadership!!! That demonstrates an abysmal lack of leadership. I want a leader who will lead the nation; not a follower who molds his answers to satisfy the media and its cohorts. I want a leader who has established his deep convictions and principles and sticks with those established convictions and principles. The waffling by Mike Huckabee on the question of evolution seems to indicate that he is not willing to stand up for his fundamental convictions if it might mean losing some support. He, like Senator McCain, can not have it both ways!!!

Mike Huckabee is also promoting a policy that he calls the FairTax. Now, it is easy to label something as fair. The label does not necessarily make it so. I happen to know something about taxes and hope to address his proposal in greater detail in a later post. For now, I have only a few comments based upon information posted on his website about his proposal for a “FairTax.” Below are two partial paragraphs from his website concerning his proposal.
“The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now. All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line, so that we're not taxed on necessities. That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all. We'll be taxed on what we decide to buy, not what we happen to earn. We won't be taxed on what we choose to save or the interest those savings earn. The tax will apply only to new goods, so we can reduce our taxes further by buying a used car or computer.”

“The FairTax is also progressive, but it doesn't punish the American dream of success, or the old-fashioned virtues of hard work and thrift, it rewards and encourages them. The FairTax isn't intended to raise any more or less money for the federal government to spend—it is revenue neutral.”

First, as is alluded to but not specifically stated, what Mike Huckabee is proposing is a national sales tax. Some States, including some portions of Illinois when including local sales tax, collect 8% or more on taxed commodities. Here are some preliminary questions that Mike Huckabee should, no, MUST answer about his proposal but does not answer on his website:

1) First and foremost, what percentage will this national sales tax be? 10%? 15%? 20%? 25%, 30%, more than 30% or less than 10%?

2) Since the income tax is allowed by Constitutional amendment, will a Constitutional amendment be necessary to implement his proposed national sales tax?

3) Since the income tax is allowed by Constitutional amendment, will a Constitutional amendment be necessary to eliminate the income tax?

4) If not, will a future President along with Congress be able to reinstate the income tax system and keep the national sales tax system too so that we will be paying both an income tax and a national sales tax?

5) Does he really propose that the national government send a monthly tax rebate to millionaires so that their four member family will be rebated money each month up to the poverty level?

6) Will all new purchases be taxed? If an individual buys a $300,000 home will he also pay a sales tax on the purchase of that home? For example, if the national sales tax is at 25%, will that $300,000 purchased home now cost $375,000? Isn’t that a discouragement to buying a new home?

7) Will the purchase of food be taxed? When I moved from Arizona in 2004, Arizona did NOT tax food—however food is a new good. Illinois taxes food at a lower percentage than other goods. Will we now pay a national sales tax every time we purchase food?

8) Will services now be taxed? Will some services be taxed and others not? For example, legal services? Banking transactions? Cleaning your home? Education? Entertainment? Car repairs?

9) Who will collect these taxes for the government? Will the businesses? Will the national government now monitor all businesses to insure that the correct amount of tax is collected and transmitted to the federal government? Will this occur daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly?

10) Will this system promote an “underground” economy where goods and services are sold “off the books” to prevent having to pay the national sales tax?

11) Will this system, discourage charitable giving since there will no longer be an income tax advantage to donate to charities?

I think you get the idea. Any such radical plan needs to be fully explained before any rational voter should be willing to support a proposal that may radically change who is taxed and how much they are taxed. Whether or not his proposal is truly progressive, regressive, or proportional is debatable. Because Mike Huckabee proclaims it to be progressive does not make it progressive. In fact, most economists maintain that a sales tax is regressive in nature and often very regressive in nature.

For the primary election, I want to support the candidate that comes closest to my convictions and beliefs and who has a positive history supporting those positions. Mike Huckabee IS NOT that person. If my candidate does not win the Republican nomination, then it will be time to reevaluate the situation and determine if the nominee qualifies to win my vote for the general election. I am not going to surrender my convictions at any time. I will certainly not compromise them in the primary with the “hope” of selecting an “electable candidate.”

I will not support Mike Huckabee in the primary election. Should he win the nomination, I am not certain I would vote for him for the Presidency. However, given the Democratic candidates, I probably will unless an attractive third alternative is available. As has been pointed out, Bill Clinton probably won the Presidency twice because of the third party presence of Ross Perot. I am more inclined to support Mike Huckabee for the Presidency that the previous candidates discussed. However, he is not my first choice.

For the primary: Mike Huckabee is NOT endorsed!!!

Romney endorsed?

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

On my first endorsement post, I rejected all Democratic candidates for the Presidency and Republican Rudy Giuliani because they all support the murder of unborn babies. I then rejected John McCain as a possible Republican candidate for endorsement in the primary. Tonight I discuss Mitt Romney.

First though, being President of the United States is unlike any other elected governmental position in the nation. Counting George W. Bush, only 42 people have held the office in our history. Obviously, none of the present candidates have ever held the position. Being governor of any State is not even close to being the President of the United States. Consequently, no one knows with certainty how any of the candidates will actually perform in the office or whether or not they will have a successful (How does one define successful?) administration. Some Presidents grow substantially while in office; some falter. We will NOT know the result until after the fact and even then there will be disagreement (sometimes—often—violate disagreement) over whether the administration was a success or not. That’s politics in the United States.

On my last post, I stated that John McCain is THE political chameleon of the Republican candidates. However, from what I have read and observed, Mitt Romney is not far behind.

For President of the United States, I want a candidate who believes and supports the policy and the principles he advocates. I do not want a President who bases his latest decisions on the most current public opinion polls or changes his positions based upon the office he is running for. That is not leadership!!! That demonstrates an abysmal lack of leadership. I want a leader who will lead the nation; not a follower who follows the latest whims as determined by some public opinion poll which are often wrong (or at least misleading depending upon how the questions are worded and a whole host of other variables) and which almost never measure the intensity of the opinions. I want a leader who has established his deep convictions and principles and sticks with those established convictions and principles.

Mitt Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts the most libertine State in the nation which is represented in the Senate by Edward Kennedy and John Kerry. Mitt Romney did not get elected governor of Massachusetts by declaring that he was opposed to the murder of unborn babies. Mitt Romney, at that time, declared that he SUPPORTED the murder of unborn babies. Now he claims a conversion. I hope and pray that is true. However, HOW DO WE KNOW IT IS A TRUE CONVERTION? Words are easy to say especially when it may help you receive your party’s nomination for the Presidency. Where is the history of his supporting life? Other candidates have that history; Mitt Romney DOES NOT!!!

I would have a very difficult time supporting any candidate who had at one time actually believed that it was acceptable to murder unborn babies. The same is true for a candidate who changes his convictions because it is necessary to do so to achieve another purpose. I want a leader who believes what he claims to believe and is willing to lose an election RATHER THAN change to appease the political gods.

Mitt Romney is also supposed to be a dedicated Mormon. Leaders of the Mormon religion have done the same thing. The leadership preached that polygamy was the will of GOD. To be accepted into the union of States, they changed their teaching declaring that polygamy was not the will of GOD after all. It seemed that GOD had changed HIS mind if it meant Utah would be allowed into the United States. The Mormons also preached that Negroes (Now referred to as African Americans in the United States.) were inferior to Caucasians. They changed their mind when it became politically expedient to do so.

Is Mitt Romney changing because it’s a necessity in order to receive the nomination or because of a real change of conviction? I don’t know and I’m not willing to support such a candidate in the primaries without knowing. Can he be true to his word or is he just another political chameleon? He has changed in the past. What is to prevent a re-conversion in the future?

Then, of course, there is the matter of his religious belief. This is a quote attributed to Mormon founder Joseph Smith who lived from 1805-1844. (The only founder of the CHURCH established by GOD is HIS SON—JESUS, the CHRIST.) “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) This to me established that Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is more important than the Bible—the WORD of GOD!!! It is not and can not be true!!! And yet, when it was necessary, they changed those teachings to achieve other ends!

For the primary election, I want to support the candidate that comes closest to my convictions and beliefs and who has a positive history supporting those positions. Mitt Romney IS NOT that person. If my candidate does not win the Republican nomination, then it will be time to reevaluate the situation and determine if the nominee qualifies to win my vote for the general election. I am not going to surrender my convictions at any time. I will certainly not compromise them in the primary with the “hope” of selecting an “electable candidate.”

I will not support Mitt Romney in the primary election. Should he win the nomination, I am not certain I would vote for him for the Presidency. However, given the Democratic candidates, I probably will unless an attractive third alternative is available. As has been pointed out, Bill Clinton probably won the Presidency twice because of the third party presence of Ross Perot.

However, it may be time to begin a third party. The Republican Party began that way over the issue of slavery. It is not yet time to consider such a possibility. The primaries have not yet begun.

For the primary: Mitt Romney is NOT endorsed!!!

McCain endorsed?

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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.libertylegal.org/

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/

http://www.searchtv.org/

On my last post I rejected all Democratic candidates for the Presidency and Republican Rudy Giuliani because they all support the murder of unborn babies. Tonight, I begin discussing Republican candidates who, at least, seem to support life and therefore deserve a second look.

First though, being President of the United States is unlike any other elected governmental position in the nation. Counting George W. Bush, only 42 people have held the office in our history. Obviously, none of the present candidates have ever held the position. Being governor of any State is not even close to being the President of the United States. Consequently, no one knows with certainty how any of the candidates will actually perform in the office or whether or not they will have a successful (How does one define successful?) administration. Some Presidents grow substantially while in office; some falter. We will NOT know the result until after the fact and even then there will be disagreement (sometimes—often—violate disagreement) over whether the administration was a success or not. That’s politics in the United States.

Senator John McCain has run for the Presidency before. He has been the Senator from Arizona for a number of years. Since I lived in Arizona for a number of years until moving to Illinois in 2004, I have some knowledge of him as an Arizona Senator.

In my opinion, Hillary Clinton, like her husband before her, is the political chameleon of the Democratic candidates. She keeps close tabs on public opinion polls and seems to be more public opinion poll driven than policy and/or principles driven.

From what I have been told and what I have observed, John McCain is THE political chameleon of the Republican candidates. When I was in Arizona voting as a Democrat and running for political office as a Democrat, several Republicans told me the same thing. John McCain would be as comfortable politically running as a Democrat in Massachusetts as he is serving as a Republican in Arizona. It was not meant to be a compliment!

For President of the United States, I want a candidate who believes and supports the policy and the principles he advocates. I do not want a President who bases his latest decisions on the most current public opinion polls. That is not leadership!!! That demonstrates an abysmal lack of leadership. I want a leader who will lead the nation; not a follower who follows the latest whims as determined by some public opinion poll which are often wrong (or at least misleading depending upon how the questions are worded and a whole host of other variables) and which almost never measure the intensity of the opinions.

As an example of the fence sitting that such a policy often generates, John McCain has been quoted as declaring that both GOD CREATED the universe and Darwin’s evolution—slim to man—are true and compatible. Mr. McCain, it is not true. Get off the fence and state your belief. I don’t want a President who tries to have it both ways—it is a recipe for disaster. Often in the political arena, the politician HAS to make a decision one way or the other. We have no way of knowing which way he will fall unless a public opinion poll is there to help him reach a decision. That’s not the way to be a successful President.

I know. I voted for Bill Clinton and he did the same thing. Voting for Bill Clinton—not once but twice—was one of my greatest political errors!!! I try to learn from my mistakes.

John McCain is flat wrong on immigration. The following is a quote from a letter I received from Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts dated October 25, 2006, page 1 of a 2 page letter. “I’m proud to be a sponsor, with Senator McCain, of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, a comprehensive reform of our nation’s immigration system.” The proposed law which did not pass provided a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants—people who have deliberately and knowingly violated our laws. By the way, the letter refers to these illegal immigrants not as illegal immigrants but rather as undocumented. Are they illegal or not? Of course, they are!!!

World magazine recently printed an article about John McCain and his candidacy. I did not read the article. However, I’m quoting two letters that were printed in the “Mailbag” section of the magazine—page 83, December 29, 2007/January 5, 2008 issue of World magazine.

“The old saying, ‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,’ expresses the feelings of many Arizonans like me regarding our senior senator, John McCain (‘Not angry anymore,’ Dec. 1). I doubt he will carry Arizona in the primary because of the McCain-Feingold bill, Shamnesty (I think the author means amnesty for illegal immigrants—my addition.), and his opposition to the Bush tax cuts (before he was for them). Sorry, but I think McCain’s reconciliation is just a political ploy.”—>>> >>>>>>>, Sun City West, Ariz.

“Thanks for your article about the ‘Maverick man.’ He does not appear to be the sort of man who would win my vote because of, among other things, his contradictory views in supporting embryonic stem-cell research yet opposing abortion.”—>>> >>>>>>>, 16, El Cajon, Calif.

I will not support Senator McCain in the primary election. I do not think he will receive the nomination from the Republican Party. Should he, I am not certain I would vote for him for the Presidency. I have never voted for him before. However, given the Democratic candidates, I probably will unless an attractive third alternative is available. As has been pointed out, Bill Clinton probably won the Presidency twice because of the third party presence of Ross Perot.

For the primary: John McCain is NOT endorsed!!!

Giuliani endorsed?

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

Because our ever faltering method of nominating a President has resulted in earlier primaries and caucuses, it is time to endorse Presidential candidates. The Iowa caucus is January 3, 2008 (Do you think with the earlier caucuses and primaries that more, less, or the same number of people will participate in the nomination process this year?)

The Democratic candidates are easy. Since every Democratic candidate is a proponent of murdering unborn babies, none of them are worthy of an endorsement and none of them are worthy of a vote in the general election. Unfortunately, that was easy.

Which leads us to the Republican side of the nomination process. The first candidate that I will consider is Rudy Giuliani. Unfortunately, he is easily disposed of also. He is the only Republican candidate, that I know of, who supports the murder of unborn babies. Therefore, he is eliminated as a possible candidate to vote for.

He has tried to counteract those who oppose his position on the murder of unborn babies by declaring that he will appoint judges and Justices who will follow judicial restraint. However, there are several problems with that approach. First and foremost is that he STILL supports the murder of unborn babies! Anyone who does not understand the sin involved in the murder of the most innocent in our society IS NOT WORTHY TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! Rudy Giuliani IS NOT WORTHY TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!

Also, there is more involved in the murder of unborn babies than decisions reached by the Supreme Court. President Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion bill. President Bush signed a similar bill into law. What would Rudy Giuliani have done? Would he follow the murderous path of President Clinton or would he have signed the bill as President Bush did? What about other bills passed by Congress designed to restrict the murder of unborn babies in one form or another? How can anyone who supports life trust a President who supports murder to help in protecting the lives of unborn babies? I can’t trust him to do so and I will not support him in the primaries nor will I support him if the Republicans are insane enough to actually nominate him for the Presidency.

There is another problem also. Can he be trusted to follow through on his promise? How many times has he been married? How many times did he promise to remain married to his spouse “until death do we part?” If he should become President, might he not argue that he can not get sufficient votes in the Senate to have judges and Justices who believe in judicial restraint approved by the Senate. Therefore, he has to alter his promise to insure approval of his nominations. In other words, will he be willing to fight to the death for judges and Justices who support judicial self-restraint? I don’t think so and I’m not willing to find out.

NO ONE WHO SUPPORTS THE MURDER OF UNBORN BABIES IS WORTHY TO BE PRESIDENT. Rudy Giuliani IS NOT WORTHY TO BE PRESIDENT. Rudy Giuliani WILL NOT RECEIVE MY SUPPORT IN THE PRIMARIES NOR WILL HE RECEIVE MY SUPPORT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Rudy Giuliani HAS RULED HIMSELF OUT!!! THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAD BETTER TAKE HEED. I AM NOT ALONE! Giuliani will be a DISASTER FOR THE PARTY!!!

The REAL and ONLY way to improve your life

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

CORRECTION: I made one error, which I know of, when I posted the 60 question civic test. Question number 13 should have read Andrew Johnson. I mistakenly posted the name as Andrew Jackson which, of course, makes a different for determining the correct answer. The post has been changed to now read correctly as Andrew Johnson.

I presently have a subscription to U.S. News and World Report. If I remember correctly, it cost $10 for 26 issues. I won’t be renewing the subscription. I received my December 31, 2007-January 7, 2008 issue on December 24, 2007. The front page story is “50 Ways to Improve Your Life in 2008.” It begins on page 37. (Page 36 if you count the nifty art work. The art work does take up a page.)

The fifty ways as listed on page 37:

“1) Try open-water swimming.
02) Cut back on corn. (I’m sure Illinois farmers will appreciate this one.—my addition)
03) Don’t be afraid to get dirty.
04) Turn work into your workout.
05) Waltz your way to better fitness.
06) Detox your household cleaning products.
07) Bite into dark chocolate.
08) Give a healthcare gift card.
09) Dump your prescription pills safely. (What prescription pills? Ok, I forgot we are a drug medicated society. It’s advertised every day on TV. Anyone have any Viagra?—my addition)
10) Get screened for an STD. (Don’t have intercourse unless you are married and then ONLY with your (male-female only) spouse and neither of you will need this improvement. What is Barack Obama telling us when he publicly gets tested for AIDS?—my addition)
11) Find a book worth talking about. (Any book? After all, worth is one of those personal, relative opinion situations isn’t it?—my addition)
12) Change your reading habits. (Read more or read less? Less is a change isn’t it?—my addition)
13) Yawn! (According to some scientists we do too much of this now—sleep deprivation. Is this a suggestion for more sleep deprivation?—my addition)
14) Build memories through scents.
15) Go to Ivy League classes online.
16) Make a ‘Not-to-do list.’
17) Swing by your local library. (Should we go in and check out a book or just swing by?—my addition)
18) Read an international newspaper. (Get the same biased prospective from a different source.—my addition)
19) Sign up for RSS feed.
20) Study geography.
21) Put the freeze on identity theft.
22) Analyze your investment strategy.
23) Hedge your portfolio.
24) Use your mobile phone for everything. (Do they have shares of stock in mobile phone companies?—my addition)
25) Switch to geothermal heating. (Did Al Gore finally do this?—my addition)
26) Get a raise.
27) Click on compact fluorescent lights. (Ignore the mercy!—my addition)
28) Set up a Roth 401(k).
29) Use software to catalog your property.
30) Donate your money better to charity. (Does this include Planned Murderhood? Can charity donations be good or evil?—my addition)
31) Take your kids into the voting booth. (Does this mean taking them out of school?—my addition)
32) Remember the life of Martin Luther King Jr.
33) Listen better.
34) Learn American Sign Language.
35) Stop drinking bottled water. (Stop drinking alcohol?—my addition)
36) Adopt a dog. (Dog discrimination!—my addition)
37) Volunteer for your local fire department.
38) Recycle your Christmas tree.
39) Share ideas at changemakers.net
40) Commit ‘random acts of kindness.’ (Is this another instance of personal, relative opinion situations? Is my imploring practicing homosexuals to REPENT an act of kindness or being mean-spirited? Should we strive to be kind at all times or just randomly? “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such there is no law.” Galatians 5: 22-23 (NIV) Wait! We can’t talk about kindness—that’s a biblical concept which also includes self-control and neither should be random.—my addition)
41) Avoid recalls: Make your own toys. (Now they are making toy manufacturers happy!—my addition)
42) Go see a play or musical.
43) Visit Shea Stadium or Yankee Stadium before they’re gone. (Or, boycott baseball!—my addition)
44) Avoid air travel delays. (Don’t fly!—my addition)
45) Try wines from unexpected places. (Stop drinking alcohol!—my addition)
46) Brew a better cup of coffee. (Stop drinking coffee!—my addition)
47) Be daffy: Celebrate Tex Avery’s birthday. (Why not? We celebrate everything else!—my addition)
48) Get a coupon for a digital TV converter. (Get rid of the TV. Is there really anything worth your time watching?—my addition)
49) Pick up the next Harry Potter-style epic.
50) Knit like a hipster.”
51) Cancel your subscription to U.S. News and World Report. (Okay, I added that one but it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me.—my addition)

Did you notice anything about all 50 of the prescribed “improvements on your life?” Not one spiritual reference in the fifty. Not one reference to GOD the creator of the universe.

In the end, not one of the above suggestions will make a significant difference in your life. Here is the real list!!!

1) First and most important, become a Christian. This is the most important thing anyone can do because ONLY Christians will spend eternity in heaven with GOD. And I don’t mean the neo-christian lies so many are repeating today—believe and say this prescribed prayer and you will be saved. That is NOT what the Bible teaches! The so called prayer is NOT in the Bible. Rather, the Bible says you must HEAR/STUDY the WORD of GOD. Then, you must BELIEVE/have FAITH that GOD is the one true GOD—the CREATOR, SAVIOR, and LORD—and that JESUS is the SON of GOD. Next, you must REPENT and TURN FROM your sins. You must CONFESS that JESUS is GOD and SAVIOR. You must be BAPTIZED into CHRIST. Finally, you must be OBEDIENT to GOD’S will for the rest of your physical life.

2) FEAR and LOVE the LORD your GOD with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

3) LOVE all others as yourself.

4) SERVE GOD.

5) PRAY continually to GOD.

6) WORSHIP GOD in spirit and in truth.

7) FORGIVE others as you would want to be forgiven.

Did I forget anything? Possibly. However, I want to stop at seven. Of course, all seven of these intertwine and can not be separated from each other. These seven though will be of much greater importance that anything man can and will devise.

HOLY is the LORD

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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.libertylegal.org/

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/

http://www.searchtv.org/

The following is from http://www.searchtv.org/.

“Holy is the Lord
Exodus 3: 1-6

God is revered very little in our present culture, even in much of American style Christianity. Virtually nothing is being said about His absolute holiness. So, it just may be that we’ll be addressing one of our nation’s greatest needs today. We’re calling our study, ‘Holy Is the Lord.’ We pray you’ll be blessed. Greetings to you, my friend.
Welcome to our Bible study program, In Search of the Lord’s Way to become a Christian and to be a Christian. We’re so pleased to have you with us today and we pray we’ll both be blessed by our study together. God is often rejected in our society, and is more often than that—‘downsized’ by American style Christianity. I have to speak about ‘American style Christianity,’ because so very much of what’s taught and preached in our country nowadays as Christianity is not Christianity at all that you read about in your New Testament. There is reason for hope, though. Some men of prominence in various religious groups are seeing some of that inconsistency, and are speaking up and writing about it. While we wouldn’t agree on everything they say and they wouldn’t agree with everything we say, we see the evil treatment that God is getting these days and are writing and speaking about it. They—and I—can spell ‘God’ with a capital ‘G’, though. My friend, God is not a myth or an image or a hallucination. God is real and authentic. He’s not the god of the street language that’s made its way into the common vernacular in movies and TV and entertainment today. He’s the one and Holy God in whom we can put our trust and our faith. We’ve titled today’s program, ‘Holy Is the Lord.’

But, before we get to the message, let me remind you, that you may have a CD or an audio cassette tape—or a printed copy of it absolutely free, simply by sending your request to In Search of the Lord’s Way, P.O. Box 371, Edmond, OK 73083 or by internet to searchtv@searchtv.org. If you prefer to call, you may use our toll-free telephone number 1-800-321-8633. Ken Helterbrand’s going to lead us now as we sing.

We’re reading today from the third chapter of the book of Exodus, beginning at verse 1. ‘Now Moses was attending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, ‘I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.’ So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, ‘Moses, Moses!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ Then He said, ‘Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.’ Moreover He said, ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.’ And I read through verse 6. You may want to read farther than that in your private reading. Now let’s go to God in prayer. Holy God, we respect and revere you as our one and only Holy Father. We know our weaknesses in our humanity and we seek your forgiveness for all of our irreverences in the past. And beg your presence and your blessings upon our study this hour. In the name of your Holy Son, we pray, Jesus Christ, Amen!

If you read the Bible any at all, or if you grew up attending Sunday school just about anywhere, you’re probably familiar with the story of someone named ‘Moses’ at a burning bush. Well, we read a part of the Biblical account of that before the hymn. The incident is the occasion of God’s call of Moses to lead His people out of some four hundred years of slavery in Egypt. Even though the Bible says nothing about it, we have reason to conclude that Moses was a believer in God even before the incident. The second chapter of Exodus details some of the marvelous story of his birth and a little bit about his early life. There are some things recorded there that cause us to question the measure of his faith in God, however. Brought up as a grandson in the palace of the King of Egypt, he's exiled in the land of Midian where we found him when we saw him at the burning bush, a while ago. He’s herding his father-in-law’s sheep. He saw a bush over there. It was on fire—it was burning; but it was not being burned up or consumed by the fire! Amazing! Fantastic! Even Miraculous! (Yes! my friend, that was a miracle.) The like of which you don’t see anymore. He drew closer. And GOD spoke to him. Oh, you’ve probably heard preachers say ‘God spoke to me’ so many times you can’t even count them. But, I’m saying to you now that God, I mean the Almighty Creator, the all-loving Father in heaven, the one and only absolutely Holy God really did speak to Moses. Believe me, this isn’t something that happens to every Tom, Dick and Mary Jane who comes along and makes the claim. God really did speak to Moses.

What happened, friend, is that God said to Moses: ‘Do not draw near to this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.’ The God we read about in the Bible demands of us absolute respect and reverence when we approach Him in prayer and in worship. Too often some of us read ‘the place where you stand is holy ground,’ and miss the meaning of the whole story. The ‘old friend,’ ‘the palsies, walsy,’ modern casual approach to God isn’t only offensive to God, it’s even repulsive and totally unacceptable. It reduces Him to a ‘manageable god,’ spelled with a small ‘g.’ But God is not such a god. ‘He is not a man’ (Job 9: 32); not even a great man. That’s exactly what God was saying, ‘Do not draw near.’ Don’t get too close as one version says. Don’t become too intimate. Furthermore, in the presence of that Holiness, Moses ‘hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.’ That’s in verse 6. Well, he was also driven from within to show the deepest reverence for God. From that moment, there’s never been any question in our hearts about the greatness of Moses’ faith.

What a contrast with our times. The name of God is most often used as a part of an exclamation of surprise,—or it may even be fear. The very word ‘God’ is so thoughtlessly and carelessly tossed about in our 21st century American speech that it’s even become useless and vain. That’s a serious offense to God, because His name is not to be so used. It was strictly forbidden in the Ten Commandments. ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.’ (Exodus 20 verse 7). Although that’s serious enough, people show disrespect in other ways, too. God’s Holy Word, the Bible, is ignored sometimes and sometimes even ridiculed, even altered to fit the wills and the wants of men. And, ‘God’ is a forbidden word in public assemblies, especially government operated schools. His name is being removed from public places even in our capital city. One of the great tragedies is that many of us are trying to navigate through life without the help of God, who gave us life.

Even supposed Christians sometimes fail to have a proper respect for the holiness of God. In his book, ‘The Knowledge of the Holy,’ A. W. Tozer wrote about...’the loss of the concept of majesty from the popular religious mind.’ He said, ‘The low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us. A whole new philosophy of Christian life has resulted from one basic error in our religious thinking.’ Furthermore, he said, ‘It is impossible to keep our moral practices sound and our inward attitudes right while our idea of God is erroneous or inadequate. If we would bring back a spiritual power to our lives, we must begin to think of God more nearly as He is.’ Well, he is so right about those things, isn’t he? Several things about God clearly reflect His holiness, calling us to a greater respect and honor of Him.

FIRST, God is Holy in His nature. Man’s disrespect for Him doesn’t change God’s character. God doesn’t just go away because man ignores Him. He’s still Holy. There are two places in Scripture that picture a heavenly scene and each one ends with the affirmation: holy, holy, holy is the Lord. One is the call of Isaiah in chapter six, verses one to three of His prophecy. Isaiah was shown a vision of heaven. He says He ‘saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up.’ He saw angels (seraphim). ‘And one cried to another and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!’’ Oh yes! Well, we had a whole program about that recently. And I plan another about this scene before much longer.

The other heavenly scene is recorded in Revelation chapter 4 verse 8. There the apostle John, exiled on the Island of Patmos for his testimony of the gospel of Christ (Revelation 1: 9), was worshiping on the ‘Lord’s Day.’ And he was shown a vision of heaven with God on the throne and worshippers surrounding Him. The message that was constantly proclaimed ‘day and night’ was ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!’ In both of these scenes the word ‘Holy’ is used three times, in an attempt to convey to man that no man is absolute in this attribute, only God. He isn’t just holy sometimes, or in some of the things that He does. He didn’t receive His holiness from another source. He didn’t learn to be holy either by teaching or by practice. He is holy. Now, men may ignore it, but He is so Holy by His very nature.

NEXT: GOD is holy because He is uniquely different. The word ‘unique’ is used here in its classical meaning, ‘one and only.’ In the visions of Isaiah and John, which we just referenced, there are various figures present, but only One who is on the throne, and that one is God. The book of Deuteronomy is a ‘restatement, or repetition of the law’ and it says this: ‘Therefore, know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord Himself is God in heaven above and on earth beneath; there is no other’ (Deuteronomy 4: 39). Six times in the book of Isaiah God says, ‘I am God and there is no other god.’ And three times, ‘I am the Lord, and there is no other,’ and the two statements appear together once (Isaiah chapter 44 verse 8).

Man has always had his idols. They are innumerable, but there is only one God. That uniqueness is expressed in the language of the two visions that we’ve just cited. Isaiah saw God sitting ‘on the throne...’ Only one can occupy a throne. No other being can be described thusly, my friend. In Revelation the praise rang out, ‘Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!’ God is unique because He is eternal. The concept of ‘holy’ is ‘set apart.’ God is Holy because He is the one and only.

THEN: God is holy in His purity. This is the sense in which most of us use the words holy and holiness, but that’s only one of its meanings. First John 1: 5 says, ‘God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.’ Darkness here refers to evil and the practice of evil. And God is the very opposite of evil; and is opposed to every form of evil. He is absolutely pure. James 1: 13 says, ‘Let no one say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted of evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.’ The Bible affirms, ‘It is impossible for God to lie’ (Hebrews 6: 18). By His very nature God is sinlessly pure, and He simply cannot participate in anything that is evil. Now the practical side of all this for us is that the words of God are pure and holy, therefore they bring a blessing into our lives. The idea that some have, that the Bible is harmful to the full and complete development of the person that we can be, is a gross error, my friend. It can’t be so. Psalm 19: 8 says of God, ‘Your word is very pure; Therefore, Your servant loves it.’ And so, God’s holiness is seen in the fact that He is pure and His purity leads His people to the purity of the word, the Bible.

NEXT: God is holy in His goodness. The apostle Paul encourages us to ‘...consider the goodness...of God’ (Romans 11: 22). And James says to us, ‘Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning’ (James 1: 17). One of the Psalms shouts at us, ‘For the Lord God is a sun and shield; The Lord will give grace and glory; No good thing will be withheld from those who walk uprightly’ (that’s Psalm 84 verse 11) And David in one of his psalms says, ‘How precious is Your loving kindness, O God! Therefore the children of men put their trust in the shadow of Your wings’ (Psalm 36 and 7). God also spoke through the prophet Jeremiah, ‘But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the Lord, exercising loving kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight, says the Lord’ (Jeremiah 9: 24). When asked by one of His disciples, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us,’ Jesus answered, ‘He who has seen Me, has seen the Father’ (John 14: 8-9). We know something of the goodness of God by observing Jesus’ life. And one of the shortest biographies of Jesus is given by the apostle Peter and is recorded in Acts 10: 38. ‘He went about doing good.’

Finally, God is Holy in His justice. When I referenced Romans 11: 22 earlier, I passed over some of the words in that verse in order to emphasize God’s goodness. I’m sure now that some of you noticed it. It was intentional. The full sentence reads, ‘Therefore, consider the goodness and severity of God.’ We studied God’s goodness then, now let’s study His severity. Oh, but some would rather not to think of His holiness as severe judge. Yet, a failure—or may I say, refusal to think of God’s righteous judgment on evil, molds Him into a kind of a god like we think God ought to be like. And that’s idolatry, friend. That’s the kind of a god, well that the devil is in disguise. I know that’s the god that’s being preached and taught in some—well—most places. When we’ve done that, we’ve made Him into a ‘manageable god,’ one that is unable to lift us to any higher than we are able to go without him—or without her (the manageable, people created god—my addition). The goodness of God is seen clearly when it’s viewed in the light of His judgment on evil. God is holy even in His judgments. Psalm 33 and 5, ‘He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord.’ Righteousness and goodness are seen most clearly, not in denial of evil or in tolerance of evil, but in just judgment upon evil. God would not be a Holy God, if He did not render just judgment on evil. Let us pray. Thank you Lord, for your blessings, for your presence with us, for your Holiness. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Even though we’ve all sinned, we can have peace with God through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. But God does command us all, all men everywhere to repent because He will judge the world in righteousness through Jesus Christ (Acts 17: 30). If you haven’t done so, you also need to be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord, as Saul was told to do in Acts 22: 16. Oh no, the water doesn’t wash away our sins. Of course not. It’s the blood of Christ that does that (Revelation 1: 5), when you are baptized into Christ's death then you reach the atoning blood of Jesus Christ and you must go there to reach that blood. Do it soon, will you? God Bless you. It has been a pleasure to have you with us today. Hope you will be back next week. We love you.”

A little further (after saying “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.” in chapter five of the book of Revelation it declares “Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousands times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they sang: ‘Worthy is the Lamb (the LAMB is JESUS, the CHRIST, the SON of GOD—my addition) who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!’

Then I heard every creature in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power for ever and ever!’ The four living creatures said, ‘Amen,’ and the elders fell down and worshiped.” Revelation 5: 11-14 (NIV)

HOLY is the LORD!!! HOLY is HIS SON—JESUS!!! HOLY is the HOLY SPIRIT!!!

Civic Test questions 41 to 60

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

Because of the length of the test, I am dividing it into 3 segments of 20 questions each. See the December 19, 2007 post for an explanation of the origin of the test. The website for it is www.isi.org. Of course, you can take the complete test at that site and they will provide the correct answers.

“Test your knowledge by answering the sixty multiple-choice questions below. You must answer all questions. When you are finished, use the button at the bottom to submit your quiz for scoring. You will be given a score for the number of questions you answered correctly. For those questions you missed, the appropriate answer will be provided. A printable version of the quiz, along with the answers, is available for download for those who register.

41) The major powers at odds with each other in the ‘Cold War’ were the United States and:

 A. Germany.
 B. Iran.
 C. Vietnam.
 D. the Soviet Union.
 E. Poland.

42) How did President Kennedy respond to the Cuban Missile Crisis?

 A. He imposed a naval blockade on Cuba.
 B. He landed Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs.
 C. He sent troops to Cuba to destroy nuclear weapons.
 D. He went to Havana to meet with Fidel Castro.
 E. He ended all diplomatic communications with the Soviet Union.

43) ‘Balance of power’ refers to:

 A. A state that seeks to expand its power generates resistance by other states.
 B. States that are militarily powerful tend to acquire strong allies.
 C. Weaker states tend to ‘join the winner’ in most international conflicts.
 D. Land and sea powers tended to balance one another.
 E. Terrorists conceal their demands and affiliations.

44) The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964) was significant because it:

 A. ended the war in Korea.
 B. gave President Johnson the authority to expand the scope of the Vietnam Conflict.
 C. was an attempt to take foreign policy away from the President.
 D. allowed China to become a member of the United Nations.
 E. allowed for oil exploration in Southeast Asia.

45) Which wall was President Reagan referring to when he said, ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall’?

 A. Kremlin Wall
 B. Wailing Wall
 C. Hadrian’s Wall
 D. Great Wall of China
 E. Berlin Wall

46) Among which of these groups would Saddam Hussein have found his most reliable supporters?

 A. Islamic Brotherhood
 B. Baath Party
 C. Communist Party
 D. Hamas
 E. Israelis

47) The stated United States objective of the 1991 Persian Gulf War was to:

 A. block Soviet expansion in the Middle East.
 B. defend Israel.
 C. overthrow the Iraqi government.
 D. expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
 E. recover control of the Suez Canal.

48) Inflation:

 A. results from an over-abundance of goods and services.
 B. has not been a problem since the Great Depression.
 C. reduces money’s purchasing power even when some prices decrease.
 D. is monitored daily by the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
 E. remains beyond the influence of central banks due to oil price fluctuations.

49) Free enterprise or capitalism exists insofar as:

 A. experts managing the nation’s commerce are appointed by elected officials.
 B. individual citizens create, exchange, and control goods and resources.
 C. charity, philanthropy, and volunteering decrease.
 D. demand and supply are decided through majority vote.
 E. Government implements policies that favor businesses over consumers.

50) Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government’s centralized planning because:

 A. the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends.
 B. markets rely upon coercion, whereas government relies upon voluntary compliance with the law.
 C. more tax revenue can be generated from free enterprise.
 D. property rights and contracts are best enforced by the market system.
 E. government planners are too cautious in spending taxpayers’ money.

51) Which of the following is the best measure of production or output of an economy?

 A. Gross Domestic Product
 B. Consumer Price Index
 C. Unemployment Rate
 D. Prime Rate
 E. Exchange Rate

52) Business profit is:

 A. cost minus revenue.
 B. assets minus liabilities.
 C. revenue minus expenses.
 D. selling price of a stock minus its purchase price.
 E. earnings minus assets.

53) National defense is considered a public good because:

 A. a majority of citizens value it.
 B. a resident can benefit from it without directly paying for it.
 C. military contracts increase employment opportunities.
 D. a majority of citizens support the military during war.
 E. airport security personnel are members of the Federal civil service.

54) Keynesian economists conclude that the recession phase of a business cycle:

 A. involves a lower unemployment rate.
 B. occurs when investment spending crowds out consumer spending.
 C. can be eliminated by government taxing more than it spends.
 D. can be reversed by government spending more than it taxes.
 E. can be reversed with higher interest rates.

55) Over the past forty years, real income among American households has:

 A. remained the same when averaged over all households.
 B. involved the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
 C. involved the poor getting richer and the rich getting poorer.
 D. decreased for the middle class and increased for the upper class.
 E. increased for the lower and middle classes and increased most for the upper class.

56) Why are businesses in two different countries most likely to trade with each other?

 A. They know that although one business will be hurt from trading, the other will be better off, and they both hope to be the winner.
 B. Businesses are unable to sell their products in their own countries.
 C. Each business expects to be better off as a result of the trade.
 D. Their respective governments require them to do so.
 E. The natural resources of both countries are similar.

57) The price of movie tickets has increased. According to the law of supply and demand, what is likely to be the result?

 A. Theaters will sell fewer tickets.
 B. Theaters’ revenues will increase.
 C. The quality of movie theaters will improve.
 D. The number of videos rented will decrease.
 E. Popcorn purchases at theaters will increase.

58) What is a major effect of a purchase of bonds by the Federal Reserve?

 A. A reduction in the supply of common stock.
 B. An increase in the volume of commercial bank loans.
 C. A decrease in the supply of money.
 D. An increase in interest rates.
 E. A decrease in investment spending by businesses.

59) A progressive tax:

 A. encourages more investment from those with higher incomes.
 B. is illustrated by a 6% sales tax.
 C. requires those with higher incomes to pay a higher ratio of taxes to income.
 D. requires every income class to pay the same ratio of taxes to income.
 E. earmarks revenues for poverty reduction.

60) The federal government’s largest pay out over the past twenty years has been for:

 A. military.
 B. social security.
 C. interest on the national debt.
 D. education.
 E. foreign aid.

How did you do? Are you ready to run for Congress? I have not yet taken the test at the website but I hope to soon.

Civic Test, questions 21-40

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

Because of the length of the test, I am dividing it into 3 segments of 20 questions each. See the December 19, 2007 post for an explanation of the origin of the test. The website for it is www.isi.org. Of course, you can take the complete test at that site and they will provide the correct answers.

“Test your knowledge by answering the sixty multiple-choice questions below. You must answer all questions. When you are finished, use the button at the bottom to submit your quiz for scoring. You will be given a score for the number of questions you answered correctly. For those questions you missed, the appropriate answer will be provided. A printable version of the quiz, along with the answers, is available for download for those who register.

21) The Federalist (or The Federalist Papers) was written to:

 A. support ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
 B. oppose ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
 C. support America’s independence from England.
 D. oppose America’s independence from England.
 E. support the Missouri Compromise.

22) The principle of the ‘separation of powers’ suggests that:

 A. legislative, executive, and judicial powers should be dispersed.
 B. government becomes more efficient with division of labor.
 C. there should always be at least two global superpowers.
 D. no single political party should dominate any legislature.
 E. courts should formulate policy during periods of Congressional gridlock.

23) The power of judicial review was established in:

 A. the Constitution.
 B. Marbury v. Madison.
 C. McCulloch v. Maryland.
 D. the Bill of Rights.
 E. a Presidential executive order.

24) What is federalism?

 A. A political party at the time of the Founding.
 B. A set of essays defending the Constitution.
 C. A political system where the national government has ultimate power.
 D. A political system where state and national governments share power.
 E. The belief that America should be unified with a trans-continental railroad.

25) The common law:

 A. was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
 B. is based upon past custom and emerging case law.
 C. was the fundamental law for the Nazis and the Soviets.
 D. is a new form of jurisprudence being tested in Louisiana.
 E. consists of only those statues approved by popular referendum.

26) The Declaration of Independence relies most obviously on the political thought of:

 A. Plato.
 B. Niccolo Machiavelli.
 C. David Hume.
 D. John Locke.
 E. George Hegel.

27) Which statement is a common argument against the claim that ‘man cannot know things’?

 A. Professors teach opinion not knowledge.
 B. Appellate judges do not comprehend social justice.
 C. Consensus belief in a democracy always contains error.
 D. Man trusts his ability to know in order to reject his ability to know.
 E. Social scientists cannot objectively rank cultures.

28) In his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

 A. argued for the abolition of slavery.
 B. advocated black separatism.
 C. morally defended affirmative action.
 D. expressed his hopes for racial justice and brotherhood.
 E. proposed that several of America’s founding ideas were discriminatory.

29) Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would concur that:

 A. all moral and political truth is relative to one’s time and place.
 B. moral ideas are best explained as material accidents or byproducts of evolution.
 C. values originating in one’s conscience cannot be judged by others.
 D. Christianity is the only true religion and should rule the state.
 E. certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason.

30) The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits:

 A. prayer in public schools.
 B. discrimination based on race, sex, or religion.
 C. the ownership of guns by private individuals.
 D. establishing an official religion for the United States.
 E. the President from vetoing a line item in a spending bill.

31) Which author’s view of society is presented correctly?

 A. Edmund Burke argued that society consisted of a union of past, present, and future generations.
 B. Adam Smith argued that the division of labor decreases the wealth of nations.
 C. Alexis de Tocqueville argued that voluntary associations are usually dangerous to society.
 D. Max Weber argued that the Jewish work ethic is central to American capitalism.
 E. John Locke defended the divine right of kings.

32) In 1776, Thomas Paine argued for colonial independence from Britain in:

 A. the Declaration of Independence.
 B. Common Sense.
 C. Novanglus.
 D. A View of the Controversy between Great Britain and Her Colonies.
 E. Letters from a Birmingham Jail.

33) Which of the following is NOT among the official powers of Congress?

 A. To declare war.
 B. To regulate commerce with foreign nations.
 C. To receive ambassadors.
 D. To create courts lower than the Supreme Court.
 E. To approve treaties with foreign nations.

34) The warning to the American people to avoid entangling alliances and involvement in Europe’s wars is found in:

 A. President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address.
 B. President Washington’s Farewell Address.
 C. Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points.
 D. The League of Nations Covenant.
 E. The Treaty of Versailles of 1919.

35) The Monroe Doctrine:

 A. discouraged new colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
 B. proclaimed America’s ‘Manifest Destiny.’
 C. was the earliest recorded agreement between the United States and France.
 D. was America’s response to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.
 E. resolved border disputes among the thirteen colonies.

36) According to the just-war theory, a just war requires which of the following?

 A. Approval of the International Court of Justice.
 B. Endorsement by democratic vote.
 C. A threatening shift in the balance of powers.
 D. The authority of a legitimate sovereign.
 E. That no civilian casualties occur.

37) Which of the following was an alliance to resist Soviet expansion:

 A. United Nations.
 B. League of Nations.
 C. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
 D. Warsaw Pact.
 E. Asian Tigers

38) What kind of government is a junta?

 A. Military.
 B. Religious.
 C. Populist.
 D. Social democratic.
 E. Parliamentarian.

39) The question of why democracy leads to well-ordered government in America when disorder prevails in Europe is central to:

 A. Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia.
 B. Walt Whitman’s Democratic Vistas.
 C. John Adam’s ‘Thoughts on Government.’
 D. Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.
 E. Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.

40) The United Nations was organized in:

 A. 1953 to combat the power of American corporations.
 B. 1945 to promote ‘international organization.’
 C. 1937 to deter the spread of Nazism.
 D. 1968 to pursue nuclear disarmament.
 E. 1961 to curtail global warming.

Civic Test, questions 1-20

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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.libertylegal.org/

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/

http://www.searchtv.org/

Because of the length of the test, I am dividing it into 3 segments of 20 questions each. See the previous post for an explanation of the origin of the test. The website for it is http://www.isi.org/. Of course, you can take the complete test at that site and they will provide the correct answers.

“Test your knowledge by answering the sixty multiple-choice questions below. You must answer all questions. When you are finished, use the button at the bottom to submit your quiz for scoring. You will be given a score for the number of questions you answered correctly. For those questions you missed, the appropriate answer will be provided. A printable version of the quiz, along with the answers, is available for download for those who register.

1) Jamestown, Virginia, was first settled by Europeans during which period?

 A. 1301-1400
 B. 1401-1500
 C. 1501-1600
 D. 1601-1700
 E. 1701-1800

2) The Puritans:

 A. opposed all wars on moral grounds.
 B. stressed the sinfulness of all humanity.
 C. believed in complete religious freedom.
 D. colonized Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young.
 E. were Catholic missionaries escaping religious persecution.

3) The Constitution of the Unite States established what form of government?

 A. Direct democracy
 B. Populism
 C. Indirect democracy
 D. Oligarchy
 E. Aristocracy

4) George Washington’s role in America’s founding is best characterized as:

 A. prudent general and statesman.
 B. influential writer on constitutional principles.
 C. leader of the Massachusetts delegation to the Constitutional congress.
 D. strong advocate for states rights.
 E. social compact theorist.

5) Which battle brought the American Revolution to an end?

 A. Saratoga
 B. Gettysburg
 C. The Alamo
 D. Yorktown
 E. New Orleans

6) Which of the following are unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence?

 A. Life, liberty, and property
 B. Honor, liberty, and peace
 C. Liberty, health, and community
 D. Life, respect, and equal protection
 E. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

7) Which of the following are in correct chronological order?

 A. The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation
 B. Fort Sumter, Gettysburg, Appomattox
 C. Cuban Missile Crisis, Sputnik, Bay of Pigs
 D. Mexican-American War, Louisiana Purchase, Spanish-American War
 E. Prohibition, Boston Tea Party, Reconstruction

8) The phrase that in America there should be a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state appears in:

 A. George Washington’s Farewell Address.
 B. The Mayflower Compact.
 C. the Constitution.
 D. the Declaration of Independence.
 E. Thomas Jefferson’s letters.

9) The War of 1812:

 A. was a decisive victory for the United States over Spain.
 B. was a stalemate.
 C. established America as the leading power in the world.
 D. enhanced Robert E. Lee’s reputation as America’s most talented general.
 E. was confined only to sea battles.

10) The dominant theme in the Lincoln-Douglas debates was:

 A. treatment of Native Americans.
 B. westward expansion.
 C. whether Illinois should become a state.
 D. prohibition.
 E. slavery and its expansion.

11) Abraham Lincoln was elected President during which period?

 A. 1800-1825
 B. 1826-1850
 C. 1851-1875
 D. 1876-1900
 E. 1901-1925

12) In 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a series of government programs that became known as:

 A. The Great Society.
 B. The Square Deal.
 C. The New Deal.
 D. The New Frontier.
 E. Supply-side economics.

13) The struggle between President Andrew Johnson and the Radical Republicans was mainly over:

 A. United States alliances with European nations.
 B. the nature and control of Reconstruction.
 C. the purchase of Alaska.
 D. whether or not to have a tariff.
 E. whether slavery should be allowed in the Federal Territories.

14) During which period was the American Constitution amended to guarantee women the right to vote?

 A. 1850-1875
 B. 1876-1900
 C. 1901-1925
 D. 1926-1950
 E. 1951-1975

15) Which of the following statements is true about abortion?

 A. It was legal in most states in the 1960s.
 B. The Supreme Court struck down most legal restrictions on it in Roe v. Wade.
 C. The Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that underage women most notify their parents of an impending abortion.
 D. The National Organization of Women has lobbied for legal restrictions on it.
 E. It is currently legal only in the cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother.

16) The end of legal racial segregation in United States schools was most directly the result of:

 A. the Civil War.
 B. the Declaration of Independence.
 C. the affirmative action policies of the 1980s.
 D. Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
 E. Miranda v. the State of Arizona.

17) The Manhattan Project developed:

 A. urban enterprise zones.
 B. equipment to decipher enemy codes.
 C. fighter planes.
 D. the Apollo lunar module.
 E. the atomic bomb.

18) The line ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal …’ is from:

 A. The Federalist.
 B. the Preamble to the Constitution.
 C. The Communist Manifesto.
 D. The Declaration of Independence.
 E. an inscription on the Statue of Liberty.

19) In The Republic, Plato points to the desirability of:

 A. tyranny.
 B. democracy.
 C. philosopher kings.
 D. commercial republics.
 E. world government.

20) A ‘representative democracy’ is a form of government in which:

 A. all or most citizens govern directly.
 B. a monarch is elected to represent a people.
 C. citizens exhibit wide ethnic and cultural diversity.
 D. a president’s cabinet is popularly elected.
 E. those elected by the people govern on their behalf.”

How are you doing so far?

Civic Test, anyone?

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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.libertylegal.org/

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/

http://www.searchtv.org/

The following article was written by columnist Cal Thomas and published in the Peoria Journal Star on September 19, 2007, page A4.

“Elite students flunking civics

‘If you can read this, thank a teacher,’ says the bumper sticker. But literacy is more than the ability to read a bumper sticker. It includes the accumulation of basic knowledge combined with a way of thinking that allows an individual to lead a life that is personally productive and contributes to America’s health and welfare.

For the second year in a row, America’s elite universities have failed to rise above a D-plus on tests of basic knowledge about civics and U.S. history, says a study commissioned by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s (ISI) [The article has “Institute’s.” Unless additional material was left out, it should read “Institute” I think—my addition]

In 2005, ISI contracted with the University of Connecticut to administer tests to 14,000 students at 50 top schools, including Yale, Harvard, Cornell, the University of Virginia, Brown and Duke. (Personally, I would give more credence to the results if I knew the methodology used—my addition.) The survey found students ‘were no better off than when they arrived in terms of acquiring knowledge necessary for informed engagement in a democratic republic and global economy.’

America’s most prestigious colleges had the worst scores. Many of the schools that typically rank the highest in popularity scored among the lowest in advancing civic knowledge. Generally, the study found, the higher the ranking by U.S. News and World Report, the lower the rank in civic learning. Since an education at top colleges can cost $40,000 a year, it would appear that those paying the bill are being cheated.

ISI’s report—‘The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education’s Failure to Teach America’s History and Institutions’—presents four key findings:

■ The average college senior knows very little about American history, government, international relations and market economy. (It is easy to accept that this observation is true just by a daily reading of the newspaper. The average reporter and editorial writer know very little about American history, government, international relations and market economy—my addition.) Their average score on the civic literacy test was 53.2 percent. (In my classroom, that was a failing grade not a D-plus—my addition.)

■ Prestige doesn’t pay off. ‘An Ivy League education contributes nothing to a student’s civic learning. … There is no relationship between the cost of attending college and the mastery of America’s history, politics, and economy.’

■ Students don’t learn what colleges don’t teach. ‘Schools where students took or were required to take more courses related to America’s history and institutions,’ says ISI, ‘outperformed those schools where fewer courses were completed.’ (That makes sense. Some students actually learned the material presented!—my addition)

■ Greater civic learning goes hand-in-hand with more active citizenship. ‘Students who demonstrated greater learning of America’s history and its institutions were more engaged in citizenship activities such as voting, volunteer community service and political campaigns.’ The study found that ‘86 percent of the students at the four highest-ranked colleges had exercised their right to vote at least once.’ (How can colleges be expected to teach such courses when they are too busy making sure that teachers who believe in Intelligent Design are denied tenure? Okay there probably isn’t a correlation but I couldn’t resist—my addition.)

Hear are two of the test questions. Even partially informed people who believe American history is a better teacher than fascination and fixation on the latest news about Britney Spears and O.J. Simpson ought to be able to answer them correctly.

1. Which battle brought the American Revolution to an end:

(a) Saratoga
(b) Gettysburg
(c) the Alamo
(d) Yorktown
(e) New Orleans

(Also, which of the two above answers were the only two battles listed that actually occurred during the Revolutionary War—my addition.)

2. Which … is the best measure of production or output of an economy:

(a) Gross Domestic Product
(b) Consumer Price Index
(c) Unemployment rate
(d) Prime rate
(e) exchange rate

(My opinion: If a senior in college can’t answer the above two questions, he shouldn’t be in college. Do you think we should require this test or a similar test to be passed by anyone who is running for an elected public office?)

Everyone should take the test. (The entire 60 multiple choice questions can be found on ISI’s Web site, http://www.isi.org/). [I haven’t seen the test. For my college prep American government and econ classes, my tests consisted of four essay questions which basically asked the student to discuss in detail everything that was taught for that unit. I thought multiply choice questions were too easy for a college prep class—my addition.]

In 1777, John Adams wrote to his son about the importance of education. He said it was necessary to teach the next generation about America’s founding principles in order to preserve the freedom and independence so many of his fellow countrymen sacrificed to achieve. (Do you think this basic lack of knowledge and understanding is why the American people have allowed the Supreme Court to grab power and to slowly over time establish a Courtocracy. Democracy is too much work and it is easier and less messy to allow nine unelected lawyers to decide policy for the nation?—my addition)

Only when we know and embrace those principles can we pass on to a new generation that which we inherited from the past. The ISI study reveals severe cracks in that foundation; cracks that need attention and repair.”

Do you know the answers to the two questions asked? The newspaper did not print the answers. For question 1 the answer is “Yorktown” which was the last major battle of the Revolutionary War although not the last battle. Some armies didn’t know the war had basically ended and were still fighting. The other battle that occurred during the Revolutionary War was the Battle of Saratoga. The answer for question two is “Gross Domestic Product” which should have been easy since it has the question in the answer—production = product.

Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom, part 2

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am 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.libertylegal.org/

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/

http://www.searchtv.org/

Last night I posted material originally posted on May 24th of this year. The last three paragraphs said: What do you think? Of course, based upon the information given, we can not draw a definitive conclusion. But, what do you think? Do you believe he was denied tenure in balance because of his work on Intelligent Design and his publication of The Privileged Planet? (I thought I recognized this title. Lee Strobel in his book The Case for a Creator lists the book The Privileged Planet in his section at the end of Chapter Seven entitled “FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE: More Resources on This Topic”)

Could it be when other scientists, as broadcast by the mass media, claim that no reputable scientist believes in Intelligent Design it is because they have intimidated such scientists into silence and/or they simply refuse to mention those who do because it contradicts their own view point on the subject. Is this another case of the liars shouting down those who disagree? Is this another case of intimidating those who disagree?

Where is the academic freedom that academics claim is so important for learning? If there was real academic freedom, wouldn’t academics push for a plethora of views, rather than only one, attempting to stimulate discussion and honest intellectual debate? What are they afraid of? THE TRUTH!!!

Tonight I am posting an article from World magazine, December 15, 2007, page 30 that seems to confirm that Dr. Gonzalez was indeed denied tenure because of his support for Intelligent Design even though it was fervently denied at the time.

“Smoking Gun
Iowa State denied tenure to an ID-supporting scientist and then tried to cover up why
by Mark Bergin

The message from Iowa State University remains unchanged—namely that last spring’s denial of tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez stemmed from inadequate scholarly credentials, not his favorable view of Intelligent Design.

BUT (my capitalization—my addition) internal university documents and emails (One would think that university personnel would be smart enough not to include any incriminating comments in internal emails—my addition.), recently released in compliance with public records requests, tell a different story. Messages circulated among ISU faculty and administrators reveal hostility toward ID and consequent opposition to Gonzalez. What’s more, these private communications betray an effort to conceal the true reason for denying tenure to an acclaimed scientist.

‘All these emails clearly show that faculty had prejudged my case based entirely on my ID views about a year before the tenure case came down,’ said Gonzalez, whose pioneering work in astronomy has appeared in such prominent journals as Nature, Science, and Scientific American.

With a publishing record that includes 68 peer-reviewed articles and co-authorship of one of his department’s textbooks, Gonzalez was bewildered at his denial of tenure earlier this year. His confusion turned to pain when colleagues and university officials began impugning his academic record to justify their decisions.

Suspecting foul play, the ID-advancing Discovery Institute, of which Gonzalez is a senior fellow, filed public records requests for ISU documents and email pertaining to the case. Initially, the university resisted (Of course—my addition.) complying only after the parties engaged in a game of litigation chicken. Upon receiving the documents, the Seattle-based institute hoped to submit them to the Iowa Board of Regents as part of an appeal in the tenure case. BUT (my capitalization—my addition) the Board of Regents refused to consider them (Of course—my addition.), driving Gonzalez to go public ‘to repair my professional academic reputation.’ (Do they care who they vilify to protect the unscientific concepts they fight so hard to continually cram down the throats of the American people?—my addition.)

An independent source, the Des Moines Register, also filed a public records request and went public with the documents two days before the Discovery Institute press conference on Dec. 3. The newspaper reached a similar conclusion to Gonzalez, calling the material in the emails ‘contrary to what ISU officials emphasized’ last spring.

Indeed, one 2005 email from physics and astronomy professor Bruce Harmon states that Gonzalez ‘is claiming ID is a proper branch of science, and so I think he opens it up in his tenure consideration. I would have thought an intelligent person would have at least kept quiet until after tenure.’ (Is that because tenure is more important than the truth to this professor?—my addition)

Dozens of other messages mock Gonzalez and his ID work, lumping him with ‘idiots’ and ‘religious nutcases.’ (And yet some University gave him a Ph.D. degree—isn’t it amazing the name calling these “intellectuals” resort to—my addition.) Others reveal a plan within the department to release an anti-ID petition meant to ‘discredit’ Gonzalez. That petition fizzled after astronomy professor Steve Kawaler warned ‘it could be used to justify a legal claim of a hostile work environment’ (Duh!!! Do you think so?—my addition) and it ‘work directly against our need to ensure and display a fair tenure review.’ (In my opinion based on what I have read and know about those who oppose the belief that GOD created the universe, what he really means is ‘it works directly against our need to ensure and display a(n) (APPEARANCE of a—my addition and capitalization) fair tenure review.’)

In response to Kawaler, physics professor John Clem wrote that he agreed with not publishing the petition for fear that it might help Gonzalez get tenure: ‘As for the unfortunate publicity we are receiving and the embarrassment we feel as a department, I think the best policy is to just grin and bear it for the next couple of years.’

Physics and Astronomy Department chair Eli Rosenberg, who was included on several pejorative emails regarding Gonzalez and ID, appealed to such departmental bias in his recommendation to faculty that they vote against tenure: ‘The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.’

With such clear anti-ID motivation still secret this past May, Rosenberg insisted in an interview with World that ID ‘was not an overriding factor in the decision that was made at the departmental level.’ (This is a quote from the original May 26, 2007 World article: “But Eli Rosenberg, chair of the Physics and Astronomy Department, told WORLD the central issue was not ID: ‘That was not an overriding factor in the decision that was made at the departmental level. You take a look at somebody’s research record over the six-year probationary period and you get a sense whether this is a strong case. Clearly, this was a case that looked like it might be in trouble.’”—my addition)

University spokesman John McCarroll, who was present during Rosenberg’s explanation to World, says he cannot add to those comments. McCarroll also stands by the statement last spring from ISU president Gregory Geoffroy, who did not cite ID among the several performance-based factors he considered in deny Gonzalez’s initial appeal. (Who are they trying to kid? Themselves? Deny it to the end even when you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar! Isn’t that what you learned as a child? I can’t possibly have done wrong! I’m always the good guy! And these people are responsible for educating our future leaders!!! Of course, many still deny that murdering unborn babies is evil. What can one expect from people who deny the existence of and CREATIVE POWER of GOD???—my addition)

The Iowa Board of Regents has yet to rule on Gonzalez’s final appeal and will not convene again until February. (I would not count on them to reverse the previous decision—my addition.) ‘My chances of staying here now are pretty slim,’ the soft-spoken astronomer conceded. ‘But I need to clear my name.’”

Our academia at work!!! No wonder more and more people do not trust public education at any level.