Archive for the ‘Faith’ Category

Answers to quotes by famous atheists and agnostics

January 26, 2014

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” -Gene Roddenberry

My reply ==> We must question the irrational logic of someone admitting to being a faulty human, who then fails to wonder why an omniscient and omnipotent God would create him, as if it made no sense to him. Of course it makes no sense to him, as he does not want to consider the answers to this question that he would know exist if he were to only have an open mind.

We must question the intellectual honesty of someone who wants to blame a Creator for his own decision to be faulty in his logic.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” -Edward Gibbon

My reply ==> An amazingly historically ignorant comment coming from such a historian, who must know that all of the major areas of study of modern science were men much wiser than he, and who believed in the Creator God as a fact of reality not always concomitant with what the ignorant know as “religion”. Let us see who is wiser among: Gibbons, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle…

So does Gibbon determine truth by a majority vote of the smarter-than-thou elite, selected by degree of hubris? Sounds kind of “useful” for such an arrogant class.

Speaking of the wise, take it from the wisest man who ever lived, outside of Jesus Christ:
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise
Isaiah 5:21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus

This from one of those brilliant idol-worshipping scholars of ancient Greece? No wonder they believed in pagan gods that were no better than men, said women were lower than men but higher than slaves. They were so smart. Just like today’s version of the same intellectual smugness:

Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” Albert Einstein

That sounds like the common protestation that “I’m not so bad”, or the very wrong commonly cited myth that “All people are basically good”. Look at toddlers in a day care. Some bigger ones walk around biting the others (I know two toddlers personally that were bitten, hard, unprovoked, while they were toddlers in day care). Some are born aggressive, others not so much. Jacob and Esau fought in the womb; Jacob emerged grabbing at Esau’s feet.

The best universal guide for ethical behavior does not need so much of any of what Einstein said. It’s a universal rule that has been expressed in many different ways everywhere even outside of Judeo-Christian philosophies, and that is expressed in the libertarian refrain, known as the non-aggression principle:

See the best definition at http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression:

…an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

This much can be expected and indeed required of everyone. As a college student, my first disillusion with Marxism was a realization that came to me one day while musing on the issue of how to change the world for better, and wrestling with the self-contradictions of a dictatorship and the proletariat and the idea that a state would just fade away.

The idea that burst into my head was this: If you cannot trust a man, or group of men, to govern themselves, how can you trust them to govern other people? Of course some people you cannot trust with either situation, to either govern themselves or to govern others, and this is one of the biggest questions people have. Such questions have their answers, for those who seek them or accept them.

There is a much stronger ethic required of Christians, however. One of the Ten Commandments orders us to “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. No, you don’t have to “love yourself first”, that is the opposite of the principle, because “no man yet ever hated his own flesh”.

Jesus made it stronger still in the Golden Rule, paraphrased as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The non-aggression principle, for example, says you have no right to steal from the poor. The Christian ethic says, take care of the poor that come across your path. That also means you don’t steal from others to do it, because the only legitimate source you have for helping others is what’s your own. In other words, Help the poor with your own money, not somebody else’s money.

Okay? If you don’t want anyone to steal from you, then don’t steal from others. Taking without the owner’s permission is stealing. To “steal”: “to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch”. from http://dictionary.reference.com/.

Andrew Napolitano clarified that last point. If you don’t have the right to steal from your neighbor, you cannot designate any representative to steal from your neighbor either.

NOW THE SECOND ISSUE FROM THE EINSTEIN QUOTE:
THE WAY OF MAN IS ALREADY THE “POOR WAY”

“….Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” -Albert Einstein

The elephant in the logical room that Einstein missed is the fact that all men everywhere are already “restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”. Is Einstein saying that he needs neither government nor self-defense to prevent attacks or theft by his neighbors? In the places where people are most conscious of posthumous rewards and punishments, of course, we already know that those selfsame places are where you have less need to lock your doors.

Did Einstein’s actions match his words? No he did not. Because he was visiting in the United States when Hitler came to power in Germany, and Hitler did not go back. Instead, he opted to live in a society where the regime did not embrace such a philosophy. For when the atheist has power, he does not believe in having to answer for his actions here or there, so self-delusion drives them to force everyone else into their box.

 

//

Aliens, Michael Crichton, and Faster Than Light

July 25, 2013
American author and speaker Michael Crichton s...

American author and speaker Michael Crichton speaking at Harvard. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

An reaction to comments by a UFO researcher:

 

THE LEAP TO ALIENS

 

The leap from “I am matter and ..matter is made from energy” and what should be the self-evident fact of “consciousness …separate from my physical matter self”, to a galaxy replete with alien sentient beings has a great logic void gap. Nothing connects the dots, there’s no testable theory there about how you get from point A to point B. Personal experience, as subjective as it often is, has its evidentiary worth, but it’s not enough for that.

 

The flying machine you say you saw (I do believe it) “could be ..human made”. But you offer no reason to say it could not be a human technology.

 

Now some human inventions in my opinion have been divinely inspired by God himself, such as the Guttenberg press, which accelerated the pace of knowledge sharing, and the Internet, with its potential, to which God no doubt blinded some of the NWO dictatorship operatives, in the fulfillment of Daniel 12:4, that “knowledge shall be increased” in the “time of the end”.

 

I have no formed opinion on crop circles and don’t know enough about then that isn’t from sources I can trust on the matter. Some ufology sources have useful information, but some of those have misinformation on other matters, so I won’t discuss them for that reason.

 

There is of course the elephant in the room when we discuss “higher intelligence” and extraterrestrial life, and “alien ancestry”, and that is God himself, the Creator of the universe, and the host of angels that serve him and the smaller number of demons (aka “fallen angels”) that fight him.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

MICHAEL CRICHTON

 

As to Michael Crichton, he is much less a cretin than some of the examples of the ufologists and Drake equations fans I’ve come across. A friend introduced me to a UFO magazine once, and you could have changed the cover on it to say New Age Superstition and it would be hard to tell the difference.

 

SETI, favorite charity of Carl Sagan, was founded by Mr. Drake, he of the Drake Equation. Crichton totally unmasked the formula as pure blind faith.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

FASTER THAN LIGHT

 

That this is something to consider is valid. Einstein is not God, and special relativity is not Holy Writ. His cousin (and wife) had to even help him with the math of it, no doubt. Quantum physics even introduces a mechanism for a truly “free will” to enter into physics equations if they’ll deign to let a divine foot in the door. We shall see whether that works. Don’t hold your breath.

 

Quantum entanglement experiments have shown that there is something interacting with what we can measure that communicates at an apparently (to us) “infinite” speed, meaning instantly.

 

I was in college at the end of the 1960s, and was fascinated by some of the areas of scientific study that scientists seemed panicked about researching for fear of ridicule I suppose, or maybe feeling ridiculous. They shunned studies of telepathy-related phenomena. This led me to wonder about other things, including prophecy, which led me to the Bible as an unbeliever, and eventually with other considerations to a Bible believer, based on facts, science, history, prophetic fulfillment, and other things that pointed to that direction.

 

I may look at some of your links but my time is divided and limited so no promises, but the above will show you what I have found not only through personal experience but through careful study, and the testimony of science and history.

 

 

Answers to the same old tired anti-theist arguments against the Bible

June 4, 2013
Dawkins: Debates Make us Look Bad

Dawkins: Debates Make us Look Bad (Photo credit: Templestream)

[Editor's note: My replies to a comment on another blog post was much too long to handle piecemeal with quotes or to leave as a comment, so I have copied the visitor's comment to here and placed my replies  in-line within brackets.

It is something I would usually post on my sister blog http://www.truebook.wordpress.com where I address Biblical, doctrinal and related issues such as atheism, but since the original discussion grew from a previous posting in this blog, it therefore goes here...

NOTE: Quotes from Commenter "Cluttered Mind" are in normal text and left-margin aligned, while my comments are indented and bracketed and in red bolded font]

(Mr. “Cluttered Mind” says:)

It is interesting that out of the entire library of information on evolution you picked out the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis–which is not supported by the majority of evolutionary biologist–in an attempt to prove your point. If you wish to claim that evolution is not supported by science (which it is no matter where your beliefs lay, they don’t change the facts) then we only need to look as far as a few examples.

ME: [Punctuated Equilibrium
has always been the answer that darwinians use. in forums where I've been. to retort the fact that the "fossil records" testify against darwinism. It is the only hard physical evidence of the history of life on earth, the only hard forensics evidence, and the evidence Stephen Gould offers for it is that the only thing paleontologists find in the fossils is STASIS. There is no darwinism in the record. There is only evidence of change within what paleontologists call "forms", and what many Creationists call "kinds".

Yeah, Dawkins rejects it, so what is
Dawkins left with? The only physical evidence there os
contradicts his claim (and Cluttered's claimed "majority"
vote biologists' claim) gradual change from kind to kind,
there are no bones showing change from "form" to form

Below next Mr. Confused does what I've warned about before
and passed right over my comment that farmers have been
doing the same degrees of changes with their animals for
6,000 years! No Creationist in the world makes claims that
animal kinds like finches never vary in the wild in beak
length. This is like arguing that high-jumpers can reach the
moon just because one of them jumps higher than the other
one.]

The Lizards of Pod Mrcaru. A species of lizard named Podarcis sicula, which enjoys an insect based diet, occupies an islet in the Mediterranean called Pod Kopiste. In 1971 a group of experimenters transported five pairs of these lizards to the neighboring islet Pod Mrcaru where none of these lizards were found. In 2008 another group of scientist visited the islet of Pod Mrcaru. The scientist found a flourishing population of lizards which DNA analysis confirmed to be Podarcis sicula. Not only did these lizards flourish, but they showed a variety of changes in their biological figures. Due to the lack of insects on Pod Mrcaru, these groups of Podarcis sicula were forced to live off a vegetarian diet. This new diet caused their bodies to adjust in different ways. Their heads increased in size: longer, wider, and taller. This change accompanies a vegetarian diet due to the increase in strength needed to grind plant cells which are stiffened with cellulose. Another intriguing change in the Pod Mrcaru Podarcis sicula is the development of a valve called a Caecal valve. In many carnivores this valve is connected to the Caecum; a gut that houses bacteria, acting like a fermentation chamber allowing the vegetarian food to be more easily digested. These changes were only represented around nineteen generations.

[And there is a "theistic
evolutionist" who once claimed in another forum that he had
bred fruit flies to acquire a test for blood. He said he gave
it up when they started wanting his
blood. So what? Mountain lions eat wild grass as some 5
percent of their diet. Animals of all kinds were originally
vegetarian in the Garden anyway.


Adaptability was part of the original Creation. Creation
scientists pointed this out long before Darwin was a gleam in
his father's eye.


In fact, "natural selection" was a term
invented by a Creationist for they way created kinds adapt
to their natural environment
.]

I have a feeling that this will not be a good enough example for you, as your beliefs seem to be set in stone.

[If my beliefs were "set in
stone", I would not have become a darwinist atheist in the
first place after years in government-controlled high school
and college, or might have been stuck in la-la land of
Darwinism thereafter. Einstein said ""The important thing is not to stop questioning" and I didn't]

….If you would like another interesting example (I hope that you are at least open minded enough to research this and learn a little bit about it) search for Lenski’s E-Coli evolutionary experiment. That is an experiment that involves forty-five thousand generations of evolution in the lab (where you stated it never happened before). If you wish to look for any type of blind faith to ridicule, you only need to look as far as your own bible. There is not one shred of evidence for any supernatural myth proclaimed in the bible…

[I once believed this
generality myself, but there is absolutely not one shred of
evidence to disprove anything in the Bible, Darwinian and
pagan origins myths included, but Bible-deniers have been
embarrassed time after time by discoveries, especially by
archaeology, with evidence for much of what was attacked
specifically. There is a long list of counter-evidence to the
should superstitious myths of Darwinians and anti-theists that
fooled so many of us so long, where their theories say
"somehow.." but should read "And then a miracle happens",
like: #1.spontaneous bio-generation (life from non-life),
#2.the statistically impossible confluence of physical
constants that constitute the "anthropic principle",
#3."inflation", #4.quasar-galaxy red shift "anomalies",
#5.upside-down geology strata, #6.polonium halos, #7.the
fossil record. Just to name a few of the many more.]

…If you wish to deny evolution then I sure hope you do not go to the doctors to receive vaccines. Evolution is a proven theory, you can close your eyes and cover your ears all you want, it does not make you correct.

[Are you willing to match your
own research with your words? Creation scientists have been
yelling at the anti-theist scientists for decades that
organisms are designed to modify themselves, down to
the genome. It's finally begun to sink in, but don't expect
the overlords of entrenched Establishment Academia to admit
who got there first, but recent discoveries in epigenetics has
given the bio-geneticists fits, one of them anguished because
now they have to rewrite everything. (Besides, it's still
E-Coli. No proto-jellyfish, no proto-coral, no-proto anything
but E-Coli.)

Okay, so uncover your eyes now. I repeated the research on
this:

#1. Bacterial 'Evolution' Is Actually Design in Action. (Read
the whole thing for better understanding of the actual
experiment where the real science is):
http://www.icr.org/article/7083/

In 2010, biochemist Michael Behe
reviewed 12 new phenotypes, which are outward expressions
of genetic coding, that Lenski's E. coli
displayed from 1994 to 2008.2 Behe categorized
the known genetics producing each new bacterial phenotype
as either losing, shuffling, or gaining what he called
"functional coded elements," which include genes and gene
promoters. All the known changes in the bacteria were
either a loss or reorganization of pre-existing functional
coded elements. None of the new phenotypes came from a
gain of functional coded elements, and yet this is what
molecules-to-man evolution requires.

....

Therefore, not only did the Cit+
bacteria not evolve in the molecules-to-man direction, but
they showed what could only be ingenious DNA rearrangement
mechanisms. What mainstream headlines portrayed as
evidence for evolution is actually the opposite.3

So, all they did was breed E coli like a
dog breeder wins competitions. Yada yada. It's like using the
human immune system as evidence that rats evolve into humans.
The human body creates thousands, maybe millions, of white
cells with different genetic expressions to look for cellular
invaders to attack. When an infection occurs, it does this a
whole lot more, an automatic genetic experiment to try to find
the key that will unlock the door to kill the invaders.

#2. "No fruit fly evolution even after 600 generations":
http://www.icr.org/article/5779/....]

I want to now address some of your other claims in your original post:

“We are told that when we share our faith and speak out loud we are hating others.”

Yes, when your religion preaches hate any morally decent person would speak out against it….

[...Opinions about morality are
just that.... Telling me I hate somebody because I warn him
about behavior I see as harmful is love, not hate. But I
wasn't even talking specifically there about LBGT. You said
this without knowing square one of what I think. Stereotypes
and using the word "hate" are covers for Pavloved unthinking
reactions...]

Spewing that LBGT individuals don’t deserve rights (or as the Westboro Baptist church members like to proclaim—and one can argue that they are more faithful then you to their holy book—that they should be slaughtered).

[You using the Westboro group
against ME is an example of an unthinking hateful reaction. And
you don't know anything about interpreting the holy book, You
like to say there's a bunch of different interpretation in one
day, and then claim to tell me what it means another day!]

…I guarantee if a Muslim individual stood up above a crowd of others he/she would be would be treated with abhorrence. Just because you think that your religion is the one that is true does not abstain you from criticism.

[Just because you think my
religion is wrong you are not immune either, but it's an
irrelevant point to what we're talking about. The blog started
as information about who is doing the bullying in the United
States of America today.

There are about a dozen Muslims who would also disagree with
your guarantee as relates to me. At one place I worked with a
very "fundamentalist" Muslim and we agreed that we had
more in common than most of the people around us. We shared
our faith with each other in great politeness, and it was a
much more respectful discussion than either of us has usually
gotten from atheists, we both agreed.

That young boy was quoted as saying he felt bullied just
because somebody prayed. I felt bullied in government school
when a teacher taught that the my faith was wrong]

“We are told that a five-year old kindergarten student is expelled for SILENTLY bowing his head in prayer over every meal in one place (where they had to be forced to apologize to the parents by legal action).”

Can you provide a source? I can’t seem to find any evidence of this happening anywhere.

[It was a long time ago and I
haven't found it but there are lots of similar incidents.

The incident I
referred to was in St. Louis, and reported on radio by one
who works with such attacks on religious freedom across
the country. It's easy to find ongoing examples of the
same thing in a search, though:

12 Students Suspended for Praying at School:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/12-students-suspended-for-praying-at-school-26130/
Of course it is still a far ways to go compared to the
brutal treatment of Christians and others at the hand of
atheists and radical Islamic regimes in the 20th century
and 21st.

But there are ominous precursors...

Nevertheless, in cases of suppression of religion
in schools, universities, and the public square so-called,
there are so many cases that even the ACLU has a big and
growing list where they have defended Christians:
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

Where Christians rightfully should object
to the ACLU perspective is when they take the religious establishment
clause and use it to support an official anti-religious
establishment
.


Duh. There is a Reader's Digest story from 1954 that I
remember reading that I now cannot find anywhere without
paying them a charge for a reprint, --if-- it's even
available. The article is real, and referred to a then-recent
experiment with prayer and plants growing. But I can't find it
on the Internet.

Anti-theists once said that there was no Assyrian Empire, it
was just a Biblical myth. No evidence for it anywhere. (Until
they found it).

Today's new generation of reporters do not think a five-year
old getting suspension for praying silently in one school is
much of a story.

Two months ago, many people thought Christian and conservative
groups were "paranoid" for claiming that the government was
treating them unequally under the law.

The mainstream "trusted name in news" trotted out a parade of
voices that said there was no "evidence" of this.]

“We are told that the money we pay in taxes or that our employers or where we buy from have to pay in taxes to support teachings that tell our children that their religion is wrong.”

I highly doubt teachers are going from class to class in schools hunting for children with religious parents (to call a child a Christian child is wrong, not child abuse, but wrong; let the child decide for themselves what they wish to believe) only to preach to them that their religion is wrong. If they are doing this then they should face consequences for it. The separation of church and state clearly states why religious institutions should not live within government programs.

“We are told that our Bible is racist, misogynist, genocidal, and that our fellow believers in the past were too.”

Only true ignorance can explain why an individual would believe it is not these things.

[You are steeped in true
ignorance.

The fact is, racism, mistreatment of women, genocide are
prohibited in the Bible. The "stranger" from other lands was
to be treated with great respect.

For example, you cannot use the example of Abraham apparently
offering Isaac up, for example, to say the Bible promotes
child sacrifice. The story itself, and especially in context,
shows that God is VERY MUCH AGAINST child sacrifice.

Mr. Confused then lists a bunch of verses that he probably
found an a militantly anti-theist web site. Of course, just
like Muslim-haters pulling certain verses out of the Koran and
feeding them to people that know little about it, to tilt the
apparent "evidence". Too many Christians blindly follow this
tilt, and "Christian Zionists" are th worst.

I haven't read the Koran in its entirety so cannot say that
the Koran more supports this or that. Many Muslims contradict
the Western propaganda that it supports total war against the
whole world at all times. What I concern myself with is their
action.]

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

[If you ignore context, especially the
context of the whole Bible, distorts understanding.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Verse 21, for example, provides context for verse 22 in Ephesians
5, and for 1 Timothy 2 as well:

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one
to another in the fear of God.

22
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands,
as unto the Lord.

Women in the Bible have led the nation of Israel,

Judges
4:4
And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife
of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
--She also led them in battle.

In a visit by Paul who wrote the letter to Timothy, he was
confronted also by four daughters who prophesied and joined
their father in warning him against going to Jerusalem:

Acts 21:9 And the same man had four
daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Paul elsewhere praises godly women leaders in the churches.


Do you hate your body? You are to love your wife as you do
your own body.
Epthesians 5:28 So
ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
loveth his wife loveth himself.

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

So we see that in the Bible...

#1.women have led the Israelites,

#2.kings at times sent for counsel to a prophetess,

#3. in the latter days daughters shall prophesy,

#4.men are to love their wives like Jesus loves the church and gave his life for
it, that

#5.four daughters that prophesied were there warning Paul against a trip,

#6. Women were the ones who first discovered that Christ had risen, a little girl was the first to announce that Peter had been released from prison, a misogynist scripture in those days would never have given them such credit.

#7...AND, to the same young man Timothy, Paul himself praised
his mother and his grandmother for teaching him so well in the
faith:

2 Timothy 1:5 I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also" (2 Timothy 1:5).

And after Bible days...

#8.Christians had respect to women, in contrast to patriarchal Roman culture in which men almost literally owned their wives and families, and to the Greek culture that held that women had a worth in the middle between men and slaves.

#9.St. Patrick's followers established monasteries where often a woman was the leader, because he was all Jesus and all scripture all the time, and loved the Irish as himself. This was in contrast to the Roman hierarchical clergy that locked out women of the most important spiritual leadership roles.

#10.It should be remembered in fairness that it was a Queen Elizabeth in the protestant England who led the country during the time that the Spanish Armada met its disastrous defeat, and even the King of Spain had to say that God himself had fought against them that day...]

“This is what the Lord Almighty says… ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

[One of my favorite verses for the point about context. To read the Bible leading up to this verse, it shows how backwards you can get a meaning or the
significance of a verse when you take it out of context, like Peter said about Paul's writing, "to their own destruction".

The Amalekites had attacked Israel on at least two previous
occasions, something mentioned even in the same chapter if you
had actually read the chapter to find out.

The Hebrews were commanded to leave all the women and children
alive whenever they took a town or an area of the country at
that time. That's something left out of those atheist web
sites that condemn Christianity (based on what morality, it's
hard to tell, since their philosophy says there is no
morality-law-giver).

On at least two occasions in the Bible before the time of
Elijah, the Amalekites had attacked the Israelites, even after
the Israelites had left their women and children alive,
as commanded when told to take over these lands. However, they
were so wicked that the women raised those children to again
attack them.

They may have even been planning another war against Israel
when Samuel got this message. It would be consistent with
other times Israel fought. Later on, the Syrian king is
frustrated because the king in Jerusalem got prophetic warning
whenever he was planning on attacking.

BUT since Saul did NOT obey and wipe them all out, and some
escaped, most likely the queen and the king's son, because the
Amalekites show up later yet again and almost succeed in
wiping out the entire number of Jews throughout the Persian
Empire, at the hand of the wicked Haman, who is identified as an
"Agagite". An Agagite,  descendant of the wicked King
Agag of the Amalekites.]

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

[Yes, these were the witches of those days like the ones that still today in many lands, who knew the tricks and recipes to cook up poisons, take power over other people by stealth and enchantments, and foor a price do great harm to somebody. In Israel it also always went together with pagan rites, child sacrifice, secret intrigues, and of course there is always plenty of fraud. 

It is seen as working in lands where people generally believe in it. In the 21st century, it stays mostly hidden from the innocent because it still carries some social stigma. The stigma is rapidly diminishing, though, to the hurt of our society.

For example, Hitler was a big follower of such occult practices, and his SS was top to bottom a priesthood of witchcraft.

Generally it does not work on believing Christians, to the consternation of practitioners and the demons they invoke, as one former Satanist has said. In the lands where people generally don't believe the devil exists, he is
more than happy to oblige by staying in the shadows.

My daughters saw this in action in Honduras more than once. A
girl who pointed at a pencil and moved it like John Travolta's
character in Phenomenon, and after she split with a boyfriend,
on a dare, had him begging for a redo.

...And another tech colleague from Cameroon whose family is
split between sorcerers and Christians, and who hates
Halloween for its celebration of real things.]

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

[There you go taking verses from a list without checking, that remove context
to contradict the intended meaning. This was a specific prophecy against
the enemies of God that was fulfilled the night of the Handwriting on the Wall in Daniel:

Psalm 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

This is also another example of the Biblical law:  You reap what you sow]

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

[Yeah, do you want one very old man to go out there and take on the entire bunch of thugs? Not for nothing that the anti-theists leave out what happened
next. He stayed alive so these thugs could get their due punishment as a lesson for the rest of this wicked tribe.

That was the tribe of Benjamin, and they had forsaken
the laws of God and fallen into violence and wickedness, like
the present violent USA.

So the old man went home and sent messages to all the other
tribes about what those wicked men had done. All the tribes
had a meeting and they demanded that the Benjamites punish the
thugs. Benjamin's tribal elders refused to punish them. Now,
with the entire tribe exposed as equally guilty, they fought
the Benjamites and of course in the end it was capital
punishment for them.

What would you have done?

I knew one brother who came home mutilated once because a gang
of five approached his female partner (in witnessing) to rape
her. He got the verse in a quick prayer, "He teacheth my hands
to war", and fought them off so she could get away.

What would you have done?]

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

[Romans 1:27 is a warning you of the
consequences of your own actions is
love,
not hate. Hate is when you slander the messenger because you
hate the message. I tell you socialism makes poor people even
more poor, you can't tell me I hate you if you're a socialist.
If a person hears a warning given in the spirit of love, if
it's in the spirit of love or concern, or a sincere warning,
and reacts with anger, or hate. or accusations of hate like an
adolescent to his well-meaning parents, this shows a spirit of
guilt, meaning the reaction shows a knowledge of being in the
wrong.

Every Christian voice of any significance at all in the United States has denounced the Westboro gang. 

Some church-ites do live up to the self-righteous stereotypes. But that's an attitude I've seen very common among atheists as well, who get snotty-nosed and uppity about how much smarter they are than dumb brute Christians. And then although they have no independent external basis for any morality themselves, get so self-righteous indignant about sins of Christians, while saying that the truly massively brutal regimes of official atheists don't count.

Like Christopher Hitchens blaming the mass murders in the officially atheist regimes of Lenin and Stalin and Mao, and blaming Christianity! Can you believe that!

 Westboro cannot get more than two or three dozen people to follow them, and most of them seem to be  from the same family. They are literally shunned by Christians.

Atheists don't like mentions of Stalin and Mao's mass murders but they love to bring up the Westboro gang. That shows they do not believe in treating others
with the same respect they demand, or that they see the world with warped lenses. I once suffered the same sight impairment.

John 15:22   If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.]

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

[This is the one story that best shows that God HATES child sacrifice. 

Christians are the babies' best defense against the brutal, atrocious barbaric practices in
today's aborticide centers.

The operative word in Gen. 22:2 is "offer", as in "offer him
there", NOT "sacrifice him there".

In literally HUNDREDS of verses God promises the harshest
judgment against this pagan practice of sacrificing children
"to the fire", denouncing worship of Molech, a pagan god of the day for whom
they built idols with fires inside for babies.

Proving that atheists often do have moral sensibilities, many
atheists are horrified over today's baby-killing fields.]

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

[This is already answered
above. In context, Paul also wrote that husbands and wives
should submit themselves to each other. In the verse just
before it, 21, he wrote that everyone in the church should
submit one to another.

"One flesh" doesn't mean one arm beating up the other arm, it
means taking care of it.

In the context of the culture of the times, too, it seems that
in some churches there were some women from the Pharisaical
traditions, and from the very misogynistic Greeks, and
even Romans, and others, that they went wild with the freedom
they had in Christ, like the mother-in-law in Corinth that
seduced her own son-in-law and he went bragging about it.
That's where you get Paul's harshest words about women.

Another point. In government and even other schools we learned
a bit about St. Patrick. I talk about his life elsewhere. His
followers in Ireland went on to establish monasteries that
saturated the island in the years following his mission. Most
of those monasteries were famliies living together. And a
great many of them were led by women "shepherdesses", or pastors.

The missionary work I was privileged to work with is also now
led by a woman. Very strange, in officially atheist lands I
can't think of one woman dictator (they're all dictators of
course).]

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

[That very bad verse comes not from the actual Bible but from one of
the worst plagues on Christiandom of the 20th and 21st
centuries, and that is, COUNTERFEIT BIBLES.

Here is the real genuine verse from the Holy Bible,  the Authorized Version", also known as the King James Bible, although he only authorized it and refused to let it be named it after himself:

1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with
all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the
froward.

Note it's "SERVANTS" not "slaves". Translators
of the modern English language "versions" of the Bible (1)
use the abominable Westcott-Hort-compiled corrupted
Gnosticized Alexandrian Greek manuscripts and codexes for
their "translation" base, (2) they use Greek lexicons
based on the work of Hitler's "Christian spiritual
adviser" Gerard Kittel, and (3) many of them are graduates
of Ivy-League Divinity or Theology Departments where the
dean hates the Bible just like Westcott and Hort did, and
the students are almost any kind of thinking besides Bible
believing.

There is nothing on the entire planet,
in fact, that has done more to eradicate slavery, than
Christians. Thank God that it succeeded among Western
nations earlier than the time Darwin's book hit the
bookstores, because slavery having been shamed into infamy
by the Christian abolitionists.

After all, Darwinism gave strong
impetus to the Jim Crow laws, forced segregation, and
oppression, and later to eugenics. Pygmy Ota Benga was kept
in a zoo. Congolese rebels are even eating Pygmies, saying
they are "animals".

That's the other stupidity that
creeped in from counterfeit "Bibles", using the words for
"holy race" instead of "holy seed". If the Israelites and
Jews of David's day and Jesus' day were a holy "race", then
they were a "mongrel" race, because in their veins flowed
the blood of not only Jacob, but blood of Joseph's Egyptian
daughters, Ruth the Moabitess, Rahab the Jericho prostitute,
Ammonites, Edomites, Hittites, and all kinds of "races",
brought together by the word of God.
]

To conclude, here are some helpful links to information about evolution. I hope you sincerely take the time to research the topic; it is quite enlightening, much more than a burning bush.

[Of course I not only have
researched it from both sides for decades, there was a time
when I was not so educated in the subject, not as convinced
you might say, that I picked up a book at a clearance sale
thinking it was a Creation science book, but I was
very glad to find out it was a collection of articles and
essays that were compiled as the best effort to "prove
evolution".


I was a little nervous about reading the article by Isaac
Asimov, but his arguments against Creationism were ridiculous.
He struck down arguments from authority for example, that
Creation scientists never ever use in debates. In fact,
Darwinists that do debates seem to always want to argue about
religion, while Creation scientists keep bringing them back to
science.


That book clinched the issue for me forever, though. It
was an experience like, "Is that the best you got?!?!"


In fact the editor, Ashley Montague, said he got the idea
for the book after being totally embarrassed after a debate
with a Creation scientist. He didn't say it that way, but it
was obvious.


So now, a Darwinian that gets a challenge to a debate
with neutral rules, will usually curl up his nose and act
snottier than the snootiest British royal of old and refuse to
"stoop" so low.]

….

[The rest of it is links to anti-Creation web sites.

[
Note that from Darwinists you will never get the whole
story. Creation scientists would actually like to see
more
teaching of the facts that relate to the "general theory of
evolution", including facts they always leave out.]

This one is about misconceptions about evolution, probably the most important link in my reply; it even touches on your punctuated evolution claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

[Note that from Darwinists you will never get the whole
story. Creation scientists would actually like to see
more
teaching of the facts that relate to the "general theory of
evolution", including facts they always leave out.]

Of the misconceptions propagated on anti-creation web sites, some are completely ridiculous, some are reasonable, some of their criticisms of some the assertions we already agree with because we already agree with them and they do not contradict Creation even if talkorigins thinks it does. Also, anti-creationists love to find straw man arguments and ad hominems that are easier to take on, instead of truly addressing the scientific origins issues actually raised by Creation science

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

[The so-called "evidence" for darwinian human origins theories has been refuted ad infinitum by science and Creation scientists, often with excuses for the lack of evidence, and plenty of fairy tales to fill in the gaps, as in the symbolic digital coded nature of the DNA code, the origins of life, the lack of any forensic example or even as much as an artificial breeding on scales higher than "kinds" or "forms", the lack of addressing the objections to the pre-hominid constructions, the ongoing insertion of Hoeckel's frauds into textbooks, Pasteur's experiments proving that life can only come from life, on and on it goes.

Instead they offer some facts always with language that imposes the theory overlaid on those facts, a circular circus that's enough to make you dizzy. Using variation within kinds as "proof" of variation from kind to kind.]

A video from Jerry Coyne on evidence for evolution. Get passed the heathen Richard Dawkins’ introduction.

[Dawkins' militancy is a ball and chain around the neck of anti-creationists, a vestigial shadow of the brutal atheist regimes of the 20th century. He calls creationists insane, and says letting them teach it to their children is "child abuse" (his words). He even wants to restart the conversation about eugenics. Oh, but Darwinism has nothing to do with racism, eh?]

Here is a link where one can find answers to many or most of the talk-origins claims about Creation science:
http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

In fact, many of the talk-origins web pages have been changed after their refutations appeared on the Creation wiki, They were so obvious.

Here is a list where those who are really interested can find out more actual real-world science, mostly relating to the subject of origins:

http://www.icr.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationtoday.org/
http://www.kenthovindblog.com/?page_id=399
http://www.creationtoday.org/
http://www.creationscienceevangelism.com/

You can a bunch of free videos here. They are free downloads, and they are even free to copy to distribute I think, as long as you don’t charge for them; the copyright is meant to protect that:
http://freehovind.com/index

<…….>

One student prays, atheist claims “religious bullying”. Poor thing, let me count the ways…

May 29, 2013
English: Isaac Newton Dansk: Sir Isaac Newton ...

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (Credit: Wikipedia)

KJV Bible

KJV Bible (Credit: knowhimonline)

Here’s the link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/28/atheist-graduation-prayer-its-religious-bullying/

Poor guy, right. The anthropic principle, inverted fossil strata, polystrate fossils, the very long list of quotes from darwinian believer scientists that call evolution a “fairy tale for adults”, a “scam”, that it does not meet the traditional requirements of “the scientific method, these are all robbed from the texts, thrown out with God from inside. Students get failing grades on papers for believing the Bible on origins, for believing the Bible on homosexuality, for believing the Bible on history.

Isaac Newton is even bullied and his reasons for doing science are not allowed in a science class. What he thought about science and what it proved are not allowed. What Isaac Newton thought was his most important work is not allowed.

I’ve been subjected to more religious bullying for being a Bible-believing Christian in one day than this kid will ever get in his lifetime for being atheist, take it to the bank. One place was so bad, where they put me and three other contractors in one conference room. One New Yorker and a Russian played one-up-joke tag on me when the topic came up –mind you I never push when somebody’s not interested but I do reply even some flippant questions when asked.

I just pointed out one day how it was officially atheist regimes that had done more mass genocide in one century than all the monotheistic regimes in history combined. And pointed to Hitler‘s reference to a religion that was so dangerous that they had to kill them all. (And he did point to the religion, and he said Christianity was the “bastard stepchild” of Judaism and he would wipe it out too).

The other guy I think was Jewish and must have gotten so offended at those guys that he must have told somebody, because the development manager delivered a strong rebuke and warning. It slowed down but never stopped.

We are told we cannot set up in front of a government-funded school that teaches that our religion is wrong.

We are told that we cannot thank our God for our blessings.

We are told that a five-year old kindergarten student is expelled for SILENTLY bowing his head in prayer over every meal in one place (where they had to be forced to apologize to the parents by legal action).

We are told that the money we pay in taxes or that our employers or where we buy from have to pay in taxes to support teachings that tell our children that their religion is wrong.

We are told that when we share our faith and speak out loud we are hating others.

We are told that our Bible is racist, misogynist, genocidal, and that our fellow believers in the past were too.

We cannot escape the news feeds that tell us every stupid insult against Christians that proselytizers of militant anti-theism like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens can think of, epithets of stupidity, ignorance, and dangerous they say. Therefore, they say, it is a form of child abuse to teach our children what we believe.

We are subjected to the most ridiculous and idiotic “theories” of history than no historian believes and whose purpose it is to tell more lies about Christ and Christianity.

And we are the bullyers? Hello? What’s next? They’ll accuse us of war crimes because Christopher Hitchens said Christianity was to blame for the mass genocides of atheists like Mao Tse Tung and Josef Stalin??

Who are the insane ones here?

Jeremiah 2:27

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

 

International corporate juggernauts

May 27, 2013
George Soros, billionaire

George Soros, billionaire (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

A “return back to international corporate juggernauts” does not deserve the revisionist history heaped upon it. People’s real incomes increased leaps and bounds from 1850 to 1900 in the USA, before a faction of “international corporate juggernauts” began to yell about those (other) “international corporate juggernauts” and “we have to stop them!” and they started passing laws to stop those (other) “international corporate juggernauts”.

 

Except, of course, they told us they were “one of us” and they were “helping” us stop those (other) “international corporate juggernauts”. Pay no attention to billionaire George Soros‘ billions, he’s “helping” us by financing “Obama“, please don’t look at the money, pay attention to the rhetoric please.

 

“Right wing” and “left wing” are from the Doublespeak dictionary from this particular subset of a faction of “international corporate juggernauts”.

 

The de-salination machine example is good for the illustration of the principle. The “real-world” counter-example of state-funded technology development is an illustration of stealing your money to give it to somebody, but the greatest advantages of recent centuries have been from private initiatives. The telegraph, the steam engine, the telephone, radio, telescope, movable print, vacuum tubes, microchips, cell phones, plastics, air conditioning, the PC, all these things were developed with private initiatives, not the state. The state wastes valuable resources that could be used for production, diverting them to political priorities, or the whims of the guy who likes using money confiscated from your pocket for his own whims. “Scientific” or not. Haha. Like studying whether monkeys get high on marijuana. Thank you, but no refunds.

 

The libertarian philosophy does not consider state funding as “free market” friendly because it is theft from somebody else. Lower taxes only means the state bosses are stealing less money from you.

 

Forcing you to hire somebody at more than minimum wage is neither “free market” nor “fair”. A free market of labor gives the teenager and the less-intelligent among us a chance to work for a living and contribute to production. The minimum wage tells him to go pound sand. Don’t worry, we’ll steal it from somebody else and we’ll pay you to sit on your fanny. Or we’ll steal it from somebody else who might have paid you more, so we can “subsidize” your pay.

Learn more at mises.org….

 

“Death with dignity” or “Useless Eaters”? Power and paternalism says “Go ahead and die!”

May 27, 2013

The title to the article found at the following link is a propaganda piece itself and a tendentious accusation, and the author is not stupid. She KNOWS that it is not true, because without even checking other articles, we know that she accuses pro-lifers of religious motivation. I don’t know, maybe she switches personalities depending on the issue. Her title: “Assisted dying isn’t contested on religious grounds – it’s about power, paternalism and control”.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/assisted-dying-isnt-contested-religious-grounds-its-about-power-paternalism-and-con

On that site, they claim that the lay people of almost all religious self-identifying persuasions favor “assisted suicide”, and they point out that the clergy and other leaders oppose. They love to use a majority opinion when it suits their purpose, while saying a judge is “legally” correct in pointing out that a poll majority is no basis for law, they immediately contradict the concession by making it still sound like an elite imposition on the majority.

Polls have lost credibility a long, long time ago. Especially for making any argument for anything. I have been polled myself. The wording of the question, asking leading “questions” to change the mind of the respondent. They inflicted the same question upon me in three different ways in that poll. The “surveyor” only stopped because I stopped the questioning. They assured me my answers would count anyway.

Did they count my responses in their “results”? I’ll never know, and neither will you. The results of that poll were publicized in the obvious direction the pollsters were supposed to evoke, but they are usually useless. They certainly are real arguments for nothing at all. “Approval ratings” are also bogus, believable only when there isn’t too much at stake. Not only useless, they are in essence frauds meant to play with the public mind. Propaganda tools.

I do not have a big clergy salary or position, work as easily reporting to woman bosses as to men bosses, I hate control as a mostly anarcho-capitalist  libertarian, and I don’t think anybody should have cultural sanction to kill another person. That’s finality in the control category, killing somebody, and that’s exactly the problem that inflicts so many PATHOLOGICAL killers. No emotion at killing somebody.

Now we have advocates of “mercy” killing.  They do not deny their emotions, but here comes the “for your own good” rationale beating down on common sense.

Oh, but that stage is maybe to follow. The powers that be that are pushing this theme are not yet going to admit that their real goal is the elimination of what Hitler called “useless eaters”. For now it’s a “compassionate” [sic] concern for the desires of the suffering.

For now, they say they only want to “help” those who are of “sound mind” who want to go. Presumably who also suffer from terminal disease. That’s their main argument anyway.

Kid you not. “Help them” die instead of talking them out of suicide. Hello? Rational logic calling! Come back!

In this “Brave New World” drowning in drugs and the commercialization of pleasure and hedonist philosophies, instead of improving techniques for improving the lives of the suffering, they want you to think of just letting them die. What a psych trick to say “Death with dignity” rather than a “poor quality of life”. There is no “dignity” in either killing yourself, and there is a lot less dignity in helping someone you say you love to kill themselves. Or instead of talking them out of it, nod your head, knowing that it is your partner’s pride that does not want to be dependent for life.

The compassionate thing is to make them know that their lives are important to you, making them know that they are more useful to you alive than dead.

(Meantime, many of the same powers that be advocate dependency on strangers from government for the poor).

Not the new twist in the psych of that title. They added a new Doublespeak to the Newspeak dictionary, calling it “assisted dying” instead of “assisted suicide”. Suicide has a bad name. Suicide is a bad name. That’s because suicide is a very bad thing.

If you kill somebody else, it’s called murder. If you kill yourself instead, that’s called suicide. To some people that makes all the difference. But it is still somebody killing somebody. If it’s bad to kill somebody, it’s bad to encourage them or help them kill themselves.

But in the real world of rational discussion, the thing that makes it bad for somebody to be killed at the hand of another, is just as tragic a death if somebody is killed at their own hand.

The worst aspect of this is the degenerate drop of moral pretense here. While arguing in moral terms, the Powers That Be that want this expose themselves in that they show that they care not about life over death. They have other plans for you.

This is Pandora’s box. Their game is over, their gig is up, it’s going to start winding down. There will be some blowback from the Powers That Be that want to hold the power of life and death over the rest of us. People are beginning to wake up to their oppression, in spite of their tendency to hide in the shadows and behind secret societies, old boys’ networks and the like.

This paternalistic ruling clique wants us to believe that we the people have demanded the “right” to kill ourselves and get a doctor to turn upside down help us die instead of help us live. But there is a twist to this, just like with a “woman’s right to choose”. With a “woman’s right to choose”, it really becomes an invitation for a man’s “right to choose”.

A few women do jump into hedonistic behaviors and abortion is their “safety” net for avoiding motherhood (so they’ve been told). But nature tells them in the back of the mind and in the region of the heart that having a baby in the womb makes them a mother. The desire is there and the “Silent No More” movement of women who publicly confess and denounce their own abortions is a demonstration of this, along with the fact shown in surveys of the symptoms of post-abortion syndrome.

In one pro-abortion movie, in fact, it made light humor of one young girl bragging that she had told FIVE different guys that it was their baby so she could get the money not only for the abortion but a trip to Hawaii. Real funny.

A few women do jump into hedonistic behaviors and abortion is their “safety” net for avoiding babyhood (so they’ve been told). But surveys have shown that in the majority of cases, the women “choosing” abortion did it under pressure of a father, a mother, an uncle, or the boyfriend.

So it is a lie that abortion is simply a “choice” for women. It has made them more vulnerable to the demands of men, in fact. It has added pressure for them to approach sexuality in the same way as men. The long-term blowback is felt by the older feminists who yearn for motherhood. Connie Chung is one of the most famous of these, not exactly a “feminist”, but one who bought into the myth that a woman could have a fulfilling career same as a man without the naggings of motherhood. Too late, she sought motherhood. It is not paternalistic to understand this.

Denying your nature, denying who you are, denying the physical and natural testimony of your physiology, this is not a simple matter of “choice” or “law” or “decree”.

There is one more road to hell here, whether you want to think it’s paved with good intentions or not.

In a moral society, we expect doctors to heal us when we’re sick, alleviate our pain, and help us avoid death as much as possible. Doctors enter the profession with this orientation in mind. Part of the horrors of the Axis powers during World War II was the turning of this on its head. Medical knowledge was applied to death instead.

To legalize this will end the universal expectation of doctors. Some have already been indoctrinated by the fact of death in the baby-killing business, as in the Gosnell case in Philadelphia. Not even playing the race card saved him from the horrified reaction even from the partial-birth abortion advocates. Unsaid in the coverage was the fact that now President Obama uttered one of his few voiced opinions in the Illinois State Senate against strengthening the penalties for the kind of things that Gosnell did as a matter of course.

May God save us from this pro-death propaganda. That’s what it is.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: - Deuteronomy 30:19

 

 

The Surveillance State Comes to a School Near You in Common Core

May 23, 2013

Data Mining Students Through Common Core:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/15213-data-mining-students-through-common-core

This gives new meanings to the government “Total Awareness” databases. Remember, that was the name the Pentagon gave to one of their cyber initiatives, meant to gather information from the entire Internet for whatever purpose they had in mind for it, wink wink.

They must be getting tired of letting free speech exercise blow the cover off their different operations for taking over our lives.

They will use new technology to even track the students’ facial expressions, seat posture, and other physiological data to track them, and some of the documents suggest some “predictive” software. “Precognizing” behavior.

Within the February report, the DOE displayed photographs of the actual technology that will be used on students, if the department’s plan is fully implemented. What they call the “four parallel streams of affective sensors” will be employed to effectively “measure” each child. The “facial expression camera,” for instance, “is a device that can be used to detect emotion…. The camera captures facial expressions, and software on the laptop extracts geometric properties on faces.” Other devices, such as the “posture analysis seat,” “pressure mouse,” and “wireless skin conductance sensor,” which looks like a wide, black bracelet strapped to a child’s wrist, are all designed to collect “physiological response data from a biofeedback apparatus that measures blood volume, pulse, and galvanic skin response to examine student frustration.”

In an attempt to assuage such fears regarding students’ privacy, the February report stated the following:

Privacy is always a concern, especially when leveraging data available in the “cloud” that users may or may not be aware is being mined. However, another emergent concern is the consequences of using new types of personal data in new ways. Learners and educators have the potential to get forms of feedback about their behaviors, emotions, physiological responses, and cognitive processes that have never been available before. Measurement developers must carefully consider the impacts of releasing such data, sometimes of a sensitive nature.

Even when using their most eloquent language to sell us the product, the DOE’s explanation is more disturbing than comforting. They openly admit that students under Common Core will be poked and prodded for information of a “sensitive nature.” But what specifically is this information?

They plan to track what their own public documents say is “sensitive” information. I guess since these standards were done with Bill Gates money, after Bill Gates’ comments about reducing population growth by the use of universal vaccination, maybe they would have a worry about “sensitivity”:

In 2010, the National Center for Education Statistics released a technical brief about “Guidance for Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS),” which formulated a detailed plan for “data stewardship” in education. The SLDS created a grant program in 2005, each grant lasting three to five years at up to $20 million per grantee. In 2012, a combination of 24 states and territories struck a deal to implement data mining to receive grants. “Personally Identifiable Information” will be extracted from each student, which will include the following data: parents’ names, address, Social Security Number, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name, etc. On the other hand, according to the SLDS brief, “Sensitive Information” will also be extracted, which delves into the intimate details of students’ lives:

1. Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or parent;

2. Mental and psychological problems of the student or the student’s family;

3. Sex behavior or attitudes;

4. Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, and demeaning behavior;

5. Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;

6. Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers;

7. Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent; or

8. Income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program).

The United States is supposedly a republic. Did parents demand all this from their representatives? Did the people demand it? Did they write letters to the editor even asking pretty please will somebody prod, poke and measure our kids and watch them and track their behavior –by individual– to form a national database so our benevolent authorities can make sure they learn to be good little compliant citizens?

Jesus Christ said the truth shall make you free. Better to know the truth, because it is misguided to trust in a delusion of freedom or trust in the label of “democracy” or “majority vote”.

I finally see the difference. Everybody universally has an environment that limits their choices and that even means the most powerful worldwide cliques. If some such group had no limitations they would simply announce themselves and tell us they rule us, like Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, wrote they should.

The rest of us don’t have their power or resources, but we can have the truth if we want it. Or at least a “love for the truth”. And the truth makes us free, because we are much less likely to be deluded by strangers’ promises and pleas to trust them.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

“Christian Right” and “Christian Left”

May 21, 2013

Jesus said to heal the sick, comfort the broken-hearted, set the captives free. The “fundamentalist Christian Right” have been doing this for 2,000 years WITHOUT STEALING A SINGLE DIME BY THE FORCE OF THE GUN OF THE LAW. You do NOT get ANY moral credit for sending IRS agents out by the thousands to make sure you TAKE WITHOUT SPECIFIC PERMISSION all the stuff you use for “good” things. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The Neo-cons and “Christian Zionists” –Pharisees of this generation– indeed have left off following the Two Greatest Commandments, following Israel into denying what Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh to the Father but by me”. Jesus said this to the same Pharisee sect that today gets special privilege in Israel –founded by godless, SECULAR and socialist Zionists, by the way.

Neither the Christian Media Establishment of today, NOR the leftist Sojourner-type Establishment Christians, are following Christ’s teachings. One is into stealing from their neighbors in the name of the sacred “majority vote” for the WARfare state, the other is into stealing from their neighbors in the name of the sacred “majority vote” for the WELfare state, and the only true recipients of all this largess in the end is either the military-industrial complex on the one hand, or the government-media-corporate complex on the other.

While they give out crumbs to keep the poor happy (crumbs they steal from the middle class) and cry “Let them eat cake!” in the imperial capital of D.C., they swear allegiance to both the “safety net” and the Constitution. But there is no safety net except for the winners in the wheeling and dealing in our Imperial occupiers’ capital.

Along come people making off with the “Christian” label who obviously do not care to “search the Scriptures, to see if these things be so”.

These are the “Christians” who see the robbery victim on the side of the road and pass by. Instead of carrying the poor guy to the inn and promising “I” will repay like the Good Samaritan, they rob the next guy to come along to pay for the first guy. Good innovators with good ideas and good business ethics like Tucker are left in ruins because they expose the whole sordid fraud of “welfare”.

While the cold-hearted “religious right” pours out tithes and of their abundance to get there first after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Andrew and around the world to help the helpless, the oh-so-warm-hearted caring “liberals” are very liberal with their NEIGHBOR’s fruits of somebody Else’s labor, stealing as much as it takes to “help” rich politicians get richer off the backs of the poor man’s vote. They want even more –like Ron Paul said it– so they can “steal from the poor in rich countries to give to the rich in poor countries”, and call it “helping”.

And until Ron Paul, not many people paid attention to the money changers who are committing Grand Theft Inflation, robbing the resources right out from under the housewife’s grocery money to spend it on their own interests.

If you can only get your money by stealing it in taxes (taking without asking) or by printing money (exchanging your dollar’s value for a dollar of less value without having to bother getting shot back like the BURGLAR they are), then you are NOT obeying Christ, you are leaving the poor guy on the side of the road for a good Christian SAMARITAN like in the story Jesus told or David Livingston or Mother Theresa to help undo your damage to the poor.

Ron Paul's blimp

Ron Paul’s blimp (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Found at lewrockwell.com and elsewhere, news and commentary roundup

May 19, 2013

It should be no secret to the people that read this blog regularly, but http://lewrockwell.com is an almost daily stop for me, with new insights and revelations from behind the scenes about current events, from an independent liberty-minded thinker’s perspective:

I may or may not own a gun, but for those who do, or who are considering:

Mini/Pocket 9mm Pistols for Concealed Carry:
http://lewrockwell.com/rep4/mini-9mm-concealed-carry.html

Real Men Wear Red: Sportsmen Who Choose To Wear the Colour Are More Likely To Be Winners Because They Are ‘Dressing To Kill’:
http://lewrockwell.com/spl5/real-men-wear-red.html

Evidence for Confiscation: 5 Examples That Show the Threat Is Real by S.H. Blannelberry:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig14/blannelberry11.1.html

There was a news conference by the targets of the IRS witch-hunt. Make no mistake that’s what it was. It’s not just the keyword searches for putting the applications behind the rest of them. There were some that were not from any “tea party” or “patriot” names, but “American Grizzlies”? And how about that keyword “constitution”? Are neutral officials –ahem, “neutral”– somehow allergic to the United States Constitution? How about the groups with the name “Christian” in them?

The story of Gary Johnston, a retired police officer from Kingston, Tenn., seemed to typify the abuse suffered by many rank-and-file tea party members at the hands of the IRS.

Johnston told WND he put together a small tea party group in 2009 and had no plans to file for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) organization. But the IRS told him he had to do it. So, he first filled out a 19 page questionnaire in March of 2010. In August, the IRS sent him another form with 22 more questions, and embedded within those were another 60 questions.

“A lot of the questions struck me as strange,” Johnston said.

“Intrusive, terrible questions. They wanted to know any and every email that’s ever come to us or sent by us, personal or private, that might be construed to be political. They wanted to know everybody that was coming to our meetings, if we charged money, who donated, what the donations were. They wanted to know everything about our personal lives and our families’ personal lives — anyone in our family that might be politically connected.”

What sort of personal information did the IRS want to know?

“They wanted to know who we were affiliated with, what we did, what we aspired to do, what positions we might run for politically. They were asking questions that you could not answer, but could trap you.”

Did they ask you anything about reading material?

“Oh, yes, they asked any and all literature that you’ve ever had disseminated or had sent to you; anything that’s ever been written about you; anything you’ve ever written on a blog or to a newspaper. They asked me for outlines of what I’ve been reading, you could call that a book report. They asked what we were really trying to accomplish. It went on and on and on.”

After 70 days of filling out all sorts of intrusive documents, Johnston finally consulted a CPA and tax attorney. He said the attorney took one look at the material and said, “What did you do to upset the IRS? You’ve made somebody angry. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. 80 percent of this is illegal. They can’t ask you this stuff.”

She advised Johnston not to respond to many of the questions and not provide the IRS with much of the material it had requested. The IRS then sent him a form with another 40 questions, including some of the same questions he had refused to answer earlier.

Then Johnston’s group started getting “a lot of calls from the IRS.”

“These IRS agents who were calling us were apologetic. They were saying ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry. … I’m with you guys, I have to do this. This is part of my job.’”

Johnston said their bosses, at the Cincinnati office, “were telling them they have to do this.”

The witch hunt was executed by the IRS against the targeted groups. Why did they think they could get away with this?

And that’s not all. Look at the way the IRS treated Dr. James Dobson‘s application for Family Talk:

“Ms. Medley did not call back until March 19. Family Talk Action’s attorney asked her when the IRS would issue its determination letter. Ms. Medley responded saying, I don’t think your Form 1024 (application for exemption) will be granted because Family Talk Action is ‘not educational’ because it does not present all views. She continued, saying that Family Talk Action sounded like a ‘partisan right-wing group’ because, according to Ms. Medley, it only presents conservative viewpoints. She then added, ‘you’re political’ because you ‘criticized President Obama, who was a candidate.’” [Ed: So WHAT
if it presented issues from their point of view? They all
do, and the IRS has routinely approved the left-wing
groups over the years with much worse bias!]

The organization said it had submitted sample radio programs after the IRS had demanded them, although none was aired during an election year.

“It was the opinion of Family Talk Action’s legal counsel that these samples were not only 501(c)(4) qualified but 501(c)(3) qualified,” the statement said.

“Family Talk Action’s legal counsel had never heard an IRS agent express biased statements like those he heard during the March 19 call. He also felt that the this agent did not understand the difference between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities,” the report said.

Not educational because it “doesn’t present all views”? Oh yeah? How about all the multitude of 501c4 AND 501(c)(3) entities it routinely approves that only present leftist and anti-Christian views, like Media Matters and others?

Oh, and what did the Big “O” say he’s going to do about it? He’s going to put a stop to this because it’s important that Americans “understand and believe that the IRS” is fair. Oh yeah, except this episode shows it’s NOT fair. How about it’s important to follow the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution?

So who is he going to put in jail over this for abuse of power? Anybody?

Look, does the Socialist Workers Party get the third degree grilling, send us all of your emails you ever got or sent? What an uproar that would be right? How about from the unions?

It’s not a “small cadre” of a couple of “rogue agents”. It looks like it was ALL the conservative groups that had any of those “suspicious” keywords in their names!

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/lawmakers-demand-jailtime-for-irs-scandal/

According to Fox News, an internal timeline by the inspector general’s office revealed the IRS began looking at tea party and “patriot” groups as early as 2010, shortly after Obamacare was passed.

However, in 2011 the organizations scrutinized were expanded to include groups focused on government debt and spending, taxes and education on “ways to make America a better place to live” as well as those who criticized “how the country is being run.”

In early 2012, the IRS expanded the list even further to include groups that were educating people on the Constitution and Bill of Rights and involved in limiting/expanding government.

Gardner told WND that among the multiple conservative groups targeted by the IRS was at least one group from Colorado.

The group, which is asking that its name be kept private for now, applied for 501(c)(4) status and had its application illegally released to the public during the application process, which is a clear violation of federal law.

“The information on their application was confidential and the IRS was required by law to treat it as such, yet that information was leaked to ProPublica,” Gardner said. “Who’s to say the IRS didn’t give out confidential donor information either? This confirms people’s worst beliefs about government overbearance.”

They’re demanding health records from medical organizations, too:

Yeah, just apologize and that’s it? We put a muzzle on the voices of tens of thousands of Americans, and tilted the election to an administration that expands the Patriot Act, confiscates two months of emails and reports from a press organization (a leftist one even!) to catch a whistleblower supposedly, tells the man in charge in Tripoli second to the late Ambassador he’d better muzzle himself instead of testify to events, covers up the truth about events that left four people to die in an attack that could have been avoided. And refuses to give up the prerogative (it’s not a “right”) to kill any American the President fingers as a threat. And under whom even the Pentagon is now claiming the power to kill Americans and control them under certain conditions.

And nobody goes to jail? Watergate was a LOT less than all this, and people went to prison. Hello?

And Holder, after treating the Congress with such contempt and stonewalling on Fast and Furious, and to this day refusing to release relevant documents, and even bald-faced punishing the whistleblowers of Fast and Furious, he rebukes Congress for incivility and lack of respect?!
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/hot-tempered-holder-lashes-out-in-defiance/

And yet another one:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/irs-rejected-group-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/?cat_orig=politics

(BREITBART) The IRS scandal of targeting tea party or conservative organizations grew deeper Wednesday with the revelation that the agency denied tax-exempt status to a pro-life organization because of its hypothetical opposition of Planned Parenthood.

The Thomas Moore Society, a public interest law firm announced that one of their clients was told that their approval as a non-profit was conditioned on a commitment not to protest outside Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.

>>>>

Whattaya know, now they tell us there was a “suicide note” inside that boat in Boston? How convenient. All of a sudden they “found” an admissible “confession”? And how convenient that the “suspect”, umm, “shot himself” in the throat? Now he can’t yell something like “I’m a patsy!” like Lee Harvey Oswald did…

>>>>>

In another story, McClatchy newspapers are quoting ” two anonymous government officials”:

CAIRO — In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

What American official in such a land would report in a “still secret memorandum” that he had security concerns, and then turn down military offers of more security? And then go to the city where other states had pulled completely out? Why would any official do that? This thing does NOT pass the “fishy smell” test:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZi_gIJnEZc

There is something else going on there. Presuming, just for the sake of argument, that it’s true, the big question is indeed WHY? The Embassy had just reported that they could NOT defend the compound in Benghazi, and they needed “additional security upgrades”.

Note, this is some anonymous somebody’s recollection of somebody else’s phone call. Stevens can no longer tell his side of that phone call, ey?

The next three paragraphs from the McClatchy report are interesting because they seem to be an example of “Does. Not. Compute.” Or maybe post-facto C. Y. A.:

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.

“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

But further on, this “report” seems to come back down to Earth:

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who has been among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on Benghazi. “The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

Senator Lindsay Graham is not my favorite politician, being an advocate as he is for shredding the US Constitution. But note that the Embassy had made repeated security requests and were denied, not by the military brass, but by the State Department in Washington, D.C.

Maybe this is the military brass doing its own CYA “not my fault” public relations effort, true or not. I can believe it, of course. But there are more questions raised in this McClatchy report than answers.

(1) WHO GAVE THE ORDER to the military security team in Tripoli to stand down instead of moving to help defend the Americans under attack?

(2) WHO in the D.C. State Department hierarchy turned down the request for better security in Libya? How high did that decision go? How high does it usually go?

(3) AT THIS POINT, what difference does it make? (This has been answered but it’s good to keep it in mind).

(4) If the important thing is to make sure it doesn’t happen again, then why is the Administration trying to make sure the people they work for don’t even know what happened?

(5) It the important thing is to track down those responsible for this and administer appropriate measures on them, then why are those responsible –already even publicly identified– publicly walking around as free men, and the State Department knowing where they ar

English: Anti-United States Internal Revenue S...

English: Anti-United States Internal Revenue Service symbol. Commonly used by tax protesters and tax reform advocates in the United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

?

(6) The acting head of the diplomatic mission in Libya described the situation to the Secretary of State, we now know, finally from his own mouth to Congress. So WHY did Clinton, and Susan Rice (who reports to her), and don’t forget OBAMA himself, repeat so often that this was a spontaneous demonstration and blame a VIDEO?

(7) WHY IS SOMEBODY WHO MADE A VIDEO STILL IN PRISON? DID SOMEBODY SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION?

The Crusades, Terrorism and the Middle East

April 28, 2013

The Crusades were an effort to take BACK by force that which had been taken by FORCE by Islamic conquest.
Wars are brutal and what’s missed in that is (1) the Crusades were opposed by many Christians of the day, including (2) St. Francis of Assisi, who brokered a peace between the two sides on one occasion.

The Inquisition was run by a *political* hierarchy that used the name of Christ for cover, just as today in the West the most vile of corrupt rulers use “democracy” as a cover, and a tyrannical Hugo Chavez used “majority vote” –and even God– as a cover (never mind the fraud).

How can anybody call the Inquisition period a “Christian” thing when a central issue was to BAN THE BIBLE AND BURN ITS ADVOCATES as witches? An identity thief can call himself anything. Kris Kringle or Santa Clause by any other lying name, no matter how much you paint lipstick on that pig.

Recently one Anders Behring Breivik shot 77 peaceful –and unarmed– campers dead in Norway (the first one was the only one armed security man) had advocated “Christian” culture on his web site. As soon as they saw the word “Christian”, CNN ran a feed at the bottom of the screen for hours on end, days, that said “Christian fundamentalist” — a criminally negligent and slanderous accusation against a great number of peaceful Christian fundamentalists. Because on the same web site where they got the word “Christian”, the shooter said that he did NOT believe the Bible and he did NOT believe in Jesus. CNN shows itself again to be “fundamentally” bigoted against the name of Jesus Christ.

It is also a sign of truncated thinking and anti-Christ bigotry to equate Christian and Islamic holy books or actions. Even militant Islamists –as they are painted in the Western media image of them–are no doubt offended at this irrational equivalency-by-monotonous-repetition equivalency meme. Atheists who do not have the need to invent such contortions, are appalled by this too. The worst horrors of history were done by officially and enforced atheist regimes that banned all religious faiths from any public expression.

In one of them, both the central figure (Christ) laid down his life to the death for unbelievers at the beginning, and millions of his followers have done the same since. In the other, the founding figure laid down the lives of unbelievers at the beginning, and 100s of thousands, maybe millions, of his followers have done the same thing since.

Most Muslims want to live in peace, and support their families. I have cultivated close friendship with Muslim co-workers, and we have talked about the principles of our faiths without even raising our voices. Many Muslims risk beheading for accepting Jesus Christ as risen Savior and many Christians risk beheading in many parts of the world for being Christians.

“Terrorism” is a very broad category of tactics used by small groups to leverage such tactics where the proponent is otherwise weak in power.We see the “blowback principle” take effect when the people targeted by such actions become enraged.

The unconstitutional undeclared “war against terrorism” was a Newspeak tactic to propel the U.S.A. and the world into a permanent state of war. All the easier to take away the “freedoms” that “they” supposedly hate us for. It all too easily expands into asking the subjects of the rulers to tell authorities about anybody who “hates the government”. We have seen this movie before.

Michael Scherer said it well, something like, They’re not over here because we’re free to enjoy a few beers at night, they don’t like us bombing and invading them. Nobody can accuse Mr. Scherer of gullibility. He was the head of the team that sought Osama bin Laden all those years and set it up for the next team to find him. I doubt he is portrayed in the Hollywood movie about the search.

He has explained many times in media interviews the established principle of “blowback”, a term often used within the CIA for such a phenomenon, where your actions have reactions. This is *NOT* a “blaming America” thing.

Who decided to bomb and invade over there? Was there ever any debate in Congress, as constitutionally required in the U.S., about a declaration of war? Was it “America”, or was it America’s rulers?

Was there ever a debate in Congress over whether to declare war on Libya? Or did America’s *rulers” decide to send in military force (Special Forces) on the ground while denying it? When the “rebels” began losing, who decided to bomb the crap out of Libyan government forces?

There were lots of talking heads that declared Gaddafi was murdering civilians. But the best evidence of massacre of civilians are the pictures of the town that is no more, obliterated, its inhabitants wiped out and “cleansed”, that the entire town of Tawarga.

It’s not that the murderers who perpetrated this racist atrocity hid anything. They bragged about it, they bragged that they were not going to let it rebuild, they bragged about wiping out the 10,000 black-skinned Africans who built it up. Towarga burning:

Tawarga

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/9/13/1315935037109/Tawarga-007.jpg

Frightened Towarga refugee:

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/0htpsTF05giTNhHVHP.hzQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MjA7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-07-09T193740Z_924251231_GM1E87A0A1601_RTRMADP_3_LIBYA-POLITICS-DISPLACED-TAWARGA.JPG


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers