This contest is a little different - I am trying to vary areas of expertise so more people will have a chance to win.
This week, the subject is MOVIES. Please look at this photo (from my personal collection of original classic Hollywood photos) and tell me:
1) Who is this star (that's easy)
2) What is the name of the movie this scene is from
3) What are the names of her two co-stars (both female)
4) What year was this movie produced
First correct guess wins a HotKarz shirt.
Good Luck! (Try not to guess it TOO quickly, Frank :o)
/
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Say What?
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.
Associated Press - "A thick brown cloud of soot, particles and chemicals stretching from the Persian Gulf to Asia threatens health and food supplies in the world, the U.N. reported Thursday, citing what it called the newest threat from global warming."
Well, now, if that don't take the cake. The UN, in its preponderance of stupidity claims that a cloud of soot and chemicals, obviously caused by human activity, is "a threat from global warming." Wow! The cloud is caused "from global warming", instead of vice versa.
So, according to the bright folks at the UN, if we stop global warming, that will prevent any countries from polluting the atmosphere further.
I think they have it backward. As usual!
Here's a thought for that prestigious bunch of international jokers - the cloud is obviously originating from the same countries that, according to the Kyoto treaty they want us to sign onto, would be exempt. So, even with Kyoto, those countries will still be creating those clouds, and global warming. So, what's the point of Kyoto?
The point, for those of you who may have missed the fine print, is that Kyoto is not designed to fight global warming. Rather, it is to punish countries that are already industrialized, and have already taken vast measures to have clean air, while the polluters are left to go on polluting, unrestrained. America, the cleanest of the industrial nations, would be forced to shut down much manufacturing in order to comply, not because we pollute, but because we are rich. The manufacturing, which must still occur somewhere, will then be done in these unrestricted countries, resulting in even greater pollution. Under Kyoto, the two biggest polluters - China and India - would be exempt, and would pollute more than ever as they take over the manufacturing that we will no longer be able to do.
America would lose jobs. America would be forced to spend billions. And China and India can take over as the industrial leaders of the world, polluting as they go, and raking in all the money.
If just a few short years, it will be China and India who will be the world leaders, and America would be reduced to third world status. America will have been hog-tied.
With Obama as president, and a democrat congress, you can count on them signing onto the Kyoto treaty, which will - I repeat, WILL be the downfall of America.
First, the politicians want us to transfer our wealth to the oil nations - the US Geoligical Survey report of April 2008 states there are 2 TRILLION gallons of oil discovered right in our own Rocky Mountain area - enough to fuel the entire nation for 40 years! But the Democrats block every effort to use it. Now they want to transfer the rest of our wealth to China and India. And the new Democratic leadership has vowed to take what is left, and redistribute it - which means, give it to those who did not earn it.
At this rate, it will not be long before the illegal immigration problem will belong to Mexico, as fed up Americans flee...a dollar goes a LONG way in Mexico...Let the Mexicans have this place. We'll take what cash we have left and go to Puerto Vallarta, or Cancun...
/
Associated Press - "A thick brown cloud of soot, particles and chemicals stretching from the Persian Gulf to Asia threatens health and food supplies in the world, the U.N. reported Thursday, citing what it called the newest threat from global warming."
Well, now, if that don't take the cake. The UN, in its preponderance of stupidity claims that a cloud of soot and chemicals, obviously caused by human activity, is "a threat from global warming." Wow! The cloud is caused "from global warming", instead of vice versa.
So, according to the bright folks at the UN, if we stop global warming, that will prevent any countries from polluting the atmosphere further.
I think they have it backward. As usual!
Here's a thought for that prestigious bunch of international jokers - the cloud is obviously originating from the same countries that, according to the Kyoto treaty they want us to sign onto, would be exempt. So, even with Kyoto, those countries will still be creating those clouds, and global warming. So, what's the point of Kyoto?
The point, for those of you who may have missed the fine print, is that Kyoto is not designed to fight global warming. Rather, it is to punish countries that are already industrialized, and have already taken vast measures to have clean air, while the polluters are left to go on polluting, unrestrained. America, the cleanest of the industrial nations, would be forced to shut down much manufacturing in order to comply, not because we pollute, but because we are rich. The manufacturing, which must still occur somewhere, will then be done in these unrestricted countries, resulting in even greater pollution. Under Kyoto, the two biggest polluters - China and India - would be exempt, and would pollute more than ever as they take over the manufacturing that we will no longer be able to do.
America would lose jobs. America would be forced to spend billions. And China and India can take over as the industrial leaders of the world, polluting as they go, and raking in all the money.
If just a few short years, it will be China and India who will be the world leaders, and America would be reduced to third world status. America will have been hog-tied.
With Obama as president, and a democrat congress, you can count on them signing onto the Kyoto treaty, which will - I repeat, WILL be the downfall of America.
First, the politicians want us to transfer our wealth to the oil nations - the US Geoligical Survey report of April 2008 states there are 2 TRILLION gallons of oil discovered right in our own Rocky Mountain area - enough to fuel the entire nation for 40 years! But the Democrats block every effort to use it. Now they want to transfer the rest of our wealth to China and India. And the new Democratic leadership has vowed to take what is left, and redistribute it - which means, give it to those who did not earn it.
At this rate, it will not be long before the illegal immigration problem will belong to Mexico, as fed up Americans flee...a dollar goes a LONG way in Mexico...Let the Mexicans have this place. We'll take what cash we have left and go to Puerto Vallarta, or Cancun...
/
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
"Winning" The Hard Way
Well, here we go again!
In the Senate race in Minnesota, the Republican, Coleman, beat Democrat challenger Al Franken. However, because it was close, there must be an automatic recount.
Suddenly, hundreds of "new" ballots are popping up out of thin air - all favoring Franken. One ballot counter (a Democrat, by the way), suddenly found a bunch of absentee ballots in the trunk of her car - all were mysteriously for Franken. And what, pray tell, were they even doing in her trunk? And the town of Mountain Iron suddenly recorded an extra 100 votes, all for Franken, AFTER the election. Since these are taped in that municipality, they were asked to produce the tape for verification. And guess what? The tape was dated November 2nd - so it was created even before election day, though the 100 new votes appeared on Nov. 6th.
So far, there have been numerous instances of ballots mysteriously coming to light, all favoring Franken. How can that be? Frankly, it CANNOT be.
And now it comes to light that the guy in charge of the recount - another Democrat - is affiliated with the group ACORN, which has already been shown to be involved in voter fraud.
It is high time that we, the people stood up and demand that voting be cleaned up, once and for all. Get ACORN out of this entirely. Prohibit anything that even so much as provides an opportunity for fraud. Force each municipality, county and state to be accountable for accuracy in voter regfistration, and control of ballots. If the chain of evidence is broken, as in the case of those ballots found in a trunk, the ballot does not get counted. Period.
As for the "motor voter" law the Democrats and ACORN pushed through in many states, it should be outlawed for several reasons. First, it encourages fraud when a person can register and vote at the same time, so the registration cannot be verified as legitimate. And it does not allow for new information coming to light in the late stages of the campaign - if a person votes in September, and it comes to light in October that the candidate is a criminal, it is too late. The ballot cannot be changed.
I believe we should all have one week in which to vote (except legitimate absentees, who may vote earlier), and registration must be at least 3 months prior to an election. In this manner, illegal registrations can be ferreted out before fraud can be committed. Voter fraud cannot occur without voter registration fraud.
ACORN says such measures would keep the poor from voting. I fail to see how. If the poor can show up to register in September, they can show up to register in July. If they can show up to vote in September, they can show up to vote in November. The ONLY reason ACORN and the DNC wants the motor-voter laws to stand is so they can intimidate poor people into registering AND voting all at once, to insure that they do, indeed, vote. And to provide a fertile ground for fraud - a registration filled out today cannot possibly be verified today. So allowing registration and voting simultaneously does nothing except promote fraud.
The point is clear, and this joke of an election in Minnesota proves it out - we need to take strong measures to insure honesty, integrity and legitimacy of the voting process, or we will no longer have a democracy.
I do not doubt Franken can, and probably will "win" in Minnesota, since ballots in his favor are popping up everywhere. I may even have some in my glove compartment. But if he does "win", understand that Franken, originally a comic on Saturday Night Live, will be a part of making a comedy of the entire Senate, and of our election process. How can there be any respect for anything the Senate does if it is done by people who were not democratically elected?
And the entire nation should be thoroughly ashamed of Minnesota - first, for giving a convicted tax cheat and liar more than a half dozen votes, and second for allowing the democrats to so blatantly steal the election. I do not know of a single person who believes that all of those "sudden" and "mysterious" ballots for Franken that are showing up only after the election are actually legitimate.
Franken is an un-funny comic. But the comedy of the Minnesota election process is even less funny!
/
In the Senate race in Minnesota, the Republican, Coleman, beat Democrat challenger Al Franken. However, because it was close, there must be an automatic recount.
Suddenly, hundreds of "new" ballots are popping up out of thin air - all favoring Franken. One ballot counter (a Democrat, by the way), suddenly found a bunch of absentee ballots in the trunk of her car - all were mysteriously for Franken. And what, pray tell, were they even doing in her trunk? And the town of Mountain Iron suddenly recorded an extra 100 votes, all for Franken, AFTER the election. Since these are taped in that municipality, they were asked to produce the tape for verification. And guess what? The tape was dated November 2nd - so it was created even before election day, though the 100 new votes appeared on Nov. 6th.
So far, there have been numerous instances of ballots mysteriously coming to light, all favoring Franken. How can that be? Frankly, it CANNOT be.
And now it comes to light that the guy in charge of the recount - another Democrat - is affiliated with the group ACORN, which has already been shown to be involved in voter fraud.
It is high time that we, the people stood up and demand that voting be cleaned up, once and for all. Get ACORN out of this entirely. Prohibit anything that even so much as provides an opportunity for fraud. Force each municipality, county and state to be accountable for accuracy in voter regfistration, and control of ballots. If the chain of evidence is broken, as in the case of those ballots found in a trunk, the ballot does not get counted. Period.
As for the "motor voter" law the Democrats and ACORN pushed through in many states, it should be outlawed for several reasons. First, it encourages fraud when a person can register and vote at the same time, so the registration cannot be verified as legitimate. And it does not allow for new information coming to light in the late stages of the campaign - if a person votes in September, and it comes to light in October that the candidate is a criminal, it is too late. The ballot cannot be changed.
I believe we should all have one week in which to vote (except legitimate absentees, who may vote earlier), and registration must be at least 3 months prior to an election. In this manner, illegal registrations can be ferreted out before fraud can be committed. Voter fraud cannot occur without voter registration fraud.
ACORN says such measures would keep the poor from voting. I fail to see how. If the poor can show up to register in September, they can show up to register in July. If they can show up to vote in September, they can show up to vote in November. The ONLY reason ACORN and the DNC wants the motor-voter laws to stand is so they can intimidate poor people into registering AND voting all at once, to insure that they do, indeed, vote. And to provide a fertile ground for fraud - a registration filled out today cannot possibly be verified today. So allowing registration and voting simultaneously does nothing except promote fraud.
The point is clear, and this joke of an election in Minnesota proves it out - we need to take strong measures to insure honesty, integrity and legitimacy of the voting process, or we will no longer have a democracy.
I do not doubt Franken can, and probably will "win" in Minnesota, since ballots in his favor are popping up everywhere. I may even have some in my glove compartment. But if he does "win", understand that Franken, originally a comic on Saturday Night Live, will be a part of making a comedy of the entire Senate, and of our election process. How can there be any respect for anything the Senate does if it is done by people who were not democratically elected?
And the entire nation should be thoroughly ashamed of Minnesota - first, for giving a convicted tax cheat and liar more than a half dozen votes, and second for allowing the democrats to so blatantly steal the election. I do not know of a single person who believes that all of those "sudden" and "mysterious" ballots for Franken that are showing up only after the election are actually legitimate.
Franken is an un-funny comic. But the comedy of the Minnesota election process is even less funny!
/
Absurdity
In Washington DC a "humanist" group (atheists) have spent $40,000 placing ads on metro buses and elsewhere that simply say, "Why Believe In A God". They purposely chose to do this in the Christmas season, in a blatant attempt to attack Christianity once again. And the onslaught continues...
Let me start by saying I really do not care if someone chooses to be an atheist. I see that as being their problem, not mine. They are free to choose their own direction, which, as you may recall, is also the same position I have on the gay lifestyle. To each his own, and more power to them. We will all answer for our choices someday.
But I do object when anyone - gays, atheists, agnostics, democrats, liberals - anyone - chooses to belittle, insult, denigrate or otherwise complain about MY choice of direction. They need to give me the same courtesy and respect that I give them.
To reply to that humanist group's question, I would simply say this: if I were an atheist, and it turns out there is a God, I would lose BIG time! And if there is NO god, I would not gain a thing. So, as an atheist, I simply could not win, and I would have zero chance at a bright eternity. On the other hand, if I believe in God, and it turns out there IS a God, I WIN - big time. And if there is no God, I have not lost a thing. So, as a believer, I simply cannot lose.
It occurs to me that it is much smarter to choose a position in which I cannot lose, as opposed to a position in which I cannot win. Not being a complete dunce, my choice is rather apparent.
No, that is not WHY I believe in God. But it does answer the question those humanist clowns posed - it simply makes more sense to believe than to not believe.
As the story about that ad wore on, some folks supported their position of non-belief with the tired expanation that religion damages society, and religion has caused many atrocities. They simply do not understand that religion can "do" nothing. PEOPLE do things. Religions are not "bad" just because some people use and abuse them to serve their own agendas. That is not the fault of religion - it is the failing of Man.
They also fail to realize that, without religion, we are no better than animals. It is religion, alone, that provides society with boundaries of right and wrong, good and evil. It is those boundaries that determine the laws we live by. Without those boundaries, and devoid of laws, we would live as animals. There would be no knowledge of "right and wrong". That is what the Garden of Eden was all about. That was the point at which Man stopped being "just another animal" and "bit of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil". That is where we came to understand the difference between right and wrong. And that occured because - and only because - "Adam" and "Eve" knew God. Personally, it would appear. Note that they "talked" with God long before they ate the proverbial "apple". Religion already existed, and societal rules began.
Christmas time is upon us. And in a way, those humanists make a point, albeit in a backward fashion. Rather than asking ourselves "Why believe", we should ask ourselves, "Why Not?" And amid all the festivities and commercialism, we would do well to take some time to remember the reason for the season. And we should carry that reason with us throughout the year. If you celebrate Christmas only one day a year, you are missing a lot - and you are missing the whole point.
I feel sorry for those who do not believe in a greater power. After all, there are insects. And there is a greater power than them - the birds, animals etc. And there is a greater power than the birds and animals - Mankind. So it seems only reasonable that there is something even greater than ourselves. Remember the old adage, "No matter how big you are, there's always someone bigger?" For gunslingers, there was always "someone faster." I think the same is true with ourselves - there is something greater. Why wouldn't there be? The universe is incredibly vast, with wonders we cannot even comprehend. How can any person think that something as miniscule and imperfect as a human being is the greatest power in the universe? We can't even SEE the end of the universe, or understand it. So how can we possibly be the greatest power, or
the most formidable intellect?
If you ask me, believing in Man's omnipotence in this universe is far more absurd than believing in a greater power. So, when an atheist says to me, "Believing in an invisible, all-powerful being is absurd", I point out the absurdity of believing there is not something far greater than we can imagine.
One such non-theist even threw that old riddle at me, to prove there was no God. "Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?" He went on with, "No matter what you answer, there is something your all-powerful God cannot do."
I smiled. And then I explained that he lived in a very small world where things are black and white. And I went on to say, "Yes, God can create a stone He cannot lift, because he can create anything. And THEN, after He creates such a stone, He can give himself the strength to lift it, anyway. Because He can do anything."
If the person reading this is an atheist, please understand that I am not trying to belittle your beliefs, nor am I disrespecting your choice. I am simply presenting my side of the debate, and I can only hope that you will not simply dismiss it summarily. Instead, give it some intelligent thought. Consider possibilities that reach beyond that which can be analyzed. There is far, far more to this thing we call "life" that cannot be seen by the eye (air, conscience), nor touched (happiness, or grief), nor even understood (black holes, the human brain). If you can accept that, then you have already accepted the possibility of a greater power.
Happy Holidays, folks!
Let me start by saying I really do not care if someone chooses to be an atheist. I see that as being their problem, not mine. They are free to choose their own direction, which, as you may recall, is also the same position I have on the gay lifestyle. To each his own, and more power to them. We will all answer for our choices someday.
But I do object when anyone - gays, atheists, agnostics, democrats, liberals - anyone - chooses to belittle, insult, denigrate or otherwise complain about MY choice of direction. They need to give me the same courtesy and respect that I give them.
To reply to that humanist group's question, I would simply say this: if I were an atheist, and it turns out there is a God, I would lose BIG time! And if there is NO god, I would not gain a thing. So, as an atheist, I simply could not win, and I would have zero chance at a bright eternity. On the other hand, if I believe in God, and it turns out there IS a God, I WIN - big time. And if there is no God, I have not lost a thing. So, as a believer, I simply cannot lose.
It occurs to me that it is much smarter to choose a position in which I cannot lose, as opposed to a position in which I cannot win. Not being a complete dunce, my choice is rather apparent.
No, that is not WHY I believe in God. But it does answer the question those humanist clowns posed - it simply makes more sense to believe than to not believe.
As the story about that ad wore on, some folks supported their position of non-belief with the tired expanation that religion damages society, and religion has caused many atrocities. They simply do not understand that religion can "do" nothing. PEOPLE do things. Religions are not "bad" just because some people use and abuse them to serve their own agendas. That is not the fault of religion - it is the failing of Man.
They also fail to realize that, without religion, we are no better than animals. It is religion, alone, that provides society with boundaries of right and wrong, good and evil. It is those boundaries that determine the laws we live by. Without those boundaries, and devoid of laws, we would live as animals. There would be no knowledge of "right and wrong". That is what the Garden of Eden was all about. That was the point at which Man stopped being "just another animal" and "bit of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil". That is where we came to understand the difference between right and wrong. And that occured because - and only because - "Adam" and "Eve" knew God. Personally, it would appear. Note that they "talked" with God long before they ate the proverbial "apple". Religion already existed, and societal rules began.
Christmas time is upon us. And in a way, those humanists make a point, albeit in a backward fashion. Rather than asking ourselves "Why believe", we should ask ourselves, "Why Not?" And amid all the festivities and commercialism, we would do well to take some time to remember the reason for the season. And we should carry that reason with us throughout the year. If you celebrate Christmas only one day a year, you are missing a lot - and you are missing the whole point.
I feel sorry for those who do not believe in a greater power. After all, there are insects. And there is a greater power than them - the birds, animals etc. And there is a greater power than the birds and animals - Mankind. So it seems only reasonable that there is something even greater than ourselves. Remember the old adage, "No matter how big you are, there's always someone bigger?" For gunslingers, there was always "someone faster." I think the same is true with ourselves - there is something greater. Why wouldn't there be? The universe is incredibly vast, with wonders we cannot even comprehend. How can any person think that something as miniscule and imperfect as a human being is the greatest power in the universe? We can't even SEE the end of the universe, or understand it. So how can we possibly be the greatest power, or
the most formidable intellect?
If you ask me, believing in Man's omnipotence in this universe is far more absurd than believing in a greater power. So, when an atheist says to me, "Believing in an invisible, all-powerful being is absurd", I point out the absurdity of believing there is not something far greater than we can imagine.
One such non-theist even threw that old riddle at me, to prove there was no God. "Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?" He went on with, "No matter what you answer, there is something your all-powerful God cannot do."
I smiled. And then I explained that he lived in a very small world where things are black and white. And I went on to say, "Yes, God can create a stone He cannot lift, because he can create anything. And THEN, after He creates such a stone, He can give himself the strength to lift it, anyway. Because He can do anything."
If the person reading this is an atheist, please understand that I am not trying to belittle your beliefs, nor am I disrespecting your choice. I am simply presenting my side of the debate, and I can only hope that you will not simply dismiss it summarily. Instead, give it some intelligent thought. Consider possibilities that reach beyond that which can be analyzed. There is far, far more to this thing we call "life" that cannot be seen by the eye (air, conscience), nor touched (happiness, or grief), nor even understood (black holes, the human brain). If you can accept that, then you have already accepted the possibility of a greater power.
Happy Holidays, folks!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
National Civilian Security Force
By BEN EVANS, AP
WASHINGTON (Nov. 11) - A congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the military. Ed.)."
Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force. (Ed. Such a ban would be necessary if such a national security force is to be effective).
As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."
Ed. A poll was conducted among 40,000 Americans. 55% said Broun has a valid point.
As for me? I will give President-elect Obama the benefit of the doubt. But by the same token, rest assured I will be keeping my eye on him, Reid and Pelosi...
WASHINGTON (Nov. 11) - A congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the military. Ed.)."
Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force. (Ed. Such a ban would be necessary if such a national security force is to be effective).
As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."
Ed. A poll was conducted among 40,000 Americans. 55% said Broun has a valid point.
As for me? I will give President-elect Obama the benefit of the doubt. But by the same token, rest assured I will be keeping my eye on him, Reid and Pelosi...
The Piss 'n Moan Club
The secularists are once again trying to gain traction by "spinning" the truth into something deceitful and dishonest. By whining and moaning every time someone even mentions God, they hope to create an issue, knowing there will always be some people who can be led like sheep - just like the clowns who propagate all those conspiracy theories.
These atheists go on to complain that America is a secular nation, not a nation under God. They make this bogus claim because they twist the purpose of the founders who decided to leave God out of the Constitution. What they so dishonestly "forget" to tell people is that the founders left God out of the Constitution for the purpose of making the Constitution a concrete foundation based on law. They knew full well that if they were to inject God into Man's Law, it would reduce God to Man's level, and weaken both the nation and its religious foundation. To insure that the Constitution could never be usurped on the basis of religious change, they kept religion out of it. The Constitution had to be pure law, to eliminate the need to rewrite the Constitution every time the religious foundation of the nation changed. The Constitution had to be timeless, and unaffected by ANY outside influences.
But the other documents of the time proves that the founders knew and accepted that America was a nation under God. Of that there is no doubt.
The Piss 'n Moan club will always be with us, trying to destroy the nation that the founders crafted, and Americans fought and died for, over the last 230 years. They are fully aware that if they can remove religion from the public square, religion will become weak and die. This is their goal because it is religion, and only religion, that sets limits on behavior.
Secularists want no limits. They want abortion on demand - even at birth. They want to be able to euthanize the elderly. They want to legalize drugs, and some have even expressed that they want sex between adults and children to be legalized. Secularists want NO boundaries. They want to be able to pursue their personal Sodom & Gomorrah without repercussions. They do not want to have to account for their actions. In fact, that is the very reason they choose not to believe in God. If there is no God, then there is no punishment for sins. Which means, in effect, that there can be no sin. Anything goes in a Godless society.
Certainly, I will defend the rights of the P&M Club to hold to their beliefs. I will defend their right to express those beliefs. But no one should defend their intentional use of deception and lies to promote those beliefs. And we certainly should not humor them - that only encourages them to do more of the same.
In the letters of each of the founding fathers, they made it perfectly clear that they were well aware that the only thing that could keep a nation together was religion. They carefully expressed that it is religion that sets the limits on moral behavior, which would help America grow and become strong. A nation requires a steady moral compass, which only religion can provide. That is still true today. It will remain true tomorrow.
It matters not if you, personally, believe in God or not. What does matter is that America remains a strong, moral nation. And for that purpose, we all need to stand, and recognize the need for the moral direction provided by religion. Because if we do not preserve the strength that comes from morality, America cannot stand. And if we lose that, we also lose our rights - including the right to be either religious or secular.
Religious or secular, we all need to keep America strong, independent, free and morally straight. And that means religion needs to play a very major role.As a side note, all those secularists and atheists are not really atheists at all. In fact, they believe in God even more than the rest of us. Think about it. If they truly believed there is no God, then they would not care one iota if the rest of us practice our religion wherever and whenever we please. It simply would not matter to them, because they would "know" that we are performing rituals that have neither meaning nor effect.
To illustrate, ask yourself if you would complain vehemently if you were to see aborigines worshipping the Volcano God. No - you might be amused, but you would not consider their rituals any threat to you.But atheists do complain. They do consider religion a threat to them. Why? It is because they do, indeed, believe in God, but because they want to live in sin, they hate God. The only way they can "justify" their choices is to refute God. But how do you refute something if it does not exist?
Atheists believe in God. But they would prefer it if there were no God. So, they hate God, which is why they fight religion so strongly. They hope that if they can "kill" religion, that will "kill" God, and without God, they would be spared having to pay for their sins.Again - if a person truly does not believe in God, then they simply would give no thought to those of us who do. The very fact that religion bothers them so much only goes to prove that they consider it a threat - they fear it. And since there is no point in fearing that which does not exist, their actions prove they do, indeed, believe in God. They just want to kill Him, so they can live in sin without penalty.
It is a shame that they do not understand what "immortal" means. You cannot kill a God. And He does not stop existing simply because you refuse to acknowledge Him. He will still be there when it's your turn to cross the Great Divide. Not believing in it will not prevent it.
As a side note, it is strange that secularists, known for putting their faith in science, appear to overlook the latest scientific studies on the probability of the existence of God. A number of SECULAR, ATHEIST scientists and researchers, studying all available documentation and recorded facts, came to the conclusion that there is a 67% probability that God does exist. And some of those same scientists went on to join the ranks of believers.
These atheists go on to complain that America is a secular nation, not a nation under God. They make this bogus claim because they twist the purpose of the founders who decided to leave God out of the Constitution. What they so dishonestly "forget" to tell people is that the founders left God out of the Constitution for the purpose of making the Constitution a concrete foundation based on law. They knew full well that if they were to inject God into Man's Law, it would reduce God to Man's level, and weaken both the nation and its religious foundation. To insure that the Constitution could never be usurped on the basis of religious change, they kept religion out of it. The Constitution had to be pure law, to eliminate the need to rewrite the Constitution every time the religious foundation of the nation changed. The Constitution had to be timeless, and unaffected by ANY outside influences.
But the other documents of the time proves that the founders knew and accepted that America was a nation under God. Of that there is no doubt.
The Piss 'n Moan club will always be with us, trying to destroy the nation that the founders crafted, and Americans fought and died for, over the last 230 years. They are fully aware that if they can remove religion from the public square, religion will become weak and die. This is their goal because it is religion, and only religion, that sets limits on behavior.
Secularists want no limits. They want abortion on demand - even at birth. They want to be able to euthanize the elderly. They want to legalize drugs, and some have even expressed that they want sex between adults and children to be legalized. Secularists want NO boundaries. They want to be able to pursue their personal Sodom & Gomorrah without repercussions. They do not want to have to account for their actions. In fact, that is the very reason they choose not to believe in God. If there is no God, then there is no punishment for sins. Which means, in effect, that there can be no sin. Anything goes in a Godless society.
Certainly, I will defend the rights of the P&M Club to hold to their beliefs. I will defend their right to express those beliefs. But no one should defend their intentional use of deception and lies to promote those beliefs. And we certainly should not humor them - that only encourages them to do more of the same.
In the letters of each of the founding fathers, they made it perfectly clear that they were well aware that the only thing that could keep a nation together was religion. They carefully expressed that it is religion that sets the limits on moral behavior, which would help America grow and become strong. A nation requires a steady moral compass, which only religion can provide. That is still true today. It will remain true tomorrow.
It matters not if you, personally, believe in God or not. What does matter is that America remains a strong, moral nation. And for that purpose, we all need to stand, and recognize the need for the moral direction provided by religion. Because if we do not preserve the strength that comes from morality, America cannot stand. And if we lose that, we also lose our rights - including the right to be either religious or secular.
Religious or secular, we all need to keep America strong, independent, free and morally straight. And that means religion needs to play a very major role.As a side note, all those secularists and atheists are not really atheists at all. In fact, they believe in God even more than the rest of us. Think about it. If they truly believed there is no God, then they would not care one iota if the rest of us practice our religion wherever and whenever we please. It simply would not matter to them, because they would "know" that we are performing rituals that have neither meaning nor effect.
To illustrate, ask yourself if you would complain vehemently if you were to see aborigines worshipping the Volcano God. No - you might be amused, but you would not consider their rituals any threat to you.But atheists do complain. They do consider religion a threat to them. Why? It is because they do, indeed, believe in God, but because they want to live in sin, they hate God. The only way they can "justify" their choices is to refute God. But how do you refute something if it does not exist?
Atheists believe in God. But they would prefer it if there were no God. So, they hate God, which is why they fight religion so strongly. They hope that if they can "kill" religion, that will "kill" God, and without God, they would be spared having to pay for their sins.Again - if a person truly does not believe in God, then they simply would give no thought to those of us who do. The very fact that religion bothers them so much only goes to prove that they consider it a threat - they fear it. And since there is no point in fearing that which does not exist, their actions prove they do, indeed, believe in God. They just want to kill Him, so they can live in sin without penalty.
It is a shame that they do not understand what "immortal" means. You cannot kill a God. And He does not stop existing simply because you refuse to acknowledge Him. He will still be there when it's your turn to cross the Great Divide. Not believing in it will not prevent it.
As a side note, it is strange that secularists, known for putting their faith in science, appear to overlook the latest scientific studies on the probability of the existence of God. A number of SECULAR, ATHEIST scientists and researchers, studying all available documentation and recorded facts, came to the conclusion that there is a 67% probability that God does exist. And some of those same scientists went on to join the ranks of believers.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Free stuff
I would like to take this opportunity to offer up some free eBooks that you may find some value in. By clicking on each, you will have the PDF file ready to save to your own computer.
"The Simple Man's Guide to Buying an Older House"
"The Simple Man's Guide to Buying Country Land"
"10 Secrets of Success: Wealth From Thin Air"
I am also prepared to give away thousands of these free guns to any terrorists that want one
Later!
/
"The Simple Man's Guide to Buying an Older House"
"The Simple Man's Guide to Buying Country Land"
"10 Secrets of Success: Wealth From Thin Air"
I am also prepared to give away thousands of these free guns to any terrorists that want one
Later!
/
Sunday, November 9, 2008
HINT
Here is a hint in this week's contest: the car this piece belongs to can be seen in the Stratham Hill Car Show gallery at HotKarz.... We are still looking for a winner.
/
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)