Can we say, "Media bias?"

Okay, if you're following the Republican debates, you know that the two top candidates are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, right? Wrong. Dr. Ron Paul, according to polls, is in the top two - in fact, according to a Yahoo poll, he won the recent debate. Of course, to look at the title of the article, you'd never guess that he existed. The following is the actual title of the Yahoo article:

Poll: Romney leads New Hampshire, Huntsman in third, Perry in fourth

Notice anything really, REALLY weird about that title? Romney first, Huntsman third, Perry fourth. I could have sworn that there was a number called "two." Sadly, them not including the runner-up in the title doesn't surprise me. Know why? Because Dr. Paul was number two, and the media insists that he not exist. The media has declared him to be a "non-person" in a way strikingly similar to the Soviet Union.

The article gives him ONE SENTENCE, devoting much more time to Perry, the Bush rerun, even though he placed fourth. Heck, it devotes plenty of time to all of the top four EXCEPT Ron Paul. Here's the article if you're wondering: http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-leads-hampshire-huntsman-third-perry-fourth-150212964.html

Ron Paul MUST win the Republican nomination. If he does not, it will prove that there is NO hope for this country, and our only option left is taking it back from the bottom up.

All you libertarians who don't vote on some principle or another - I beg you, vote just this one time. Get Ron Paul in office, and maybe we can finally get some REAL change for freedom. Believe it or not, it IS possible to shrink government. Jefferson did it in 1800. If Ron Paul wins, this would literally be the single most important and revolutionary election in over two hundred years. If not? It'll be more of the same, with the next president advancing us ever more rapidly to our inevitable destruction. More war, more taxes, more regulation, and less freedom. That's the inevitable result of another business-as-usual election

The absurd myth of macroevolution

I was just read the book, "Now, That's a Good Question!" by R.C. Sproul, and a certain quote inspired me to finally get back to this blog and post this. Sproul described macroevolution as "one of the most unsubstantiated myths I've ever seen perpetuated in academic circles."

Here's the thing - Darwinists have tons of evidence showing that a degree of evolution can happen. That's basically a confirmed fact. Just look at dogs. Wolves, wild dogs, coyotes, foxes and domestic dogs all probably share a common ancestor. The same probably goes for a lot of bear species and felines, among others. However, that's microevolution, not the all-encompassing, life-from-one-cell macroevolution that Darwinists believe in.

So, you ask one of them to show you evidence. They'll come up with all kinds of things supposedly showing how it can happen. It all sounds very convincing. Here's the problem: showing that it "can" happen does not prove to any degree that it "has" happened. So where's their evidence that it HAS happened?

Nowhere.

It's not here.

It cannot be found.

It doesn't exist.

Proof that macroevolution happened exists the same way unicorns and fairies exist - in people's imaginations.

In other words, they expect reasonable people to accept that something happened against all odds that they have ZERO evidence for. They do not have a tape of matter appearing from nothing, or a primitive bacterium being spontaneously generated from chemical goo. Even according to atheists, the odds of such things happening are infinitesimally small.

First, we must assume that all matter in the universe appeared out of NOWHERE. We must then accept that this tiny ball of matter exploded and formed the entire universe, that some of that matter formed a spiral galaxy, and in that galaxy was formed a star just the right size, with eight planets at just the right size and positions to promote life on the third of them - Earth.

We must also convince ourselves that a planet-sized object then rammed into Earth, scattering enough debri to form a perfectly-sized moon that causes tides required for life in the oceans.

As if that's not impossible enough, we're then expected to believe that on this perfectly-sized planet there is just enough oxygen to promote life, but not enough that said life would spontaneously burst into flames. Next, supposedly, chemical goo somehow assembled itself into a fully-functioning reproducing, feeding, reacting proto-bacterium, which then, via mutations and natural selection, changed over eons into jellyfish, eels, dinosaurs, crocodiles, hamsters, trees, algae, eagles, and people.

Interesting thing - the odds of even ONE of these things happening are unbelievably small. Suddenly God doesn't sound so ridiculous, does He? The modern Darwinist flat out tell us that we should ignore our common sense and believe that all this happened. Why? What could POSSIBLY make the above absurdity ANY more plausible than the Bible's account? Especially considering that the Bible, over and over again, is being proven right, and even Richard Dawkins at least acknowledges that nature "overwhelmingly impresses us with the illusion of design." (FYI - a certain atheist I have debated claimed I was taking that out of context. I am not. I clearly included the word illusion, and my point still stands. Dawkins admits that nature looks designed, and we must convince ourselves that it is not.)

Just for kicks, here's an issue with biological evolution that throws it down for good. It can't happen. There is no way for organisms to gain genetic information. Mutations can alter or destroy genetic information, but it can't create new information. Oops. I just wrote a paragraph that kicks the legs out from under the current scientific paradigm.

For the record - I truly respect Charles Darwin as a scientist. He was intelligent, honest, and more than willing to acknowledge gaps in his theory - which is much more than can be said for those so-called "scientists" who blatantly say that they will only accept evidence that supports Darwinism. Did he take it back? No, because at his death it still seemed perfectly reasonable. A hundred years of science, though, and it has not held up. Darwin would have acknowledged this if he had been alive to see it.

This. Means. WAR.

I have recently had the immense displeasure of reading Challenge III's history textbook, A Patriot's History of the United States. The title should give a lot away about the book - that, and the fact that it's been endorsed by Glenn Beck. I have been writing down the major historical errors I've found in first third of the book, and I will address them here.

This is gonna be a loooong post.

First off - they refer to Northern colonies as "non-slaveholding" and Southern ones as slaveholding. Minor problem - the colonies all had slaves in 1763, the year that was being discussed. Oops.

Moving forward thirty or so years, we come to the great Adams/Hamilton vs Jefferson/Madison years. The guys who wrote this book defend Adams and the Federalists to a ludicrous degree. Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts? The latter of the two was a blatant violation of the right to free speech and freedom of the press as protected by the First Amendment. The Patriot's History guys, however, say it was "arguably" unconstitional. Arguably? REALLY? That's just pathetic.

Throughout the book so far, the authors repeatedly associate states' rights with racism and attack the doctrine of nullification, never mind that it was and is a critical check on the government's power.

They also defend the position that a president can unilaterally declare preemptive war by citing an incident in which President Jefferson dispatched troops to the Barbary States. Minor problem - the Barbary States had declared war first (so much for "preemptive"), and Mr. Jefferson consistently sought Congressional authorization. There goes "unilateral."

It just gets better, though! According to these poor deluded fellows, the "necessary and proper" clause allows Congress to do pretty much anything. Unfortunately for them, it also states that said "necessary and proper" laws must be made within the Constitution's limits.

Now the REAL fun begins - the "crisis of union" in their words. They EXPLICITLY call secession treason, forgetting that the colonies seceded from the British Empire. I can only assume that this was treason as well. In reality, Constitutionally speaking, using force against a seceding state is the real act of treason. They also fail to mention the fact that Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, John Adams, James Madison, and others explicitly or implicitly stated that secession was a necessary means to secure liberty.

Oh yeah, and a certain Illinois lawyer said the same thing.

Yes, I am referring to Abraham Lincoln. When he came into the picture, this book got a LOT more annoying. My gosh. This is one of most embarrassing Lincoln-worship sessions I have ever read. They attempt to portray him as a champion of black rights. This is new information to me, 'cause last time I checked, he explicitly said that whites were superior, and was a member of the Colonization Society, the purpose of said Society being to free the slaves - then boot them to Africa and Central America. They then claim that in the 1860 election, only Abe stood "squarely against slavery." I nearly gagged when I read that. I'm sorry, but the authors must have come from a different universe, because in this one, Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no intentions to interfere with Southern slavery, and he also supported the Corwin Amendment, which would have made slavery permanent and literally untouchable by the government. Oh, and there was an Illinois law prohibiting the immigration of blacks - guess who voted for it?

As far as Lincoln's Republican party buddies go, the Patriot's History kooks portray them as egalitarian, black-rights free-soil saints. Eh, not so much. They were the same ones who voted along with Lincoln to prohibit black immigration to their states. Their free soil position was not so much a moral opposition to slavery as it was an overt attempt to reserve the territories for free WHITE labor.

To top it all off, in reference to the secession conventions they say, "Given that the South was bent on violating the Constitution no matter what..."

I hope for the authors' safety that they never say something that stupid in front of me.

After 10 long years...

Osama Bin Laden is finally dead. This is undeniably a good thing. But before we get caught up in the excitement caused by killing the Big Bad, we should do two things.

Number one - realize that a monster has been killed. A monster that the United States' government created in the first place. Keep that in mind.

Number two - we need to ask ourselves, "At what price did we stop this man?"

Thousands of United States soldiers dead...



...Iraq and Afghanistan still war-torn and occupied...






...and to top it all off, infuriated radical Muslims.





Obviously, it is a good thing that bin Laden was brought to justice. But always keep in mind the cost, and the fact that were it not for the United States arming him during the Cold War, he would never have become a threat.

Leigh Bortons interviews Tom Woods

If you're wondering who Leigh Bortons is, she's basically the one who started Classical Conversations, the homeschooling method we use. In the following interview, she and THOMAS E. WOODS discuss a number of economic and political issues. I found it very interesting.

Listen to internet radio with 1 Smart Mama on Blog Talk Radio

Are all religions basically the same?

I know, I typically don't talk about religion. If I haven't offended you with my politics, odds are I'll now offend you in some other way. Sorry, but I've been running into the "all religions are the same" BS quite a bit recently, and feel the need to address it. Oops, just gave away my position. Now I shall elaborate.

One of the most insidious versions of this one is the claim that the God of Christianity and Islam are the same. They most certainly are NOT. The Bible makes it clear that God is Three and One. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Muslims consider this polytheism - Allah is NOT a triune god. Already, we've plainly distinguished that Islam and Christianity are incompatible. Also, Christians believe that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, sent to die for our sins. Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but nothing more.

The rest of the "all religions are basically the same" argument falls apart. Islam is one of the religions that is most easily compared to Christianity. Buddhism? It teaches that there is no God. Hinduism has MANY gods. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity, and believe that Jesus was in fact the archangel Michael.

Jesus Himself said that He was the only way to Heaven, which makes Christianity 100% incompatible with other religions. There is only room for ONE religion to lead to eternal salvation, only room for ONE religion to be true.

That religion is Christianity. It's not a matter of personal taste, as liberals like to make it out to be. It's a matter of life and death.

More Obama brilliance

OH MY GOSH! A president didn't tell the truth! This is completely and totally shocking and unexpected!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: No U.S. Forces on the Ground in Libya… Except For Those Guys.

By Jim Geraghty

NPR: “President Obama said Wednesday it was ‘absolutely’ out of the question that U.S. ground forces would be used in Libya.”

How would the president describe the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit? There is no such thing as a purely air-based combat mission; planes have problems and pilots end up on the ground, and then U.S. forces have to end up on the ground, hopefully briefly, to rescue them and bring them home safely. Ask Scott O’Grady how much time you can spend on the ground while patrolling a no-fly zone.

Details on the recent rescue:

The Kearsarge then sent up two MV-22 Ospreys carrying Marine rescue teams. As they were en route, the Harriers dropped two laser-guided bombs near the crash site, apparently to keep Libyans on the ground from approaching the pilot.

With additional helicopters hovering overhead for security, one of the Ospreys landed and picked up the pilot. He was then taken aboard the Kearsarge.

The weapons systems officer was recovered by what U.S. officials described as Libyan opposition forces. He is safe, officials have said.

There are about 2,200 Marines off the shore of Libya right now.

UPDATE: God bless Matt Drudge and the Drudge Report.

With the sudden influx of attention, permit me to further clarify the original point of this post: President Obama’s tendency to speak in broad, sweeping terms that are not accurate (see Tim Carney for more illustrations of this) and to underline the folly of the notion, implied by much of this administration’s rhetoric, that any military action can be quick, clean, easy, or minimal risk. Thankfully, the rescue of the downed pilots earlier this week went off without a hitch, and God willing, any future rescues will end successfully and with minimal contact with the enemy. But that’s up to chance; Operation Eagle Claw and the Battle of Mogadishu demonstrate that there’s no such thing as a simple rescue mission. At some point, the U.S. may need many “boots on the ground,” despite repeated, broadly-worded assurances from the president and commanding officers that such a scenario will not occur.

---------------------------------------------------------

Know what's REALLY sad? This does not surprise me in the least, especially considering how well Obama's previous promises have been fulfilled. Let's take a quick look at a few, shall we?

Getting the troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan - Well, that worked out well. And now we're in Libya.

Closing Guantanamo - It's still there, Mr. President.

Stopping the Bush regime's trampling of civil liberties - Oops. That didn't work out as planned. Because Mr. Obama has continued.

Please do this - if a president makes a promise, prepare for the OPPOSITE of that promise.