Godless Evolution...the psychological manipulation of God's work



“It is unbelievable what unbelievers have to believe to be unbelievers.”

Counterpoint Part 1
Roseann Salanitri @ The Daily Rant
Introduction

Charles Darwin

After agonizing over the condition of America today, I have realized that many of our problems are attributable to an increasingly godless culture rooted in the teachings of evolution. It is illogical to expect our children to live by God’s moral codes established in Genesis, or that our rights come from God, when they are taught that His creation account is nothing more than a myth. It is also disturbing that the “evidences” for evolution were founded upon fallacious interpretations of observable data and the successful censoring of opposing points of view.
Therefore, it has become my mission to present a counterpoint to what is being taught in order to rescue our children from being led down an academic path that mocks our faith with innuendos and inferences based on a worldview that is neither scientifically supportable nor logical. The atheistic theology being presented to our children disguised as authoritative and empirical science through twisted conclusions and cleverly constructed insinuations is as much an insult to our intelligence as it is to our faith.

In this series I will be evaluating Pearson/Prentice Hall’s Biology textbook, 2006, written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine that was adopted by the state of Texas, which asserts significant influence on textbook selections throughout the nation. Additionally, Pearson’s website also acknowledges that the mirror-like Miller & Levine iBiology Textbooks are the world’s bestselling high school biology programs.

The first article in this series will focus on the basics of Darwinian evolution presented in Chapter 15 of the book. It sets the stage with psychological coercion and straw men arguments that sophomores in high school lack the critical thinking skills to defend against. Direct quotes from the book will appear in italics prefaced with the page numbers for easy reference. The bold lettering included is copied as it appears in the textbooks. Subsequent articles will focus on the Miller Urey experiment, Haeckel’s embryos, the evolution of birds, homology, and possibly other subjects as I may deem appropriate as this project develops.

Evaluation

Page 369-

What scientific explanation can account for the diversity of life? The answer is a collection of scientific facts, observations, and hypotheses known as evolutionary theory. Evolution, or change over time, is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms. A scientific theory is a well-supported testable explanation of phenomena that have occurred in the natural world.

Counterpoint – The answer provided to the question above is presented as the only credible explanation for origins. The way it is structured dismisses the growing and overwhelming support for creationism as being a legitimate possibility. The claim that evolution is credible becomes authoritative in the students’ minds, who are led to believe that it is well-supported by facts. They are not told that the data that will be discussed neither supports nor denies evolution or creationism. It is simply data that is subject to interpretation. In evolution, the theory drives the interpretation of the data to fit a naturalistic worldview as opposed to a supernatural worldview that requires intervention. In order to twist the data to fit the theory, impartiality is sacrificed – many times in a tortured manner, as this work will reveal.

Although it is true, as the book states, that natural selection occurs and the fittest do survive better than those that are unfit, survival is not a proof of evolution, as the students are led to believe. Dr. Walt Brown in his book In the Beginning, stated it best. He said: Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics.” He goes on to say, “While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved, and in fact, some biodiversity was lost…In other words, while natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest…” I will add to Dr. Brown’s critique by saying that not only doesn’t natural selection explain the origin of the fittest, neither has Darwin nor any of his successors ever proposed a mechanism that adds information to the genetic code that would result in the evolution of a new creature.

Since the scientific criteria for a good theory requires that it should be repeatable, observable, predictable , and falsifiable, obviously any theory regarding origins cannot fully comply with this standard. Regardless, the authors of this textbook do their best to make the student believe that their theory is beyond challenge and is observable. To be sure, there is observation but it is the observation of impartial data that can be used to support Intelligent Design just as easily as it can be used to support Evolution, as will be discussed in a future article on homology. When data supports two conflicting theories, it is deceptive to claim that it proves only one of the theories.

Pg. 372 –

Darwin observed that the characteristics of many animals and plants varied noticeably among the different islands of the Galapagos. After returning to England, Darwin began to wonder if animals living on different islands had once been members of the same species. According to this hypothesis, these separate species would have evolved from an original South American ancestor species after becoming isolated from one another. Was this possible? If so, it would turn people’s view of the natural world upside down.

Counterpoint – The observations being made are not proof of evolution in progress but observations of diversity within the plant and animal kingdoms. The book also draws the conclusion that this observation alone was an assault on the prevailing view at the time – inferring “creationism.”

Furthermore, diversity within a family (phyla) can be observed and is NOT evolution at all. For instance, it is believed by both creationists and evolutionists that all the breeds of dogs known today have descended from the gray wolf – with many of the breeds being the result of selective breeding over the past century. This “observable” diversity that resulted from breeding – whether selective or natural – is not evidence of evolution, since the traits of the resulting animals were traits that existed in the gray wolf from the beginning. Breeding just “selects” certain heritable traits over others. However, evolutionists would have you believe that the diversity that we can observe in progress in dogs, represents evolution of other animals in the fossil record. This defies logic.

Ironically, diversity in the animal kingdom resulting from natural or selective breeding supports the biblical account of Noah bringing two of every animal into the Ark. Creationists have long argued that Noah only had to bring the original type of the animal into the ark and not all the species of the animal that have been developed over time. This theory reduces the number of animals necessary to repopulate the planet. Once again, the data used to support the theory of evolution also supports the theory of the Noah’s Flood, and therefore cannot be used as proof for either.

373-

Explorers were traversing the globe, and great thinkers were beginning to challenge established views about the natural world…

Most Europeans in Darwin’s day believed that the Earth and all its forms of life had been created only a few thousand years ago…Rocks and major geological features were thought to have been produced suddenly by catastrophic events that humans rarely, if ever, witnessed.

Counterpoint – If students are led to believe that the evolutionists represent the “great thinkers”, does that imply that creationists represent the “backward thinkers”? This is also a direct reference to Noah’s Flood as being the catalyst for the geological features. It seems references to intelligent design can be censored based on separation of church and state and the inferences of a “Designer” but derogatory remarks that insinuate creationists are intellectually challenged are permissible.

Additionally, this is also a blatant lie. We can “observe” in the scientific sense, that catastrophic events produce many of the geologic features we see today. Case in point: Mount St. Helens. This observable eruption in May of 1980 produced much of the strata layers that evolutionists claim are the result of successive layers of sediment deposited over long periods of time – and it did it in a 24-hour period! Additionally, the flume experiment produced the same laboratory results (see: http://www.icr.org/article/experiments-stratification/) which can be repeated, observed, falsified, and predicted.

Page 380-

The Struggle for Existence …Darwin realized that high birth rates and a shortage of life’s basic needs would eventually force organisms into competition for resources. The struggle for existence means that members of each species compete regularly to obtain food, living space, and other necessities of life…This struggle for existence was central to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Counterpoint – Direct observation of Darwin’s realizations stated in the above text contradicts this statement. For instance, human beings gravitate toward cities to live in, where they do not compete in the ways described above. Their gathering together enables them to share resources. This is also true in the animal kingdom. There are flocks, herds, packs, colonies, etc., etc. In all these instances animals live together and do not compete with each other but cooperate for survival, all of which disproves Darwin’s central premise.

Page 381-

Over time, natural selection results in changes in the inherited characteristics of a population. These changes increase a species’ fitness in its environment.

DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION Darwin proposed that over long periods, natural selection produces organisms that have different structures, establish different niches, or occupy different habitats…Each living species has descended, with changes, from other species over time. He referred to this principle as descent with modification.

Counterpoint – Survival of the Fittest does not equate to evolution. The fittest do survive but they do not evolve. A fit cat will never become any other type of animal, no matter how many years pass by. The developing science of genetics as well as direct observation supports the biblical claim that animals reproduce after their own kind.

AND.. “descent with modification” remains an atheist’s dream. The modifications – or diversity – within any living species is dependent upon the genes that exist within their gene pool. As stated previously, neither Darwin nor any of his followers, have ever proposed a mechanism that adds information into a gene pool that would allow for the procreation of an animal or plant that differs from the options that exist within the gene pool of their parents. If it did, every pregnant woman would have cause for concern.

The section on Darwinian evolution ends with the following statements:

Page 387-

Scientific advances in many fields of biology along with geology and physics, have confirmed and expanded most of Darwin’s hypotheses….researchers still debate such important questions as precisely how new species arise and why species become extinct. There is also uncertainty about how life began.

Counterpoint – The advances referred to in this statement are as convoluted as the “evidences” detailed in this book. The last sentence, however, does contain a modicum of truth for evolutionists. In fact, they will remain uncertain about how life began for as long as they refuse to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural Creator.

________________________________________

Counterpoint Part 2
Roseann Salanitri

As discussed in Part 1 of this series, it has become my mission to present a counterpoint to what is being taught in high school biology classes in a manner designed to challenge the faith of students. In an effort to accomplish this mission, I will be reviewing the most popular biology book in America, Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006, Biology, written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine.

Part 1 focused on Darwinian evolution, which presented the theory with much psychological manipulation and innuendos designed to make the student believe evolution is well-supported by the facts and any other theory is for the mentally-challenged. Part 2 will focus on the teachings of the origination of organic molecules, and the misrepresentations and downright lies associated with the Miller-Urey experiment.

Charles Darwin acknowledged the need for a way for organic matter to “evolve” from inorganic matter. In other words, he recognized that there had to be a way for life to evolve from non-life – or a bunch of chemicals. The book tries to address this problem by discussing the Miller-Urey experiment in a way that is both misleading and intellectually dishonest.

On page 424, in the first two sentences in the section entitled THE FIRST ORGANIC MOLECULES, the problem is accurately presented. The book acknowledges that atoms cannot assemble themselves into living cells, and that the oxygen in our atmosphere would destroy many kinds of organic molecules that are protected within a cell. That’s just about where the honesty ends. The next sentence declares that the early Earth was different – inferring that the atmosphere was different. The first paragraph ends with a sentence: Could organic molecules have evolved under those conditions?

Counterpoint – First, the problem is acknowledged, then the student is cleverly led to believe that the problems we observe today may have not have existed in the past. This is an important assumption, since circumstances would have to have been different in order to support different experimental observations: that the oxygen in our atmosphere would not allow such an evolution to occur.

But is the assumption correct.

In order to circumvent the oxygen problem, evolutionists have proposed that the early atmosphere did not contain oxygen. Then they go on to assume that the oxygen problem would gradually change as primitive life produced oxygen through processes such as photosynthesis. Aside from the fact that geological and paleontological research has revealed that an oxygen-based atmosphere must have existed from the earliest times, the argument is circular at best. In other words, if the presence of oxygen in the early atmosphere would prevent the evolution of life from non-life and the argument is that oxygen would have slowly been produced from primitive life, you should be asking: if you can’t produce life with oxygen in the atmosphere, how can life produce the oxygen? If you’re confused, you should be.

Page 424 – presents the Miller-Urey experiment as a possible answer to their dilemma. In this experiment back in the 1950s, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey designed an experiment where they added hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water to represent the atmosphere of the early Earth. They did NOT add oxygen. Then they passed an electrical current through the mixture to simulate lightening.

The book goes on to say that the results were “spectacular” because the experiment produced several amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. Then it declares:

Miller and Urey’s experiments suggested how mixtures of the organic compounds

necessary for life could have arisen from simpler compounds present on a primitive Earth.

Page 424 continued – Under Figure 17-8 of the experiment, the book states in an egregiously misleading way (a downright lie, actually):

This and other experiments suggest how simple compounds found on the early Earth could have combined to form the organic compounds needed for life.

It concludes this section by admitting that the simulations used by Miller-Urey were inaccurate but goes on to say:

However, similar experiments based on more current knowledge of Earth’s early atmosphere have also produced organic compounds…

Counterpoint – Oh – where to start! Let’s begin with a logical question:

If the unsuccessful Miller-Urey experiment was succeeded by successful experiments, why did the authors go into detail about the unsuccessful experiment and exclude any information about the “similar experiments” that they imply were successful?

Perhaps the answer is that the organic compounds that were created over the past 60 some odd years were just as unsuccessful for the origination of life as the experiment in question. What the students are not told is that the amino acids produced in the experiment were the wrong types of proteins to produce life and that the atmosphere created was basically irrelevant, as were the rest of the conditions produced in the experiment.

Here’s another critical question that demands an answer regarding the origination of a cell:

If somehow we were able to create in a laboratory experiment a situation where carbohydrates (the proteins necessary for life), lipids, and nucleic acids were produced, would we have created a living cell?

The answer is still a loud and resounding NO!!!!!!!!

Today we know that cells are much more than an assemblage of chemicals. They are complex machines that perform a myriad of functions to produce and sustain life. You see, the question is not whether organic molecules can be synthesized in a laboratory, the question is how can molecules (first inorganic, which then evolve into organic) produce living cells – or how can life evolve from non-life?

Much to the chagrin of many hopeful evolutionists who have had to abandon their Miller-Urey-types of experiments for lack of success, the programming of information into a cell will continue to be their ultimate downfall. For more information on the failure of the Miller-Urey experiment, see a secular opinion at: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/21/scientists-finish-a-53-year-old-classic-experiment-on-the-origins-of-life/#.VTEwSNLBzGc or a credentialed believer’s opinion at: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/51-the-miller-urey-experiment.html. I also suggest the book “Icons of Evolution” by Jonathan Wells.

After over a half of a century of experimentation, evolutionists still can’t create the right types of proteins in the right conditions to produce life, never mind trying to figure out how genetic codes are created. But somehow – someway – they manage to present their failures to our children in a manner that makes them seem credible. However, it is the responsibility of parents to teach truth to their children. Somehow – someway – we have delegated that responsibility to strangers, and then we are surprised by the strange ideas that our children have been indoctrinated into believing. Hence, this series is being written to assist parents in teaching the truth. Hopefully, they will do just that – for if they do, the truth will most definitely prevail.

__________________________

 

Counterpoint, Part 3

Roseann Salanitri

As discussed in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, I will be reviewing the most popular biology textbook in America, Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006, Biology, written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine. I am doing so to offer a “counterpoint” to their interpretation of origins, which has been cleverly designed by the authors to mislead students through psychological manipulations, tortured interpretations of the facts, and downright lies. It is my hope that this work will serve as an instrument for parents and church leaders in defending the biblical account of origins that is being assaulted in academia and used as a tool to tear down the students’ trust in the Word of God – and subsequently to challenge their faith in the existence of God Himself.

Before beginning my counterpoint argument against Punctuated Equilibrium, as presented on page 439 of the textbook, it is necessary to establish the importance of qualifying something as a “theory.”

Page 14 – correctly defines how a theory is developed. It states:

In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a
broad range of observations. A theory enables scientists to make accurate predictions
about new situations. (Emphasis as it appears in the textbook.)

Counterpoint – The book mentions but cleverly does not stress the importance of making accurate predictions that testing is supposed to verify. And it also does not address the many predictions Darwin made about his “theory” that the evidence has disqualified. Most noteworthy, Darwin made several predictions that can be found in his Origin of Species, 6th edition, chapters 6, 10, 15. He correctly predicted:

If my theory be true, numberless varieties, linking closely together all the species
of the same group, must assuredly have existed…

The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct
species, must have been inconceivably great…

An interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed…

Darwin’s predictions were legitimate and logical. If his theory was true, certainly there would have been an enormous amount of transitional fossils for all categories of life. At the time Darwin made these predictions, the fields of paleontology (the study of the history of living organisms) and geology were young and burgeoning sciences. Over a century and a half later, that is no longer the case.

So what about the “well-tested” explanation of the theory mentioned on page 14 of the textbook? Has science documented in the quantities Darwin predicted the gradual transition from one living species to another referred to as Descent with Modification? The answer is a loud and resounding NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Despite the facts, evolutionists will tell you that there are numerous transitional fossils that have been found as evidence of evolution. I will devote another segment of this series to examine the so-called “evidences of evolution”, and argue that they should more properly be called “evidences of deception.”

What does the real evidence show?

In 1999, Prof. Steve Jones of University College of London published his own version of Darwin’s Origin of Species. On page 252 of this publication, Almost Like a Whale, he stated:

The fossil record – in defiance of Darwin’s whole idea of gradual change – often makes
great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be
expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without
warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and
gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.

Contrary to the predictions made by Darwin, gradualism from a common ancestor in the fossil record is nowhere to be found. After over a century and a half of paleontological and geological research, the fossil record shows that there was a sudden explosion of life forms at what evolutionists call the Cambrian period and these life forms continue the same as we observe them today. In light of strong evidence to the contrary, the theory of evolution has not abandoned its suppositions; instead it has attempted to explain the evidence in a way to make it conform to their theory.

How have evolutionists tortured the evidence to fit their theory?

They have proposed that life continues in a static way until there is a sudden and rapid genetic change in a small period of time. The idea was first proposed by German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt in the 1940s and 50s. It was called the Hopeful Monster Hypothesis. Aside from the laughable suggestion that lacks logic as well as a mechanism, the idea that all of a sudden one species rapidly changes enough to give birth to another species in a small period of time is beyond ridiculous – aside from which there is no supporting evidence. And if it were true, these “hopeful monsters” would have to mate with other hopeful monsters to survive as a species – the odds of which are exponential at best. Additionally, if true, all pregnant women would have cause for concern.

Evolutionists realized they had to explain the sudden appearance of life forms in the Cambrian geologic level in a more scientific-sounding manner. So, rather than abort their theology in light of contrary evidence, they re-invented the Hopeful Monster Hypothesis and now call it Punctuated Equilibrium.

Page 439 –
…Some species, such as horseshoe crabs, have changed very little from the time they
first appeared in the fossil record. In other words, much of the time these species are in
a state of equilibrium. At several points in the fossil record, changes in animals and plants occurred over relatively short periods of time. Some biologists suggest that most
new species are produced by periods of rapid change.

Counterpoint – Saying “some” species have changed very little in the fossil record is disingenuous at best, as is the claim that the fossil record bears evidence of rapid change. It does not. Every species that survived did so as it first appeared in the fossil record. The book goes on to try to explain how this rapid development may have occurred after mass extinctions. Again, this suggestion is made as a way of proposing a logical way for this evolutionary problem to be solved, and it is totally based on faith and not evidence.

Page 439 (continued) –
Scientists use the term punctuated equilibrium to describe this pattern of long, stable periods interrupted by brief periods of more rapid change. (Emphasis as it appears in the textbook.)

Counterpoint – Again: there is no evidence to support these “brief periods of more rapid change.” Additionally, the obvious problems with this theory are many:
• There is a sudden explosion of life forms in the fossil record in the Cambrian period, and they continue to exist today as they did back then.
• One species giving birth to another is genetically and observably unsupportable – even if the change happened rapidly.
• If the impossible happened and a “hopeful monster” did exist, another hopeful monster would have to exist at the same time and in the same geographical location in order for the species to reproduce.
• An explanation for the mechanism that produces this type of rapid genetic change has evaded even the most creative evolutionist’s mind.
• Intermediate or transitional forms from a common ancestor in the fossil record have not been found in over 150 years of research – even evidence of rapid change should have been discovered in this length of time. And the ones they claim to be “evidence” have all been discounted or just plain stretches of the imagination.

In conclusion, the explosion of life at the Cambrian period not only contradicts any plausible explanation for evolution but supports the biblical account wherein we are told that every life form was created in the first week of the creation. A prediction to support the biblical narrative would state that we can expect to find a sudden explosion of life at one point in time, which is just what the evidence reveals. So while unbelievers scramble to create a theory to explain the facts that somehow seems believable to unbelievers, they must rely on faith NOT evidence.
In the words of the late Dr. Duane Gish: “It is unbelievable what unbelievers have to believe to be unbelievers.”  And to that, I say AMEN!

"I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas."

"...1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton’s stain on Monica’s dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama." ~ Mychal Massie's Nero In The White House

Why I Do Not Like The Obamas By Mychal Massie

Originally posted January 5, 2013 @ Mychal Massie's The Daily Rant

Mychal Massie

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obamas? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obamas. It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.

I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists; they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds; and, for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no, I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians, and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie; but, even using that low standard, the Obamas have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge, and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them because they both display bigotry overtly: as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates when Obama accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and as in her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely; but he could rise to the highest, most powerful position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met; he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance; Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 in bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.

He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children — that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements – he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race card.

It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton and for refusing to label the Obamas for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)

Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)

____________________________________

Nero in the White House

Posted By Mychal Massie On 08/08/2011 @ WND

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton’s stain on Monica’s dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon’s words “I am not a crook,” punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton’s finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn’t only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event’s sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski’s $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago’s Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they’re not. They are employees of “we the people,” who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball’s chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated “we the people” the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

_______________________________

 

I wonder if there's any truth to this ↓?

Coming Down The Pike...the national takeover of the police (Another in the series of "Lets Destroy America" by Barack Obama)

World Net Daily

Obama's 'national civilian security force' endorsed

Posted By Bob Unruh

Back in 2008, Barack Obama, then a presidential candidate, called for a “civilian national security force.” And he wanted it as big as all of the nation’s military branches combined.
Now black activist Al Sharpton is suggesting a path that probably would accomplish that: nationalize America’s police forces.
Sharpton, the National Action Network chief who has been sounding off most of the week on the death in police custody of Freddie Gray, said: “We need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country. In the 20th century, they had to fight states’ rights to get the right to vote. We’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases. Police must be held accountable.”
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Friday that Sharpton is “talking about looting the legal system, national takeover of policing.”
Limbaugh said that with the state’s attorney’s announcement Friday of counts against six police officers for the in-custody death of Freddie Gray, justice in America is becoming “social justice.”
“If you’ve heard the term ‘social justice’ bandied about over the course of your life and wondered what it really mean, aside from another way of expressing liberalism, the press conference today by Ms. Mosby, the state attorney, pretty much defines social justice as opposed to real justice,” Limbaugh said.
Get “Police State U.S.A.” and get author Cheryl Chumley’s take on why in 10 years, “Our kids won’t know the America of our youth.”
First, the talk host said, Sharpton talks about a policing takeover, then, “she comes along and starts talking about the cause. One and one equals two. ‘This is a moment, this is your moment,’ What, the charging of six cops? Or the death of Freddie? What is the moment? ‘Let’s ensure that we have peaceful, productive rallies that will develop structural and systemic changes for generations to come. You are at the forefront of this cause, and as young people, our time is now.”
Obama’s calls for a private standing army was made at a 2008 appearance in Colorado Springs.
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we set,” Obama said at the time. “We’ve got have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
See the Colorado Springs remarks:
It was WND Editor Joseph Farah who raised the obvious questions about Obama’s plans for a civilian army after the speech.
“For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama’s campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since,” he wrote at the time.
“In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation’s military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: ‘We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.’”
“Now, since I’ve never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase ‘civilian national security force’ before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind,” he wrote. “What does it mean?”
Farah pointed out that a “massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together” would be startling.
“The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?” he wrote.
Limbaugh explained what the nationalization of police and the “social justice” emphasis by the prosecutor, mean.
“I think the legal system – what Rev. Sharpton meant here in the first sound bite, I’m gonna go ahead and say this. What Rev. Sharpton is talking about is looting the legal system. When he talks about a national takeover of policing in this country, he’s talking about looting the legal system.”
WND reported two years ago that a book documented how the Department of Homeland Security already was demonstrating troubling signs the agency is shifting the balance of power away from local and state municipalities toward a centralized federal authority.
In “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott conclude the DHS has likely violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
The law expressly forbids direct participation by the military in a “search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity.”
The authors further cite evidence the DHS is building a de facto domestic military, with the purchase of military-grade equipment and the execution of military-style training exercises.
Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office” is available now, autographed, at WND’s Superstore
The DHS could be the realization of Obama’s call for a civilian national security force, warn Klein and Elliott.

Is the government planning to confiscate guns or implement martial law? Texans believe it! (Me too. ~ Storm'n Norm'n)

TX Gov Orders State Guard to Monitor Possible Military Takeover of Texas

ShareTweetPin-it

Bookmark248 Comments

AP Photo / Eric Gay

By PAUL J. WEBERPublishedApril 29, 2015, 3:53 PM EDT 147347 views

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the State Guard to monitor a U.S. military training exercise dubbed "Jade Helm 15" amid Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation is really a hostile military takeover.

The request comes a day after more than 200 people packed a meeting in rural Bastrop County and questioned a U.S. Army commander about whether the government was planning to confiscate guns or implement martial law. Bastrop County Judge Paul Pape said "conspiracy theorists" and "fear mongers" had been in a frenzy.
Pape thanked Abbott for the letter to the Texas State Guard, which he believed helped emphasize the benefit of the military training rather than further fuel theorists.
"It's a sad when people's greatest fear is their own government," Pape said. "Think about the ramification of that. If Americans go to sleep at night worrying whether their own government is going to sell them out before morning, it'd be hard to sleep."
Suspicions about Jade Helm intensified on some conservative websites and social media after a map labeled Texas, Utah and parts of California as "hostile" for the purposes of the three-month training exercise that begins in July. Such war simulations aren't unusual, though the Army has acknowledged that the size and scope of Jade Helm makes it unique.

People listen at a public hearing about the Jade Helm 15 military training exercise in Bastrop, Texas. (Photo via AP)
Texas and six other states are hosting the exercises on public and private lands. The Army says the terrain and topography in the areas selected are ideal to replicate foreign combat zones.
No other governor had so publicly addressed the training exercise.
"It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed," Abbott wrote. "By monitoring the Operation on a continual basis, the State Guard will facilitate communications between my office and the commanders of the Operation to ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect Texans."
U.S. Army Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria told the crowd in Bastrop on Monday that the exercise will involve 1,200 soldiers and all four branches of the military, according to the Austin American-Statesman. He said people with a "personal agenda" about the exercise had been spreading misinformation.
Lastoria spoke for two hours, but some left the meeting still unconvinced.

Bob Welch, standing at left, and Jim Dillon, hold a sign at a public hearing about the exercise. (Photo via AP)
Pape told The Associated Press that some came from as far as Houston and Dallas to attend the meeting. He said the county could reap as much as $150,000 in economic activity from the exercise, which in Bastrop is set to include 60 soldiers, two Humvees and a helicopter.
Bastrop County is home to Camp Swift, the largest base for the Texas National Guard, and Pape said most people likely won't even notice.
"There's been a lot of dust thrown in the air, a lot of haze," Pape said. "Those who wanted to raise concerns on the one hand succeeded. They've raised a lot of attention about this. But the fact is the message is clear: Jade Helm is a well-designed and a well-constructed training operation."
___
Associated Press Writer Eva Ruth Moravec contributed to this report.

Woman Plotting Cop Killing Arrested

←Some of you may have got this in an email from me.  While there were minimal responses those that did respond had various suggestions.  One suggestion was to have her invited to the Policemen's Ball.  Overall, most thought it was pretty discusting.  The reason I sent it out was to expose the level of racism in the black community urged on by such racists as Al Sharpton, Dr. Kamau Kambon, Malik Shabazz  and others too numerous to mention.  Oh, how could I forget... The media!  The media should be held accountable for much of the racism that goes on because of their one-sided reporting.  Most of their reporting is usually stems from an accusation (real or not) of some white conservative or Republican.  In fact, Ive not heard yet of anyone in the main stream media pouncing on this Tiffany Milan's (real name Ebony Monique Dickens) tirade.  Well all that is about to change.  Now we have Rodney Harris, a reporter for CBS channel 46 out if East Point, Georgia reporting on the arrest of Tiffany Milan for threatening police officers.  ~ Norman E. Hooben

The Rodney Harris story follows:

Woman arrested for threatening police officers on Facebook

By Rodney Harris
EAST POINT, GA (CBS46) -
A woman was arrested in southwest Atlanta Tuesday after threatening police officers on Facebook.
East Point police said Ebony Monique Dickens, whose name is Tiffany Milan on Facebook, posted the following message on the social media site:

"All Black ppl should rise up and shoot at every white cop in the nation starting NOW.
I condone black on white killings. Hell they condone crimes against us.
I've thought about shooting every white cop I see in the head until I'm either caught by the police or killed by them. Ha!!!! I think I can pull it off. Might kill at least fifteen tomorrow. I'm plotting now. They reading this sh** too right now. Freedom of speech tho. So when you can absolutely show me the 1st amendment where it explicitly says you can't say "kill all cops," then I'll delete my status. Other than that...NOPE!
Death to all white cops nationwide."

Dickens was taken into custody around 9:30 p.m. after Atlanta police told East Point police about the post. She is being held at the East Point jail, charged with dissemination of information related to terroristic threats.
East Point is located in the southwest section of Atlanta.