Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_mexico_apocalypse2012

According to this article there is a fairly decent sized scare over the fact that the Mayan Calender ends in 2012.  There are people from a wide range of belief systems that are frightened by it.  I can sort of see why Christians might be frightened by it, but not why the left should be, and I will explain why. 

The Mayan Calender begins with the year 3,114 BC which is within a few hundred years of when the flood occurred (the flood being around 2,400BC).  Not an exact line up, but still perhaps close enough to be significant.  The Mayans believed that time and history were divided into ages and that the last age closed with a catastrophe.  For some reason the Calender ends in 2012.  According to this article some inscriptions have been found which contain predictions about what is supposed to happen at the end of the Calender:

One of them is Monument Six.

Found at an obscure ruin in southern Mexico during highway construction in the 1960s, the stone tablet almost didn’t survive; the site was largely paved over and parts of the tablet were looted.

It’s unique in that the remaining parts contain the equivalent of the date 2012. The inscription describes something that is supposed to occur in 2012 involving Bolon Yokte, a mysterious Mayan god associated with both war and creation.

However — shades of Indiana Jones — erosion and a crack in the stone make the end of the passage almost illegible.

Archaeologist Guillermo Bernal of Mexico’s National Autonomous University interprets the last eroded glyphs as maybe saying, “He will descend from the sky.”

The part which I have bolded is the part which I find to be most significant from a Christian perspective, as it describes the manner in which Jesus is supposed to return.  Of course I realize that from a pagan perspective that could refer to almost anything.  So again, the predictions themselves may mean nothing, but the question remains as to why the Mayan Calender ends in 2012, when clearly it counts back to a significant event.  Just because they were aware of the past, it does not automatically follow that they should also be aware of the future.  So I can’t say whether or not the Mayan Calender has any prescient properties, but I suspect it does not.  At any rate, time will tell.  What concerns me most about 2012 is that Obama will be up for re-election.  I hope he loses, but we will see.

Now, as to the leftists/evolutionists.  There is no reason why they should be scared by the ending of the Mayan Calender.  Certainly it is not the only calender from an ancient civilization which has run out (or will run out).  If I really believed in evolutionism and thought the earth was 4.8 billion years old, and if I really accepted every modified date for the age of the earth which is continually being pushed back further, then I would have no reason to attach any significance to a timescale produced by ancient people which does not line up with the evolutionary chronology.  Evolutionists measure truth by whether or not items line up with their paradigm, and any ideology that teaches a world wide catostrophe occured around 3,000 BC does not.  The Mayan time scale and the evolutionist time scale represent two completely different views of reality (I happen to favor the Mayan view).  In the case of evolutionists, they are basically trying to manufactor a scare because they want something to be scared over.  It’s the same reason why they go and see movies like “Paranormal Activity”: http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2009/10/14/real-paranormal-activity-movie-haunting-fans-reactions/

I want everyone to watch these videos about how the Obama administration is working to rapidly construct a one world government.  The first one is short, the second one is long but highly informative.  We should all be disturbed by this, and a lot of us would be better of dead than under a one world government:

So now Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize, just because.  Supposedly because of his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” but that is really just a round about way of saying “just because.”  I would like to remind everyone that he hasn’t done anything other than try to steer the country more towards communism.  This is just a case of international brown nosing, and the only reason that he is being brown nosed is because the Nobel committee has become peopled with liberals.  Which is evidenced by the fact that they also gave a Nobel Peace prize to Yasser Arafat.  I’m starting to think that if Hitler were alive today they would give him one as well.

Conclusion: the Nobel Peace Prize is a farce, and liberals around the world worship Obama just because. 

A few days ago my sister was made to write an essay for a standardized test at school.  The question was (and this is not an exact quote but it’s basically what they said):  Many people think that the money spent on the space program could be better spent helping the poor, do you think that the government should spend money on the space program or on programs to help the poor? 

Of course the way she answered it was that she thought the money should be better spent on the space program and she gave some good reasons why but not quite as many as I would.  At any rate, it turns out that everyone else in her class (11th graders) with the exception of some girl that had moved here from Taiwan and my sister, said that the space program should be scrapped in favor of more “social spending.”  The most frightening aspect of this, is that someday those kids are going to be able to vote.

At any rate, the question creates a false dichotomy, it is not an either or scenario.  There is already a great deal of money spent on welfare and other forms of “social spending.”  I have decided that “Social Spending” is essentially a bureaucratic euphemism for socialism.  There is already a great deal more spent on socialist programs than there is on space exploration.  Scrapping the space program in favor of spending more money on socialist programs is really not going to make a huge difference in how much money is delved out to people who are out of jobs or whatever.  Now in terms of what is better for society as a whole, space exploration bears fruits which enhance the lives of everyone, whereas social spending does not.  For example, the microwave was invented to give the astronauts a way to prepare food.  How many people cook primarily with the microwave vs. how many are depending on subsidies from the government?  Also, do you like using a GPS unit to find new places?  Do you like knowing when a hurricane is getting ready to hit?  If you answer yes to these things then you are probably one of the people who benefits more from the space program than social spending.  Which is actually the majority. 

Space exploration leads to innovations and scientific discovery, welfare and other social programs fuel the development of a class of people dependent upon the government, sometimes over multiple generations.  Whether those people are helped by being dependent on the government is negligible at best, but certainly the majority of people who are not part of those programs do not benefit from them, and in fact are harmed by them because it is their money which is being taken in order to provide the government with revenue for all that. 

I don’t understand why the left does not see that space exploration provides the only long term answer to two of their favorite issues/concerns.  Those issues being pollution and overpopulation.  Imagine if all the garbage in landfills were jettisoned into space instead of left beneath the ground.  Or if heavy industry was relocated to the moon.  No one would care if there was a nuclear meltdown on the moon, of if heavy industrial pollution were released into the vacuum of space.  Also, if space technology improves colonies could be established on other planetary bodies in the solar system (relieving population pressure on the earth), and perhaps a way to reach other solar systems could even be discovered.  What I don’t understand is why the liberals are trying to call themselves progressive, when their politicians (whom they almost always agree with) continually cut spending on useful things like the military and space program (the only useful things the government does), and spend it on programs with negative returns.  That is regress, not progress. 

I have decided to leave Revelife and de-subscribe to it.  For a long time I have to say I have been very unimpressed with the quality and intellectual level of their entries, and I have to say, that quite often I have felt like I was reading the musings of children there.  But the straw that broke the camels back was this: http://www.revelife.com/702784471/darwins-missing-link-ida-how-do-we-react/?page=4&jump=1487952878&leftcmt=1#1487952878

Basically, the guy says that Christians should adopt the position of Theistic Evolution because of a new fossil that was found.  First of all, even if a new fossil is found for a creature which has not been found elsewhere, it is by no means proof of evolutionism.  Evolutionists are desperately looking for creatures that defy classification so that they can trump them up as missing links.  The fact is, fossils are dead bones or in some cases impressions left by the remains of organisms in the dirt which have become solidified.  Either way, this does not amount to proof for evolutionism.  From examining the remains of an extinct animal, you cannot tell that the creature was of a different sort than the parents, nor can you tell that it’s offspring were of a different sort than it was.  In fact you often cannot even tell IF it even had offspring at all.  Evolutionists like to arrange creatures in ascending or descending orders based on their own subjective inference based criterion, and when they find something previously unknown they plug in somewhere in their fictitious sequence.  The only circumstantial evidence that lends even a semblance of credence to their claims is the fact that the creature is no longer seen today.  Because, according to them, it evolved into something else.  The conclusion is not based on empirical data, and in fact it goes against all empirical data we have which demonstrates that each organism reproduces more of the same.  Dogs have baby dogs, monkeys have baby monkeys, and so on and so forth.

The point is, I see no reason to bow to evolution, but I have to say that I like atheists better than I like “Christian” evolutionists (which is actually an oxymoron, hence the quotes).  At least atheists are honest about the implications of their belief system and are not trying to combine two completely contradictory belief systems.  There are a multitude of powerful heresies that go along with accepting a position like theistic evolution.  One has a better chance of being a Christian Moslem than a Christian Evolutionist.  If I believed in evolutionism then my Bibles would quickly become paperweights or kindling.  But at any rate, people need to make up their minds.  If you find the arguments for the Bible convincing then believe in the Bible, if you find the arguments for evolutionism convincing then go believe in evolutionism. 

For the sake of expedience, and because the article is short, I will post the entire article before giving my commentary:

Biden’s Puppy Breeder: “Never, Never, Never Again” Woman is vilified for selling a pedigreed pup to the Bidens.

By  KAREN ARAIZA

Updated 2:48 PM EDT, Fri, Apr 10, 2009

Fifteen minutes of fame turned into four months of bitter remorse for the Chester County woman who sold the Bidens their adorable little German shepherd puppy.

Linda Brown‘s been investigated, scorned and had her life threatened.

“I thought when Joe Biden bought a puppy from me, what an honor,” Brown told the Daily Local News. “Out of millions of breeders in the country, in the world, he picked me.”

That was December.

When the story got out, Brown faced backlash from pet lovers who thought the Bidens should have opted for a shelter over a breeder to find their new puppy.

PETA seized the moment as an opportunity to blame the killing of shelter animals on people who buy from breeders. The organization’s TV commercial, “Buy One, Get One Killed” ran in Delaware after the Biden puppy story made headlines.

Dog wardens from the state showed up at Brown’s Wolf Den kennel, repeatedly, for inspections.

“I was cited for a piece of kibble on the floor and five strands of dog hair. They took a picture of that, they walked around, snapped pictures and don’t tell you why,” Brown told the newspaper.

She was found “not guilty” for each citation, but hiring a lawyer for the court hearings has cost her $4,000 so far in legal fees.

Brown says she and Biden both received death threats from animal activists.

“Never, never, never again,” Brown said about selling a dog to anyone with a high profile.

Her advice to breeders who’ve called about the Obama‘s puppy search: Don’t do it!
 
“It’s been horrific since December,” she said.

Commentary:

First of all, I do not like Biden, but he has the same rights that everyone else does, including to spend his own money to engage in voluntary financial transactions.  Second, I am not pro-government, but last time I checked death threats against the vice-president were considered treason.  How are these people getting away with this?  While I still do not care for or about Biden, I find the behavior disturbing.  But I also find it ironic how so many of the people who voted for him could turn so vehemently against him over such a small and irrelevant thing.  If it was just Biden in trouble I might not say anything at all, but they are also threatening the breeder, and the issues at heart here certainly have far broader ramifications than just Biden and his vendor.

I have had death threats from people on the left before.  I do not take them seriously because I know that the people who issue those threats are quite pathetic.  What is an extreme leftist going to do?  Shoot me with the gun they don’t believe in owning?  Overpower me with their 90 pound vegen fury?  Outfight me with their lethal yoga moves?  I don’t think so.  If they ever show up at my house with hostile intent they will be tied into a human pretzel and kicked across the lawn.  But I digress…

The argument here seems to be that by purchasing a dog from a breeder you are condemning another to death.  I disagree, by NOT taking one from an animal shelter you are NOT saving one that might be condemned to death but how is that Biden’s problem?  Or my problem?  It’s not.  I must say that when I was a child I liked dogs better than I liked humans.  Often times I still do, and at any rate I like them better than I like the left.  All in all dogs seem to have more logic and sense than the extreme left.  However, dogs, and all animals, are definitely lower life forms.  Regardless of whatever emotions I might have, intellectually I must recognize that dogs, and animals in general are of a lower order of intelligence than humanity, and thus they cannot be entitled to the same rights or a similar scope of rights.  Ultimately animals are either wild or they are market commodities.  If dogs were capable of speech, math, science, philosophy, and art, then obviously they would have to be regarded as equal to human beings.  To lock them up and euthanize them would become unthinkable and morally objectionable.  On the other hand, owning them, as well as buying and selling them would be unthinkable, however, there is no evidence that they are capable of that level of intelligence, so they must remain market commodities.  People have recognized that they are market commodities throughout most of history, and that is why there are so many different breeds of dogs.  Each breed was designed to serve specific functions or whims, originally.

Regarding breeds, people who like dogs often have preferences.  Women, children, and people on the left often prefer small dogs.  A hunter would prefer a hunting dog.  Practical people prefer big dogs who can guard their house and their children.  And so on and so forth.  People with families might prefer to buy a dog while it is young so that it can grow with their family.  If one wants a specific breed of dog, the logical thing to do is to go to a breeder because they typically specialize in the commodity being sought.  Buying a young dog from a breeder also minimizes the risk of acquiring a dog that’s skiddish.  Many dogs from rescue agencies have warped personalities because of past experiences.  However, there is nothing wrong with acquiring a dog from a rescue agency either.  It is simply a matter of preference, not a matter of right or wrong.  That being said, I also find it a bit hypocritical that the same people who are throwing fits and issuing death threats because they are concerned about the rights of dogs, are the same people who approve of this:

I do not understand the left at all. 

At any rate, I have a solution.  Abolish the pound, the Animal Control, the Humane Society, and that way it will no longer be an issue.  In the wild, the dogs would form themselves into packs like wolves.  Indeed dogs and wolves are of the same kind, and once wild dogs roamed free in packs across North America and it would seem that they did not bother the Native Americans at all, at least, as far as I know.  So why not let it happen again?  I certainly would not object.  However, I imagine that if that were the case, then it would only be a matter of time before all the government worshiping liberals complained about the packs of wild dogs and how the government should “do something.”  So the other options is to catch the stray dogs before they form themselves into packs, lock them up for a while and see if anyone wants them, and then kill them off when no one does.  The extreme left seldom thinks things through it would seem. 

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090405/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eu_obama

I just read this news article and had to say something. 

Obama claims that he wishes to reduce nuclear arms around the world, with the end goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons around the world.

“To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year,” he promised.

If I were in charge of a country why should I give up my weapons?  Because Obama says so?  Because it’s not nice to have nukes?  Because someone else will nuke me if I don’t?  Out of the three of those the last is the only one which bears any validity, except that the nukes would be the only thing that keeps me safe from a nuclear attack.  Once my nukes are gone I no longer have any means to retaliate against a nuclear attack.

The nukes the US had during the Cold War were the only thing that kept the USSR from nuking it.  The nukes that India has are the only thing that keeps the government of Pakistan from nuking India.

So if I were an evil dictator I might lie and say that I had no nukes or even pretend to eliminate nukes, and perhaps even eliminate some older more obsolete models.  But obviously I would keep prodigious amounts of nuclear weapons stored away in secret so that when all the chumps give up on their nuclear weapons I could own them all.

The obvious flaw in the plan is enforcement, so rather than leaving well enough alone and recognizing that MAD is the most viable means of deterrence, the left decides that the answer is more government.

“Rules must be binding,” he said. “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”

“Now is the time for a strong international response,” he said.

–”he” being Obama.

Obama said the U.S. will seek to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty by providing more resources and authority for international inspections and mandating “real and immediate consequences” for countries that violate the treaty.

Well that’s just great, another step towards world government.  Creating an international police force subject to a world governing body.  The left’s answer to everything is more government, when the answer should be more freedom.  I know that the left is wetting themselves over Obama and the notion of world government, but more government (of any kind) means less freedom.  In western countries the left has always been fairly frightened about a nuclear war, and they would gladly trade their freedom to be secure against that outcome, but anyone who would trade freedom for security does not deserve to have either.  As for me, I would rather be obliterated in a puff of nuclear smoke than have to live under a one world government, where I would probably be killed, tortured, experimented on, or sent to some labor camp for my political and religious views.  Although having said that, I must also add that I do not consider a nuclear war to be extremely unlikely.  No one is going to risk total destruction by nuking a country which already has a nuclear arsenol.  I find it far more likely that Obama will reduce arms in the US only to be nuked by Russia, or he will succeed in laying the ground work for a one world government in which freedom loving people will be tortured and killed.  So in conclusion this anti-nuclear movement is nothing more than a poorly veiled attempt to undermine national sovereignty in favor of world government. 

Not only that but it seems he has some sugar in his tank.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_gay_rights

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

And there is a reason why he refused to sign it, soon to be made clear.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration’s French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

Not surprising, that is one of the most pathetic sissy people groups in the world.  Everyone takes over France, and it’s also been the source of a lot of the ideas behind modern liberalism.  I could say a lot more about France but I’ll hold back.

The official added that the United States was concerned about “violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals” and was also “troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries.”

First off, that isn’t true, because if it were then they would do something to stop abortions.  I used to be strongly anti-abortion but I have changed my stance on abortion a bit because most of the people getting abortions are liberals or other types of people I don’t like, and if they choose to wipe themselves out I don’t see how I am any worse off, but the point is, if they were really concerned about human rights they would do something about the abortions.  So even if I was not aware of the fact that everything the left does is just a scheme to increase the power and influence of government, I could still tell they’re full of crap because I have seen all the pictures of mutilated unborn babies and I know what their position is on that.  This other bullcrap about protecting gay people from violence is just a cover to limit the freedom of the private sector.  Just watch, pretty soon they will extend the implications and jurisdiction of this “treaty” to crack down on churches, small business owners, and anyone who does not approve of the gay lifestyle.

Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

Which is why such treaties should never be signed.  This is nothing more than a blatant step towards world government. 

According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

And those will probably be some of the first people they will crack down on.  The Democrats are like a gay effiminate version of the old Nazis.

Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to “the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts” such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.

And of course the Moslems are spot on about this, and so is the Catholic Church.  And because of this, I am going to lay off of the Moslems more in the future. 

Now don’t get me wrong, I do not endorse laws illegalizing any form of consensual behavior, and I could not at all care less about what people do behind closed doors so long as I do not have to see it or be a part of it.  What I do care about, and what does cause my blood to boil more than anything, is when governments curtail freedom of speech and starts regulating the private sector.  There is no reason for the government to be telling businesses who they can or cannot hire, what land owners can do with their property, who they can or cannot rent to, or (and this will probably be next) what is preached in churches.  I do not recognize the right of any government or organization to do that.  Of course the left cannot understand this because they think that government is God and that rights come from the government.  They also think that if you disagree with them then the government has the right to force you to agree.  That is one thing I absolutely cannot stand about the left, is how they use government to force their views on others because they do not have facts and logic on their side.  If their philosophy was worth jack then they wouldn’t have to use force.  Philosophies that have value have facts, logic, and utility on their side, and do not require force in order to propagate and spread.  Philosophies that must be spread have little or no value generally.

Moving on, is there a difference between the Democrats and the Nazis?  This is long enough already, I will get to that one later. 

Seriously, every day there are at least two articles about this fool and every time I see one I dislike him even  more.  This man is either really stupid or the people who give him his ideas are (whoever is pulling his strings).  Of course it’s no suprise that he wants to raise taxes to the wealthiest pople in the country ($250,000+), my dad was in that bracket or a while, not sure if he still is or not.  There is indeed opposition but not so much because of that specifically, which is sad because aside from being overt theft the Democrats tax plans also have the effect of penalizing industriousness and hard work.  No one in DC seems to be opposing the Dems on those ground.  If I were rich, I would not retire in the US where the Feds could rape  my savings accounts over and over again, I would head off to South America.

At any rate, there is more stupidity which bears mentioning.  Obama wants to wants to penalize companies or emitting “green house gasses” even though all the evidece indicates that the earth is getting cooler not warmer.  All the global warming scare is merely a facade for a greater move towards bureaurocratiztion. 

“But the Treasury secretary acknowledged that consumers could face higher electric bills because Obama would impose fees on greenhouse gas producers, including power plants that burn fossil fuels, by auctioning off carbon pollution permits. The goal is to reduce the emissions blamed for global warming while raising a projected $646 billion over 10 years.”

–So much for stimulating the economy when we all have to pay higher electric bills while still earning the same in terms of real wages.  Wait to go moron in chief.  The news comic that portrayed him as a monkey (or ape, whatever) was spot on.

Not only that, but also, “Obama plans to propose legislation to limit U.S. companies’ ability to shelter foreign earnings from taxation, Geithner said. The president also will move to limit wealthy Americans’ ability to use tax havens to avoid taxation, Geithner added.”

–Either he is really short sighted and madly in love with the idea of the central government pillaging every coffer, or he is trying to ruin the country.  Seriously, many businesses have already moved their centers of production over seas.  Why?  Because it’s a basic economic axiom that money lows to the places where it is most efficiently utilized and it is often far too expensive to hire US workers.  So the next step is clearly to move the corporate headquarters to locations where they will not have to pay Obamas taxes.  It’s like Princess Leah said in SW4, “the tighter you squiz your fist the more worlds will slip right through your ingers.”  If tyrants weren’t so self absorbed they might realize that.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_taxes

I already knew that as a condition of accepting Federal funding businesses also had to accept/tolerate Federal regulation (The Monkeys Paw).  At any rate, I just found out that all the banks which accepted money from the Federal government as part of the so called “stimulus-plan” must fire all of their Indian employees.  Supposedly this only means Indians who are non-citizens, but still, it’s pretty bloody offensive.  So now I dislike the Democrats even more, stupid worthless racist gits.  I spit on the ground they walk on.  First of all, it’s unnecessary, the Indians already have a hard time getting here in the first place because of all the red tape designed to bar their entry.  So it’s not a matter of “oh no, they’re stealing jobs from Americans.”  No, it takes them a long and difficult time to even come here and many are rejected, so if Americans were qualified and willing to fill those jobs they could easily have them first.  I see no logical or ethical reason why people who are educated and hard working should be discriminated or penalized.  It’s not as though they are going to form unions to try to drive their salaries up beyond the market value of their job, or as if they are going to live off of welfare while having more kids than they can afford to feed.  What it comes down to is that the Democrats are against the traditional American system, which involves people immigrating to the country and becoming successful because the economic system allows for social mobility and free enterprise.  What they want to do is create a large class of people who are permanently dependent on the government so that they can stay in power and keep getting votes.  They don’t care one wit about the economy or progress in general.  And on top of that they are racist.  I always knew they were intensely racist against Jews but now I know for a fact that they are racist against Indians as well.  And it’s really idiotic to block immigration from the eastern hemisphere.  After all, our civilization originates over seas.  Granted it was an offshoot of European civilization but that’s still east of here and western civilization owes a lot to eastern civilizations.  For example, the numerals which we use (called Arabic numerals) are actually Indian numbers originally.  They also gave us the fork.  Then we have Algebra which came from the Middle East, and (for better or worse) gunpowder, which came from China.  So I think that not only are the racist attitudes backwards but the fruits of those sentiments are going to result in an even greater cultural deficit than the one we have now.