From Jurassic Park to Noah's Ark

FROM JURASSIC PARK TO NOAH’S ARK

2 Peter 3-7: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Science has been getting a bad rap lately…and deservedly so. The Anthropic Global Warming hoax is unraveling and too many unscrupulous scientists at the center of this politically motivated redistributionist scheme are now being excoriated for whoring themselves out to Marxist swindlers. Yet they are hardly the first, nor are they the most guilty of mis-leading the public through false science. They are merely building their fraudulent theories on the foundations previously laid by others.

The Theory of Evolution itself has been losing credibility almost since the day it was first proposed. The theory’s prevailing popularity is largely the result of political necessity rather than any accumulated scientific evidence. Evolution is, of course, the centerpiece of the collectivist’s “progressive” agenda. Without a basic belief in an ongoing process of evolutionary progress there is not much to suggest a need for implementing social policies that promote an ongoing social evolution.

The founding fathers of our country were most definitely not evolutionists! This is not only because the foundation of our country predates Darwin’s theory by a hundred years, but also because they viewed man as a “created” being. In their infinite wisdom they did not see any evidence that man had acquired any new abilities or capabilities in his entire history. No, the history of man is full of the same stories played over and over. Oh sure, you have had technological innovation, but how little has man himself changed. We are vulnerable to the same weaknesses and temptations as our fathers and their fathers before them. With this knowledge, the founders of our country designed our constitution accordingly:

“In questions of power, let us hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” -Thomas Jefferson

Those are not the words of a “progressive,” nor are they the words of someone who has faith in the inherent goodness of men. This is why the collectivists that comprise today’s resurgent “progressive” movement find the constitution to be such an impediment to their desired progress. It was intentionally designed to restrict one man’s inevitable desire to dominate and rule over another man. They foresaw the schemes and shenanigans of future Marxists, socialists and other assorted collectivists and placed barriers on the path to their alleged “progress” because they knew what we all should know:

ECCLESIASTES 1:9: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

In other words, we have been here before and what they call progress is actually nothing new at all. To our friends on the collectivist side of politics, social evolution is a natural and expected outgrowth of geological and biological evolution. If both the species, and the environment of that species, can be said to be evolving then it would be natural to assume that the society of that species in that environment would be evolving as well. Therefore they justify their reformist progressive policies much the same way as a geneticist justifies the biological engineering of plants and animals to preserve the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of their particular species, and then apply that logic to society as a whole. Alas, social engineering becomes a moral imperative of the scientifically based progressive religion of evolution with social justice being the “great commission” of its adherents.

Fortunately, even a godless philosophy must have some sort of foundation to build its’ universal truths upon, and the god of the progressives is science. The science behind evolution must be true or else the entire philosophy will collapse. Just as the collapse of the Anthropic Global Warming hoax is being under-reported in the American press, so too is another story…one that has the power to bring down the entire evolutionist scheme to mis-lead and mis-educate entire populations. The enemy of evolution turns out to be what scientists had always thought was its’ best evidence…the dinosaurs.

A recent episode of CBS’s 60 Minutes finally broke news that has been circulating throughout the scientific community for years. Fresh organic tissues continue to be found in fossils alleged to be millions of years old! These un-mineralized, still-soft tissues come from animals and plants that were preserved by some catastrophic event. Each specimen looks considerably younger than its’ alleged age and a direct conclusion must be made that the rock that encased it is likewise thousands, and not millions, of years old. The fresher the meat, and yes there is meat, the more ridiculous the evolutionist claims that either the creatures or the rocks can date to pre-human history.

“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!’. It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’ - (Schweitzer and Staedter, 1997, p. 55)

This account was given by Mary Schweitzer, a PhD student at Montana State University at the time. A well preserved Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton had been found and brought to the university in 1990. During the analysis of the fossilized remains it was observed that some portions of the bones had not mineralized but were still, intact, original bone. Further examination within the vascular system of this bone revealed…red blood cells! Of course, this is just not possible.

In 2002 Schweitzer made an even more astounding discovery. She and her team had to divide a very large Tyrannosaurus Rex thigh bone in order to transport it. When the bone was opened flexible and elastic soft tissue meat was found inside. This is astounding because this bone is alleged to be 68 million years old!

Microscopic examination revealed blood vessels with intact red blood cells and other types of cells such as osteocytes – which are bone forming cells. These blood vessels were soft, translucent and flexible. To demonstrate Schweitzer placed two microscope generated photographs side by side and asked: “One of these cells is 65 million years old and one is about nine months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?”

“I mean can you imagine pulling a bone out of the ground after 68 million years and then getting intact protein sequences? That’s just mind boggling how much preservation there is in these bones.” -John Asara, Beth Israel Deconess Medical Center

It is not some arbitrary rule of science that dictates that flesh rots quickly. It is extremely well established by observation and easily repeatable experiments such as those that can measure the protein decay that occurs in only two days. The science being challenged by these discoveries goes straight to the heart of deep-time evolutionary theory!

One of the earliest published reports concerning DNA extracted from ancient materials (over one million years old) involves magnolia leaves found in lake bottom sediments of the alleged Miocene age which is dated 17 to 20 million years old. The find proved to be interesting because the magnolia leaves were found in water-logged clay deposits. (Which is a pseudo-scientific way of saying they were still wet!) Scientists agree that DNA disintegrates very rapidly when in contact with water. In fact, complete disintegration occurs in less than 5000 years. Yet, repeatedly, scientists were able to extract authentic plant cpDNA in the 700 to 1500 bp size range.

“The clay was wet, however, and one wonders how DNA could have survived the damaging influence of water for so long.” - Prof. Dr. Svante Pääbo Director, Department of Genetics Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Perhaps the magnolia leaves simply are not 17 million years old. Likewise, the dinosaurs are not 65 million years old. The DNA evidence is much more consistent with a recent catastrophic burial. Time destroys soft tissue as well as DNA and proteins relatively quickly. Current scientific observations suggest that biological proteins cannot remain intact more than a few tens of thousands of years. 100,000 years would be the maximum possible outside limit of protein decay. The fact that these proteins have been found, intact, in bones alleged to be older than 65 million years is inconsistent with the conclusion. Either the science regarding DNA and tissue deterioration is flawed or, more likely, the age of the bones and the plants has been hugely miscalculated. This is what happens when, as with the Global Warming hoax, you begin your research with a desired conclusion only to have the evidence prove inconvenient and unable to sustain that conclusion.

Perhaps the magnolia leaves were packed wet into that clay, say…4000 years ago. Lets see, what kind of water borne catastrophe could possibly be attributed to that time frame? Ahh yes, Mr. Noah and his world consuming flood. How can scientists continue to insist that something is 17 million years old when there is no possible way for its DNA to survive 5000 years? Worse, how can paleontologists continue to tell us that dinosaurs are 65 million years old when we have organic DNA that suggests they are only thousands of years old? In fact, the evidence now suggests that humans and dinosaurs must have co-existed together!

In order for the theory of evolution to be true, the DNA in both these plants and dinosaurs must have been preserved in some way unfathomable by science. For organic dinosaur tissue to be preserved for this length of time would require…a miracle! Suddenly scientists holding onto the theory of evolution, like their Anthropic Global Warming counterparts, are in need of divine intervention and miracles to preserve their fraudulent claims.

You won’t be seeing this get the attention it deserves simply because it interferes with the political motivations of progressives and their benefactors. When the magnitude of this fraudulent science is revealed it will destroy every last bit of credibility the scientific community has ever had. It is a shame, but it is consistent with human history. Science, like religion, is often merely a tool used by the powerful to corrupt and control society. Jefferson and the other founding fathers of our country were right. Man is not an evolving creature. He is best kept locked in his constitutional cage.

An Army Of One: Saul Alinski

AN ARMY OF ONE: SAUL ALINSKI

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." -Saul Alinsky

The social engineer masquerading as the President of the United States is at it again. With a bold, and perhaps tactically wise, move he has decided to push ahead with his socialist program to distribute his ideological perception of “fairness” as part of his ongoing attempt to “fundamentally transform America.”

Disregarding the public’s demand that he refrain from pursuing his left wing agenda to remake the country into something more acceptable to him and his kind and concentrate on resolving the problems of the one he was elected to govern, the president has decided to re-open another Clinton era debacle and seek to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. Apparently the Health Care Reform disaster was not sufficient enough of a hat tip to previous democratic administration blunders. This is just another attempt to distract the public away from the dismal performance of the economy under his watch. He knows that by bringing this issue back into the spotlight it will re-ignite the fiery political passion on both sides and keep meddling eyes away from a couple of dangerous issues concerning the economy and the debt.

Is it a coincidence that the president has decided to go forward with the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy at at the same time as revised numbers on unemployment in 2009 have been released? It was announced that, in fact, the Obama administration under-reported the unemployment numbers by 827,000 jobs! Was this an “error” or an act of manipulation? Were there manipulations in the numbers that allowed for the unexpected drop in the unemployment rate down to 9.7%? Perhaps they were counting temporary census worker hires? Did the administration reduce the number of available jobs from 136 million to 129 million? This would explain how unemployment went down even though job losses continue to increase. Such questions are not being asked because all the discussions are focusing on homosexuals serving in the military.

Also announced this week was another fact that likewise received little notice. The new Federal debt ceiling, that was just raised by congress, will be exceeded before the end of this month (February). Hmm…You reckon that had anything to do with the proposed budget President Obama recently submitted to the congress? The largest budget in the history of the world!. Unfortunately it is a budget that just happens to include deficit spending in excess of one and a half TRILLION dollars! A good way to distract the public away from the ever expanding federal debt is to get them fighting over the always controversial subject of homosexuals serving in the military. Congratulations Mr. President it worked! We are going to waste our time talking about homosexuals…again.

Homosexual activists have been pursuing open service in the military for a long time…and for a good reason: it is a shortcut to acceptance of the entire homosexual agenda in this country. Homosexuals have insisted that they are a minority group that is being deprived of their “civil rights.” They have long tried to associate their “demand” for acceptance of their lifestyle and behavior as being equal to the African-American Civil Rights movement. This has had the effect of placing a wedge between themselves and the African American community who, rightly, resents this nonsense. This also explains why California’s 2008 attempt to legalize homosexual marriage failed. The election, with Barack Obama on the ballot, brought out a very large turnout in the African-American community. They overwhelmingly rejected homosexual marriage. Good for them.

However, that will not alter the tunnel vision nor deter the selfish single-mindedness of homosexual activists. They are very well schooled in the history and successes of the African-American civil rights movement and are adept at adapting those tactics to their situation. They know that the catalyst to all of the success of the civil rights movement occurred on July 26, 1948 when President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981. This order brought an end to racial segregation within the ranks of the United States military. This had such a positive effect on race relations in this country that it paved the way for the civil rights movement to gain the popular support it needed to succeed. This is what homosexuals are attempting to replicate by pressing President Obama to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.

The trouble is, of course, it won’t work. Discrimination against African-Americans was based entirely on something that can be instantly and easily observed: the color of their skin. It had nothing to do with their abilities, intelligence, behavior or character. It was depriving them of the basic constitutional elements of social interaction reflected in such areas as education and equal treatment under the law. As such, fair minded people of intelligence can see such prejudices were built upon irrational and unfair presumptions that could, and have been, proven false. Discrimination against African-Americans was depriving and harming the country as a whole as much as it was depriving and harming them. Also, rectifying this discrimination did not require our society to re-orient its definitions of what is and what is not acceptable behavior.

Discrimination (and yes it is exactly that) against homosexuals is not even close to being the same thing. Homosexuality is defined by the actions and behavior of homosexuals. This is not a definition pressed upon them unfairly from outsiders. No, this is something they willingly and aggressively do themselves and force those outside their community to accept. Homosexual activists intend to alter the definition of acceptable behavior in this country. We have every right to resist them!

Most Americans, and I consider myself among them, do not wish to persecute anyone for personal and private relationships between consenting adults. But this is where the problem lies. The average heterosexual does not consider his sexual “orientation” a primary defining characteristic of his being. Homosexuals, as evidenced by their need to aggressively assert their “orientation” publicly, do. Their desire to overturn the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is a manifestation of the homosexual's tendency to assert his sexuality as his primary defining characteristic. The homosexual wants to be known as a homosexual first and foremost…at least that is what homosexual activists would have us believe.

In the years since 1993, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was initiated, there have been around 10,000 people discharged from active duty service for being openly homosexual. Yet, the military’s own numbers confirm that upwards of 65,000 homosexuals are currently serving. Obviously something must be working. I fail to see the “unfairness” of this policy. The policy was established by congress based on these findings:

U.S. CODE TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Prev | Next § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

Homosexuality is, and always will be, a morally contested behavior that, like all sexual behavior, should be kept private. As you can see by the U.S. code of law, service men and women agree to the loss of a certain amount of privacy when they accept military service. There is no room for open or blatant sexuality…particularly of the morally contested variety. This is a volunteer military. These stipulations are agreed to voluntarily.

Will the country be better served by seeing homosexuals kiss and embrace as they return from dangerous overseas deployments? If we allow open homosexuality in the military this is exactly what we will have. Not only this, but we also invite the spectre of real life “Corporal Klingers” and other further sexual deviances becoming tolerated factors in our military. This is exactly what the homosexual activists wish to inflict upon us all!

Unfortunately, it is also what our “Social Engineer in Chief” wishes to inflict upon us. To him it is another theatre to redistribute his vision of “social justice” and fairness. But alas, fairness, particularly this progressive interpretation of it, is a concept best kept out of our military. We ask a lot of our military. They put themselves through years of sacrifice and training to prepare themselves to kill or be killed on our behalf. We do not wish for them ever to be involved in a “fair” fight. No sir. We insist that a fight with our military be entirely unfair! Our technology and machines of war are the envy of the earth. However, our “ace in the hole” is our people themselves. The training, devotion and character of our soldiers is what has made the United States military the most dominant fighting force the world has ever known. Fighting against them has always been a fool’s errand.

The ideals of our military reflect those common at the time of our country’s founding. It is the principle that although all men are created equal, there are better men than others. What better men could you wish for than a volunteer military willing to put their lives on the line not only to defend their own country, but to fight and die for the freedom of others. What other military in the history of the world has been responsible for giving so many other nations the opportunities for freedom that ours has selflessly provided? It is into this bastion of unimpeachable integrity that our President wishes to inject the selfish demands of homosexual activists. Also, considering the number of homosexuals serving in the military verses the number that have been removed for violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, it is not clear that the homosexual activists pursuing this agenda actually reflect the views of the vast majority of homosexuals in the military.

Our “Social Engineer in Chief” does not like our military. He never has. That is not the constituency that voted him into office…and he knows it! People who volunteer for the military swear an oath to defend the United States Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Our President considers that archaic document to be an impediment to his “fundamental transformation of America.” His agenda IS an attack on the U.S. Constitution and his attempt to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military is an attack on the military. He IS a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution!

Even Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has stated that repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will cause disruption in the military services:

"My personal belief is that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do. I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.

"I also believe the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change, but I do not know this for a fact. I will not deny that during a time of two wars, such a major policy change will cause some disruption in the force. It also seems plausible that there will be legal, social, and perhaps even infrastructure changes to be made. These are some of the issues our review will address.

"But we would do well to remember that this is not an issue for the military leadership to decide. The current law and policy came from the American people through their elected officials. We will continue to obey that law, and we will obey whatever legislative and executive decisions come out of this debate.

This, of course, excites our “Social Engineer in Chief,” but do you know why? Because such disruptions are a necessary ingredient for a “fundamental transformation of America.” They have been schooled in this philosophy well!

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." -Saul Alinsky

You see, it’s a win-win situation for the president. He gets to inflict his vision of progressive “social justice” on a military he has never liked even as he continues to disrupt and disorganize the United States as we have known and loved it. Do you really think this President cares about the economy, unemployment or the deficit? He has made it abundantly clear he cares more about the rights of terrorists than the security of the American people. Now he would dare to put the American people at an even greater risk by injecting this poisonous policy into our primary means of defense.

By insisting on the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy he is also making it clear he views the military as nothing more than a tool for implementing foolish progressive social engineering schemes to undermine the country he was elected to defend. That is how you "fundamentally transform America." He is disorganizing America so that he might reorganize it when it crumbles. And he has the “audacity” to claim he is not an idealogue…yea right.