Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Barrel of Monkeys

John T. Scopes
Yeah, it's a game.  Dump out a bunch of plastic monkeys on the carpet, and kids up to the age of nine or the intellectually-challenged residents of Otisburg will have hours of playtime fun getting those things back in the barrel.  Some, of course, will take longer than others, and I did say that Otisburg is intellectually-challenged.

But there's another subject that's also a barrel of monkeys for Otisburg and the other clowns world-wide who think they're descended from such, and we all know that as evolution.  Specifically, it was John T. Scopes I was thinking of, and the absolute hypocrisy the liberal left - and the blithering idiots of Otisburg - have with this man.  For the history buffs in all of us, Scopes was front and center in one of the most unique and controversial trials in American history, the so-called "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee, 1925, in which the poor guy was charged with the teaching of evolution in a public high school, tried, convicted, fined $100 bucks, called some filthy words, and so on.

Scopes stated he wasn't too sure if he committed a crime at all, admitting he had "furnished the body that was needed to sit in the defendant's chair."  But the trial itself was a test case, in which what was really on trial was the Butler Act of Tennessee - which forbid denying the Biblical story of the Creation in a public school - and ultimately the Bible itself and anything related to it.  And it was the Scopes monkey trial which brought out the beginnings of hostility against the Bible; in the years since the Bible, God, prayer, Christianity, nativity scenes, and so on were removed from the public schools and square, and often with threats, lawsuits, and in some cases, violence.

Oh, I'm very sure the liberal left is very joyful at the thought of that, while they prop up Scopes as a hero.

Here's the thing about science that the left doesn't seem to want to get through their heads, and it's the very first rule in science: QUESTION EVERYTHING!

What that means is that when it comes down to anything, it's okay to question it.  Questions lead to answers, and if and when someone had an idea as to the origins of life - as in where did we come from - then it is okay for that guy to make an assumption, test the validity of his assumption, publish the results of his assumption, allow others to experiment on his assumption, and so on.  That is called science.  And yes, science can and should be taught in schools.

But questioning everything also includes questioning evolution, and unfortunately for evolution the repeated questioning of that subject always leads to answers that prove - and I do mean PROVE - evolution to be false.  That is also science, and if science proves a scientific theory to be invalid, then that theory must be rejected.  That can and should be taught in schools as well.

But like in the Scopes monkey trial, the naysayers will call such proof based on God and the Bible, and therefore it is not to be allowed in school.  They dismiss it as religion, which means we are stuck with a theory that is not only proven wrong, but it is not science any more.  It is dogma.  It is one-sided.

And that leads to the absolute hypocrisy of the liberal left.  Public schools are no longer about educating young minds; they are indoctrination centers.  And front and center regarding evolution is their hero, Mr. Scopes, but even the liberal left just has to hide something he said about education all those years ago; they won't even post it on Wikipedia:

"Education, you know, means broadening, advancing; and if you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought, be one individual. I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory."

Sounds like it's a one-side, one-thought curriculum today, doesn't it?


As you can tell, I don't really care what Otisburg thinks of these postings.  I don't really care if they think at all.

Can they think? 

Thursday, April 5, 2018

The Problem with Atheism, Part 3

Are you really afraid of this book?
I probably said this before, but it needs to be repeated.

About 15 or so years ago one of the big things concerning the internet was the various chat rooms which were part of America Online, IRC, and others. Many of them still exist, and you can still go online and have a conversation about something.

For want of a better word, they are called "chat rooms" and one was set up by atheists to have a discussion about Christianity.

Their version of Christianity. Meaning whatever they said about it was the "truth".

So I'm in there and there's this loud-mouth atheist who declared Jesus to be fiction. A fake. Didn't exist. And doggoneit he knew that to be a fact, because, he said, "I studied that period of time extensively."

Fed up with his tirade I asked him a very simple question: "Who was Josephus?"

After a couple times in which I repeated it, he admitted he didn't know.

"Flavius Josephus," I told him, "was the author of Antiquity of the Jews and remains the most cited source of documentation by scholars, historians, and archaeologists for that area and time outside of the Bible itself."

"And if you had actually studied that period of time," I added, "you would have run right into him."

Without using those words, he was called out for being a fraud and a liar, which is what a lot of atheists are these days, and added to that was his foul mouth after he was called out.  He could've been a man about it and admitted he needed to study more, but his own attitude suggested he never studied it at all.

And what they are doing today is dangerous. Jesus IS A FACT of history, A FACT of faith, A FACT when He brought the good news of salvation and eternal life for everyone, and these atheists are doing everything possible to stop it. It's as if they are not satisfied with driving off the cliff as long as they can drag others with them.

Which begs the question: just what are they afraid of?  They're not afraid of suing someone who preaches the Gospel in a public place, are they?  Or suing someone who didn't bake a cake for them, or not taking their photographs, or setting up the Nativity scene at the fire station, or the Ten Commandments monument at the courthouse.  Just what is it that they fear from a group of people who refuse to steal, kill, hate, covet, lie?

Could the act of lumping Jesus in with unicorns, leprechauns, and fairy tales makes them feel better?

Or is it that the Bible itself tells them just how wrong they actually are?

They are going to have to get over themselves, because sooner or later they will face Him.

If not as Savior, then as Judge.

Makes you want to be a little wiser when you spot that cliff.

Sunday, March 25, 2018

The Problem with Atheism, Part 2

Some years ago Josh McDowell wrote that for an atheist to declare that there is no such thing as God he would have to know the secrets of the universe. "Atheists affirm there is no God," he wrote. "Yet they cannot hold this position dogmatically. For us to be able to make this type of statement with authority, we would have to know the universe in its entirety and to possess all knowledge. If anyone had these credentials, then by definition he would be God."

That means he would have to know everything.


So, how is it when a certain atheist stated in his own writings that there is no such thing as God - and this atheist was into astronomy and the physics that go with it - how was it that this atheist did not know about the heart-shaped formation on Pluto until a couple years ago when NASA released the photos from a probe's recent flyby?

Surely, this atheist - who was absolutely certain God didn't exist - had to have known about Pluto's heart. Why didn't he know? God doesn't exist, he said; He's a fairy tale, he said. He knows the secrets of the universe, therefore God doesn't exist.

When I mentioned this little tidbit a few years ago I also pointed out that this atheist was stuck in a wheelchair and couldn't move. If he knew the secrets of the universe then surely he would also know the secrets to the diseases which kept him in that chair.

He would have found a cure.

So I wrote that fact and the naysayers - in particular the nitwits and halfwits infesting Otisburg - chimed in that I was so full of hatred for this atheist that I shouldn't be allowed to exist.

But if it is indeed hatred at work here, then here's the problem:

The worst kind of hate displayed is the act of killing someone.  It certainly wasn't love that caused Ted Bundy or John Gacy or Mark Conditt to go on killing sprees that ended the hopes and dreams of others, was it?  So, what kind of hate is it that is part and parcel to a religious dogma that is called atheism, a dogma that denies God exists?

What kind of HATE is it that has gullible people following this dogma?

And what kind of HATE is it that has these atheists convincing others that there is no hell...and they find out the hard way that there is?

"When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." (Ezekiel 3:18)


Of course, the haters - the real ones - would come out of the closet against this, as if warning about the consequences of sin and going to hell means I need to stand before a firing squad for giving that warning.  This is what one had to say:

"You sick wanker. You talk about hate when you are one of the most hate filled bastards I have ever experienced. Your whole life is driven by hate. I pity you, even so you are still a sick wanker."

Never mind that this clown is from Britain, and never mind that he's an atheist who has to have a cow over something that he thinks is nothing...and never mind the fact that he fully supports a Muslim invasion/takeover of his country with the help of his leftist buddies to the detriment of his own country's citizens...I'm just the hate-filled one in his opinion.

Oh well.

Monday, March 19, 2018

Tyranny, Part 2

Minuteman statue at Lexington Green, Massachusetts
It's becoming more and more clear to the general public that liberals are completely nuts. 

Whether it's running our schools, or colleges, or newspapers, or public offices, these people spout their views and policies straight from the rubber room, and the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting is a prime example, with a bunch of high school students around the country this past week deciding to walk out of class in protest of gun violence. 

Or rather, these students "staged" the walkout, with the connivance of teachers and faculty. In several communities they trashed the place; in Chicago stores are looted, in Nashville cop cars and buildings are damaged; the American flag was targeted.

You follow?

And during this time several high school students are suspended - you read that right: SUSPENDED - for supporting the 2nd Amendment; they were escorted off their school campuses by their principles or on-campus security, one group was suspended for a mere gun range photo.  And some of them complained to the press and others that they were ordered by their teachers to participate in the walkout.

Of the two groups here, which ones bothered to learn American history?

The kids who got suspended.

You read that right again: the kids who got suspended!

For the uninformed or the just-plain dumb, the 2nd Amendment was NOT written with deer hunting or skeet shooting in mind. It was written to be a threat against tyrants. Got that? Those who refuse to read and study American history, specifically the causes and events leading up to the American Revolution, have no idea at all what it's all about, and are either drones subject to indoctrination, or are the indoctrinators themselves...and we all know just what kind of people they are.

So, I'm going to correct these bozos here.

The text of the 2nd Amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The United States Constitution was ratified by 1788.  It was meant to establish a strong federal government as opposed to the earlier Articles of Confederation, but the Framers of the Constitution insisted on two things: that the power of the government is to be severely limited to what was written on it, and a "Bill of Rights" was to be set down in writing, which became the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Remember the Bill of Rights?  I'll give you just one of them, specifically the 3rd Amendment:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Now, what is the reason that this particular amendment was included?  Could it be that prior to April 19, 1775, home owners in various cities and towns throughout the colonies were forced to accommodate soldiers into their homes?  Just what was the idea behind that?  Since they are soldiers, shouldn't they be housed in a military barracks instead of four or five at a time camped out in someone's living room?  The correct answer is that it was part and parcel to a tyranny being imposed on the colonies, and the idea that common soldiers forced into someone's house had the effect of controlling the population.

And just what is a soldier, as opposed to a militiaman?  The British government - yes, THAT government; the LEGAL, ruling government over the colonies at that time - had a standing army stationed in the continent, and members of this army were used to police the towns and cities to quell whatever problems might arise, and naturally some citizens were angry, with the Boston Massacre of 1770 the natural outcome.

And what is a militiaman?  The common citizen, able to carry and wield arms in an emergency.

You read that right.

Now, we are talking the Colonial Period just prior to the America Revolution, and a militia is described as those able-bodied men who possess a weapon and can get to an emergency rather quick; surely, you did read about the Minutemen.  I have also written above a specific date: April 19, 1775.  The place was Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, where the first battle of the Revolution took place.  What was the circumstances?

The British knew of a possible unrest against their rule, and made an attempt to seize the armory at Concord.  They sent their regulars, which is another name for soldiers.  The armory contained guns, so yes, we can rightfully call it an act of gun control by the government.  They wanted to keep their tyranny in place.  The citizens by then were completely fed up.

Paul Revere warned the countryside about the move.

The citizens formed themselves into their local militia; they are the famous Minutemen.

And it was soldiers vs. militia at Lexington and Concord.  The soldiers lost, the militia won.

The Declaration of Independence was signed just over a year later.

Written on the Declaration are these words, very aptly and succinctly describing a tyrant:

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

That is the reason we have the 2nd Amendment; that is the reason we keep and bear arms.

Your objections will be duly noted and ignored.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

The Problem with Atheism

For starters, atheists insist there is no god.  That is their basic belief system.

And some just have to shovel that particular religious belief - and it IS a religious belief - onto the rest of us.  Kind of ironic, isn't it?  The same people who insist and demand that we keep our religion to ourselves just have to push theirs.

When you have no belief in a higher authority you tend to fall back towards the immoral standards of men; there's nothing higher as a standard to look to.  And we've seen what these standards are.  Mob rule.  Anarchy.  Tyranny.  The law of the jungle, kill or be killed.  A liberal reading this will probably object; "oh no, you're just plain wrong," he would wail, then launch into a litany of supposed liberal/atheist accomplishments.

Like what?

"Well, uhhhhh...we succeeded in, uhhhhh, banning the Bible from schools...yeah, that's it...we got that dreaded, hate-filled, fairy-tailed so-called 'book' tossed out of schools...ain't that great?"

And the result of 60-plus years of no Bibles in schools?  Failing grades.  High dropout rates.  Lowered educational outcomes compared to the rest of the world.

And all of those bullets flying everywhere.  That's another liberal/atheist accomplishment.  They made it mandatory that our schools are "gun-free" zones, aka target-shooting galleries tailor made for the dropout who's got a grudge over the system that put in place a failed set of standards based on the whims of men who hated everything the Bible stands for.  And it's guaranteed that when it comes to putting the Bible back in schools...why, they will foam at the mouth against it so bad that they will proclaim it more dangerous to possess a Bible then the guns in the hands of little boy shooters at Parkland or Sandy Hook.

And to think that for 150-plus years before that loudmouth atheist hit the Supreme Court back about 1960, this country had no problem at all with Bibles in the classroom.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  In fact, the worst thing that happened in our schools back then was the unauthorized chewing of bubble gum.  And the kids were coming out of class smarter.

So, we got today atheists and their idiotic liberal allies fighting this tooth and nail, with silly groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation sending letters to various town across the country; some unnamed person (they are always unnamed) objects to seeing a cross in town or a coach praying with the school team and they gotta have a cow over it. 

But the publicity they create is resulting in a backlash: towns and citizens are fighting back.  They know that ultimately, the message of the average atheist is one of pure hatred against everything this country represents, and they are being rejected soundly.  Case in point was yesterday, specifically when the polls closed in Middle Tennessee.  Republican Steve Reeves vs. Democrat Gayle Jordan in a special election for a vacant state senate seat.  Jordan was extremely open about her atheism, which became an issue against her (they are always Democrat, aren't they?), resulting in her losing the contest by a big margin, 13,139 to 5,179 votes.

Unfortunately for Jordan and others like her, there is a bigger problem that they are stuck facing.  They have not proved that God doesn't exist, nor can they ever prove it.  And while they're shouting that drivel from the rooftops they are leading others away from God.  Now, just what could happen to these people who will eventually die?

Here's the deal, and I'm sure the average atheist can understand it.  If the atheist is right about God not existing and I were to die right now, I lose absolutely nothing. 

But if the atheist is WRONG - and there IS a GOD - he will lose everything.  He will be standing in front of the God that he denied ever existing, and God WILL get the answer to one question: did the atheist repent and accept Jesus Christ as savior?

 Well, if not...it's just all hell from that point on.

Friday, February 23, 2018

Beware the Loaded Pop Tart

I'll tell you what, a large segment of this country that commonly calls itself liberal is by and large the absolute dumbest collection of idiots this country ever bore.

The absolute DUMBEST!

Got this in my news feed, courtesy of the Miami Herald: a couple days ago at a school in Louisiana a student was doing a math problem.  He put down the symbol for the square root, which as everyone knows makes math a little more fun; this page proves it.

For those of you in Otisburg, it looks like this:

Golly gee, that looks like a check mark too, just in case someone stopping at the Otisburg Gas N'Go needs to buy a six-pack.  Those things happen.

Unfortunately, this little math symbol to the average liberal - as cited by the Miami Herald above - now looks like this:

And since these poor kids are being schooled by liberals...well, the stupid just had to happen.  Students said something akin to it looking like a gun, with an accusation that it was a gun, which led to a home raided by sheriff, guns not found.  Maybe the kid will be hauled to court for having a loaded math thingy in his textbook, with chapter 5 set to go off at the lowest common denominator.  Who can guess with these people...after all, they once upon a short time ago went overboard for a pop tart!

Now these are the people we have to take Second Amendment advice from this week, the same people who were routinely eating laundry soap last week.  The same people who condemned Trump for vulgar language today are the same people who bought and read millions of copies of 50 Shades of Gray yesterday.  Go figure.  We gotta take advice from these clowns.

But since they are loaded (no pun intended) with people like this, we have provided them a handy-dandy identification guide, courtesy of those (semi) knowledgeable residents of Otisburg.  Whether or not it'll improve their IQ's is something to contemplate over a laundry room lunch, but hey, they'll have something to show off between bites of Tide Pods!

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Those Pesky Conspiracy Details

From Reddit

A few days ago we had a nutjob of a loser walk into a school and shoot eighteen people dead and wound many more.

I'm going to have you read it again.

A few days ago we had a NUTJOB OF A LOSER walk into a school and shoot eighteen people dead and wound many more. 

This article is not going to debate the merits of the case, or whether or not something needed to be done beforehand, or the Second Amendment.  That's for later.

The problem in this case, as well as many others of a similar nature, is that before the cops put up the crime scene tape the conspiracy theories pop out.  They don't help one bit except to advance someone's agenda.  Never let a crisis go to waste, the current mayor of Chicago once said, and they are taking full advantage of it.  Unfortunately this appears to be the case regarding the recent shooting in Parkland, Florida, and it's specifically centered on a high school student named David Hogg.

The theory goes something like this:

Immediately after the shooting took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, 2018, some people were interviewed by news agencies, among them Hogg.  It was claimed that Hogg was giving scripted answers, like he was coached as to what to say.  Then someone else posted a photo of Hogg from his high school yearbook with the claim that he graduated from Redondo Shores High School in California in 2015, thus making Hogg into a paid professional crisis actor pretending to be one of the many survivors at Marjory Stoneman in Florida.  The photo in question is at the top of this page.

Now, I do not know David Hogg personally.  What I do know is that he is - yes, HE IS - a bonafide student at Marjory Stoneman; he is a senior and is expected to graduate.

There are two things about this picture that are as plain as day as to just how wrong these conspiracy theories are.  The first is the photos from that page.  Hogg is lined up nice and neat with others from that school, and it's exactly what one would expect from freshmen, sophomores, and juniors.  There's none of the formality or size that is expected from a set of senior photos, had this been Hogg's graduating class in 2015.  So we needed to see the whole book, and we weren't disappointed.  It's Marjory Stoneman, folks, not Redondo Shores.  That part of the conspiracy theory is officially and decisively debunked...and with it goes the rest of that garbage.

And the second thing.  Conspiracy theories certainly sprouted up like weeds around Hogg, in addition to the silly crisis actor allegation, and the left wants to blame the right for it all; certainly, they'd be correct in stating this for the most part here, as there are those on the right who are not immune from doing completely stupid things.  But this little theory started from somewhere, and the source is in the picture above.

The Laguna Beach ANTIFA.