Urban school children are being forced to toil in the White House garden. Well, things are not quite that bad, but can you imagine the feigned Sharptonian outrage that world erupt had Laura Bush rather than Michelle Obama instigated the project? The purpose of the garden is to provide vegetables for the White House kitchen to in part browbeat the American people into consuming only locally grown produce. No word as to whether or not crop yields will be sufficient to supply the lavish Wednesday parties the Obamas are becoming noted for.
A group of environmental researchers were trapped by a blizzard while on an expedition to the artic to study global warming.
President Obama belittled the disabled during his appearance on Jay Leno. While the comment was not that offensive as Obama said his bowling score in the 120's was like something out of the Special Olympics, had Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter said it, they world be deemed hatemongers no longer worthy of employment. Therefore, shouldn't the messiah of the radically tolerant be held to the same standard? And more importantly, in light of healthcare proposals on the part of Obama allies such as Tom Daschle that the elderly should just learn to live with their deteriorating conditions, one has to wonder what plans are being made for those of less than ideal health and vitality. Given Obama’s giggle fits regarding the deteriorating economy during his "60 Minutes" interview where reporter Steve Kroft asked the President if he was punch drunk, one could justifiably deduce he holds the remainder of us in the same degree of contempt as he does the mentally challenged.
Representative Nancy Pelosi before an audience gathered in a church heralded America's Hispanosupremacist conquerors as patriots and the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws as un-American. However, should these new arrivals become Branch Davidians or picket outside of abortion clinics, I am sure the Speaker of the House will change her mind.
Florida horse owners are living in a state of fear. Poachers are stealing the beloved steeds and butchering them for the black market as the meat is a delicacy among growing immigrant populations.
Obama's brownshirts may come to profoundly influence the 2010 Census. ACORN, the leftist community organizers with a history of voter fraud, hopes to assist in recruiting the 1.4 million temporary workers that harass people door to door asking the most private of questions such as how many bathrooms are in your house and how many miles you drive to work each day. The Obama administration has tried to politicize the constitutionally mandated tabulation by moving oversight of it from the Department of Commerce directly into the White House.
The Federal Reserve has just performed one of the greatest magic tricks in all of history. It has pulled one trillion dollars out of the rear-ends of the American people for the purposes of stimulating the U.S. economy. Students of history will recall that similar shenanigans in Germany led to the fall of the Wiemar Republic. This time around it seems those pulling the strings from behind the scenes want their figure head in office before the collapse, perhaps making things easier to control on their part.
Bastards are proliferating. 40% of children today are born to unwed parents. Ironically, though I use the word in its technical sense, there will be more condemnation of me using it than of those procreating outside the bonds of matrimony even through the word is used in the Bible, the real ones anyway and not necessarily those newfangled feel good versions.
The United States is facing a number of violent threats such as Islamic terrorists and Latin American drug gangs, but they are not of much concern to Missouri law enforcement. A report titled “The Modern Militia Movement” urges police there to instead focus on those displaying the American flag and Ron Paul bumper stickers.
The Sith apprentice seeking forgiveness kneels before his master. Barack Obama met with Mikhail Gorbachev in the hopes of buttering up to the Russians in a new spirit of appeasement.
A pack of Kangaroos is on the loose in France. The marsupials were set loose from an Australia-themed park by property destroying Vandals.
Well, maybe it is not as bad as the headlne makes it out to be, but can you imagine the outrage if Laura Bush had little Black school children grow vegetables for her?
While the comment was not that offensive, had Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter said it the politically correct would deem them hatemongers no longer worthy of employment. Thus, shouldn't the messiah of the radically tolerant be held to the same standard?
Often the classics rank among the best. Even though time passes and intellectual fashions change, certain insights and perspectives address something so profound they forever earn a place as a steadfast pillar among sifting seas of opinion. Much of what comes after such a point simply serves as either confirmation, renunciation, clarification, or criticism. Though he lived and labored during the Middle Ages in the 1200‘s, the cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas has withstood the test of time as one of those stalwart pillars of the mind pointing to a rational basis for belief in God.
Though the term “cosmological argument” sounds intimidating and the concept it strives to convey seems profound, this series of propositions endeavors to express a most elementary idea in a highly rational form. The thrust of the cosmological argument seeks to prove that the universe must have a cause and that only God can serve as an adequate explanation for the existence of the universe. Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Christian Philosophy” states the basic argument in the following manner: “(1) Finite changing things exist. (2) Every finite, changing thing must be caused by another. (3) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. (4) Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists (page 267).” From here, Aquinas proceeds to argue that only God is powerful enough to serve as an explanation behind this uncaused cause.
This assertion is buttressed by Aquinas’ notion of contingency and the need for a necessary being. A contingent being, according to Ronald Nash in “Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith“, is one whose existence depends upon another and whose nonexistence is possible; likewise, a necessary being is one that must exist, does not depend on another being for its existence, and whose nonexistence is an impossibility (128). The necessary being ultimately serves as the sufficient reason for all contingent beings.
Despite the power of the cosmological argument, it has not escaped its share of scrutiny throughout the course of its distinguished existence. For while the conclusions of the cosmological argument seem to flow naturally within the framework of traditional Judeo-Christian theism, they are not quite as obvious to adherents of other philosophies and systems of thought or to those seeking to undermine them through a process of intense rationalistic analysis. Skeptics and opponents of the Judeo-Christian assumptions that the cosmological argument seeks to prove can call upon a number of criticisms and counterclaims in support of their contrarian position.
The first brand of criticism stems from those advocating worldviews hostile to Christian presuppositions that possess a considerable stake in finding an explanation for the origins of the universe through causes other than an instant of divine creation. Foremost among the systems opposing the premises of the cosmological argument stand the various strands of naturalism.
According to James Sire in “The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog“, the naturalist says matter is all there is and God does not exist (54). Or as Carl Sagan use to say, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Corliss Lamont, the 1977 Humanist of the Year, writes, “Humanism...believes in a naturalistic cosmology...that rules out all forms of the supernatural ... that regards nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of events existing independently of any mind or consciousness (Understanding The Times, 117).”
Thus, as David Noeble of Summit Ministries responds in “Understanding The Times“, “For the Humanist, no personal First Cause exists; only the cosmos... There was no beginning and there can be no end. Of course, there is no need for a God to explain a beginning that did not happen (120).” Naturalists, therefore, find their explanation for the universe elsewhere Whereas theists such as Thomas Aquinas posit the answer to this important question with God, naturalists find it in a complex interaction of matter, physical laws, and a healthy sprinkling of chance.
David Nobel writes of the naturalist perspective, “Nature...cannot create but she can eternally transform (120). “ Naturalists attempt to abolish the so-called Thomist arguments for a creator denying the very concept of creation itself.
While it is not too difficult to confront the opponents of theism over those points where such glaring differences exist, the criticism couched in the careful formulations of sophisticated philosophical analysis can be somewhat more difficult to counter. For example, John Gerstner writes in “Reasons For Faith” that objections could be raised that the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our own observation that all things have a cause (53).
The thrust of the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our observations that all things have a cause. This proposition is put forward to prove the need for a so-called first “uncaused cause”. As the nitpicky skeptic might point out, if it is deduced through observation that all things have causes, is it not unreasonable to call upon an uncaused first cause? After all, would not something have to have caused it also. Such a deadlock leads to one of Kant’s antimonies of reason where debaters of equal rationality come to two semmingly reasonable conclusions: namely either the need of an uncaused first cause or the validity of an infinitely regressing eternal series of causes and effects.
Despite this apparent loggerheads between proponents and detractors of the cosmological proof, additional lines of argumentation and evidence exist tipping the scales in favor of justifiable theism. From the time of the Enlightenment onward, practitioners of what Francis Schaeffer referred to as “modern modern science" have endeavored to establish a conceptual framework for explaining the operations of the universe capable of standing without the need for an appeal to divine support. When asked by Napoleon where God fit into his system of celestial mechanics, Laplace is said to have responded, “I have no need for that hypothesis (Barbour, 42).” But ironically, the very system of airtight physical laws many scientists approach with an almost religious devotion ultimately point to and must at least be jumpstarted if not actively maintained by the very Creator these lab-coated agnostics are scurrying to get away from.
Despite possible variations in their extraneous details, there are only a limited number of cosmologies accounting for the existence of the universe, each with its own advantages and shortcomings depending upon where one lines up in the debate regarding this theistic argument. Astrophysicist and Professor of New Testament Robert Newman describes each of these possibilities in the article “The Evidence Of Cosmology” appearing in the anthology “Evidence For Faith” these systems are the Steady-State Universe, the Oscillating Cosmology, and the so-called “Big Bang” (Newman, 83-85).
The Steady-State model added a scientific veneer to the philosophical assumptions of naturalism by hypothesizing a universe eternally existing in a dynamic state of equilibrium whereby the density and energy levels of the cosmos remain constant as new matter is added as the boundaries of the system expand. Oscillating Cosmology pictures an ongoing cycle of universal birth, death, and rebirth as the universe continually expands outward in a burst of energy only to contract under the forces of its own gravity only to explode outward once again in an unending repetitive cosmic rhythm. The so-called “Big Bang”, at its most basic, postulates a singular specific moment when the universe expanded outward from a particular point at a definite moment in time.
These theories may all be well and good in terms of allowing the curious to speculate until their heart’s content. Yet ultimately they must correspond to actual reality if they are to be of any value beyond mere academic amusement.
It is against the cold hard wall of truth that these systems are forced to measure up against. These unavoidable truths eliminate the faulty explanations for the origins of the universe and point us back to the conclusions of the cosmological argument.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the sum total of matter and energy in the universe can neither be created nor destroyed; it remains constant. This is appended by the Second Law of Thermodynamics stating that the amount of energy available for useful work constantly decreases and the amount of entropy or disorder increases.
Any theory of origins seeking to undermine the need for a Creator by positing an everlasting cosmos is by definition scientifically impossible as one deduces from these physical laws. For every system that possesses a finite amount of useful energy must have a definite startup point.
If the universe is infinitely old as speculated by steady-state cosmologists, the universe would have wound down already. As D. James Kennedy notes in “How I Know There Is A God“, “...everything is running down; ... everything is wearing out; everything is growing old. So if the universe were eternal, it would have already wound down (6).”
Like it or not, the mechanics of the universe, as they exist as unvarnished facts, point to a theoretically specifiable beginning and cannot be compelled to testify against their designer. Dr. Kennedy further notes, “There was a time when there were men who believed that it [the universe] was [eternal] but with modern scientific discoveries it is no longer possible to believe that... For the last 150 years, scientists have been scurrying around trying to avoid the implications of the laws they have discovered (5).”
Despite harkening unto the exhortations of science when it is believed this manner of inquiry might prove a valuable ally in the ongoing struggle to dethrone the God of all space and time, this epistemological method is conveniently overlooked when it points in the direction of conclusions standing in opposition to cherished preconceived assumptions. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, a developer of the Steady -State Model, himself admitted that his affinity for this particular system was not so much born out of pure science but rather because this particular variety of cosmology was more philosophically satisfying than those characterized with a beginning (Newman, 83). Thus, the unvarnished facts may have little initial impact upon those holding such a viewpoint who feel seemingly remote matters such as the origins of the universe have little bearing upon their average workaday lives.
The Christian thinker must proceed by showing how one’s position regarding the data pointing to the divine origins of the universe impacts one’s relation to the remaining branches of knowledge and how one cannot ignore the issue without felling the entire noetic tree. The laws of objective physical science clearly teach that the universe came into existence at a particular point in time.
This leaves the cogitator with two possible explanations: either the universe came into existence of its own accord or was brought into existence by some entity greater and more complete in and of itself. Diehard agnostics will continue to insist upon the alternative excluding the influence of deity, which means they would select the alternative suggesting the universe came into existence on its own. Yet reason dictates that only nothing can come from nothing.
As an experiment, take a first-full of nothing and plant it in a flowerpot and see how long it takes to grow a plant from it. Now how much longer will it take for an entire developed universe with complex organisms and sophisticated civilizations to sprout from it? John Frame in Apologetics "To The Glory Of God: An Introduction", argues that those refusing to assent to the theistic conclusions in light of such compelling logic and evidence must concede to the madness of irrationalism since it flies in the face of common sense to hold that everything in the physical universe requires a cause but the finite contingent universe itself (111).
While advocates of the cosmological argument will spend much of their time trying to convince their nontheistic counterparts as to its validity, they might be surprised to learn significant suspicion of it lurks within certain corners of the Christian camp. Ronald Nash examines a number of these Christian criticisms and concerns in his analysis of the cosmological argument as detailed in "Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith".
Foremost among the cautions raised by Christians skeptical as to the value of the cosmological argument ranks the realization that the God attested to by this renowned theistic proof could very well fall short of the Lord boldly proclaimed in the pages of the Bible and could very easily resemble something more akin to deism (Nash, 122-124). For example, the purpose of the cosmological argument is to postulate a God that gets the proverbial ball rolling. However, on its own it does not initially provide enough argumentative steam to establish argumentively a God who actively sustains the universe, to say nothing of one that loves and cares for that part of the creation molded in his own image.
Furthermore, since the world and the universe are a composite of a number of complex interactive systems, one could argue that each was set in motion by its own unique first cause. According to Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophjy: A Christian Perspective“, Aristotle himself believed in between forty-seven and fifty-five of these entities, each responsible for a particular sphere of the heavens (172). At best, such an arrangement would give one a situation something akin to polytheism where one god ruled the sky and another the sea. And in bringing the Greek and other ancient pantheons into the mix, Ronald Nash points out that the cosmological argument fails to address the moral and redemptive natures of God so central to the message of Scripture that sets the Christian message apart from other world religions. One could very well maneuver the most vile reprobates into acknowledging the existence of such a God without having it make the slightest impact on such a libertine lifestyle.
Of the cosmological argument, Ronald Nash writes, “...if we reject special revelation and attempt to reason our way from what we know about the world to the existence of a supposed First Cause, the most we can establish still leaves us a long way from...(the) God of the Bible (124).” Thus the Christian following in the footsteps of Aquinas comes to a very important fork in the road. On the one hand, the intellectually engaged believer finds that the given of the universe needing a creator is not quite universally assumed as they originally thought it to be; on the other, there are those within the Christian’s own camp who insightfully warn as to the potential dangers and shortcomings of this hallowed argument. What is the Christian to do?
The good news is that the cosmological argument does not need to be tossed aside with the rest of the philosophical rubbish. Just as an army cannot rely on any one weapon system if it hopes to carry out a successful military campaign, if they are going to utilize the cosmological argument as part of their apologetic arsenal, they must incorporate it into the framework of a comprehensive strategy of evangelization. It might be best to look at the cosmological argument not so much as some epiphanial revelation silencing all opposition from then on out but rather as a tool to extract knowledge already buried in the deep recesses of the soul.
Romans 2:14-15 reads, “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them (NIV).” Likewise, Psalms 14:1 reads, “The fool says in his hear, ‘There is no God.’.” Thus, whether they choose to admit it or not, a primordial knowledge of God exists somewhere within the human soul. The trick is getting the individual to assent to this as they are being guided down along the path to belief in Christ. The problem is that man has gone out of his way in the attempt to shake free from the truth of God’s existence that weighs down the sin-laden conscience.
Romans 1:20-21 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities...have been clearly seen, being understood for what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (NIV).” The task of the Christian becomes to show the unbeliever how it is untenable to live in a theistic Christian world with non-Christian, atheistic assumptions.
In Van Tillian terminology, this is the point of contact (Frame, 82-83). The cosmological argument is best used as one of these conversation starters rather than as the be-all and end-all of the discussion. In essence, the cosmological argument is more a defense of already held belief rather than a foundation upon which belief in the true God is built upon.
Ronald Nash writes, “Suppose...that we regard it [natural theology] as an inquiry into whether the Christian world-view fits what we know about the outer and inner worlds (Nash, 96).” Nash continues, “...instead of seeking coercive proofs for conclusions that all right-minded and open-minded persons would accept, we view our task as the more modest one of seeing if the Christian worldview does what we expect any worldview to do (97).”
The cosmological argument has enjoyed a robust history throughout the course of Western intellectual and ecclesiastical history. It has sparked considerable discussion and debate as its advocates herald it as a tool through which to apprehend a slice of the infinite while its detractors dismiss it as the leftover mental baggage of a less rational era. But regardless of where one lines up along this ongoing debate, one cannot help but admit that the discussion will continue until the Lord Himself decides to intervene and settle the issue on His own once and for all before then.
Now that it has been announced that Bristol Palin will not wed the father of her baby, I wonder if Dobsonians and Mohlerites such as J. Budziszewski will argue that the baby must be put up for adoption.
Before you start sending me hate mail as to what an intolerant bigot I am for questioning this, the reader should be told that he and I clashed a few years back where I criticized him over his insistence that those having children outside of marriage that don't get married are under the obligation to put their progeny up for adoption.
I argued that a child would be better off with a mother that learned from her mistake and remained unmarried then to marry a total slacker and heel of a man.
My position remains consistent. It is those that change their standard when their favored celebrities are involved that are the hyprocrits.
Liberals and related anti-Americanists thinking the incident where two shoes were hurled at President Bush was humorous might think three years for the perpatrator is a bit harsh, but I ask you how well would this malcontent faired if he had tossed the footwear in question at Saddam Hussein?
Those endorsing the practice are likely the exact same ones that went into hissies about Promise Keepers at its peek.
And frankly, any mother that would take such as a condition of shelter is hardly worthy of the respect that comes with the maternal title.
Furthermore, this policy is nothing but anti-male prejudice bent on breaking up the family.
For unless the woman in question has small children, wouldn't the more objectively humanitarian thing to do be to provide shelter to someone under the age of majority irrespective of their gender?
During a recent trip to a local Wal-Mart, I saw something quite disturbing as I stood in the checkout line. In the magazine wrack was a commemorative edition of some publication with a portrait of Barack Obama on the cover.
That was not the disturbing part even to someone that did not vote for him. Behind him on the cover was a glow making him look angelic or even messianic in appearance. Above the image, the words read "Barack Obama: The Hope Of America".
As the new President, even Americans that did not vote for him hope that Obama does well within a specified context in regards to those duties delineated within the confines of the Constitution if for no other reason than that he is the head of state of the country in which we live. However, he is not America's hope.
Firstly, America's hope is in God in general and in the person of His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ in specific. It says in Colossians 1:17 that by Him (not Barack Obama) all things consist.
It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that will forgive you of your sins.
It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that has the whole world in His hands.
Despite the call for a new domestic intelligence and security force with a budget projected to surpass that of the entire U.S. military, it is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that hears you crying on those nights when you feel that your world has been shattered and you don't know what can be done to make things right.
Even for those uncomfortable about making public acknowledgement of personal and national dependence upon deity there are earthly sources of hope that the American people ought to look to before Barack Obama.
For example, Americans ought to look to the U.S. Constitution for guidance and inspiration before they look to Barack Obama. In the United States, an oath of loyalty is taken not to a man but to defend the document by those in government all the way from the President down to the youngest private in the U.S. army.
It is the U.S. Constitution, not Barack Obama, that keeps power from being unduly concentrated in the hands of a few through a system of checks and balances and separation of powers.
It is the U.S. Constitution that RECOGNIZES in law (note does not grant) a number of rights the individual possesses as an individual created in the image of God. Barack Obama cannot do this.
Secondly, the American should look to himself for hope and not Barack Obama. If you are an upright citizen, you are the one through the grace of God that gets up and goes to work everyday whether you like your job or not to provide for you and your family, not Barack Obama's beguiling handouts he promised in order to dupe the masses.
Those holding office can indeed bring hardship and earthly ruination into the lives of those residing in the jurisdictions over which such officials exercise authority. Most often this comes about when elected officials intervene in those areas of life where the physically able ought to provide for themselves.
While Albert Mohler is correct to point out the flippant manner in which the Palin lass glosses over her adloscent spawning, some of Mohler's criticisms need to be examined.
On the one hand, Mohler regularly rides his pet horse deriding those putting off marriage and not marrying young as if you are the deviant if you are not married by the age of 23.
Now he is condemning, though correct about the matter, early dating.
Dr. Mohler, just come out and say that what you believe in is prearrganged marriage if you wish to hold to both these positions that, whether you like it or not, are essentially contradictory in this time in which we live.
If Dr. Mohler wants all these early marriages, who does he suggest picks up the tab?
Should we homely singles that don't have the prospects of a worthwhile husband or a wife have to pick up the bill as punishment for "being outside of God's will" or are we going the Obama route where those on the government insurance roles defined as "underprivileged children" are nearly 30 years old and whose parents make nearly $80,000?
Maybe if Dr. Mohler just stuck to the Bible's message of opposing sex outside of marriage and left the age issue alone as the Bible sets down no command as to what age someone should marry, there would be fewer Bristol Pailn's inside Evangelical circles as it's not those getting married later necessarily bringing all of these illegitimate children (often through multiple repeat pregnancies when the first time around should have taught the lesson) into the world.
>In my column "Capital Implements Measures Violating Rights & Property", I warned that a number of steps taken in the name of curtailing crime in a particular Washington, DC neighborhood forbidding entrance to anyone but those whose business and reasons for being there were deemed legitimate by law enforcement were to be baby steps in laying the foundation of a plan that would ultimately turn many of America's cities into micropolice states by cordoning off selected segments of concentrated areas of population. Some snickered at my idea as I in part drew inspiration for my projections from an episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" where the downtrodden were corralled into sanctuary districts and they also chided me for failing to comprehend the complexities of the lawless situation supposedly requiring a response characterized by considerable sternness.
In all honesty, as an analyst basing many of my conjectures upon extrapolations where I see various trends headed, there are times when I wonder if perhaps I have overreacted to certain things I have stumbled across in the news. However, in light of a number of additional press accounts, any doubts I may have had about America’s municipalities eventually going into a state of lockdown with few chances of them reopening have been laid to rest as things continue along to such a lamentable destination
According to an Associated Press story posted 1/8/09 at Star-Telegram.com titled “Bridges, streets being close for inauguration”, all bridges crossing the Potomac River and a “huge chunk of downtown” will be closed a goodly portion of the week Barack Obama is scheduled to assume control of the federal government. Only official and authorized vehicles will be granted access over these routes headed into the nation’s capital.
Those accustomed to doing as they are told might respond, “What’s the big deal? This is only for an historic one time event that will be over with in a few days?”
Maybe so. But chain smokers and chronic boozers weren’t born into the addictions that plague them daily either.
Since that is the case, once both authorities and commuters have acclimated to the first time something like this is done in the nation’s capital to this extent, it will be all the easier the next time and then it will be done so frequently that it will no longer make headlines. Eventually, very few will give a second thought to the death of yet another liberty whose surrender has very little to do about saving actual American lives but rather about unduly controlling them.
One can make a case about shutting down access to much of Washington, DC for the protection of the President during the inauguration and the hundreds of thousands of duped brainwashed sheeple coming to gawk worshipfully upon their psuedomessiah. However, what is to prevent the city from being closed for less auspicious purposes?
For example, few will dispute that traffic throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area can be a nightmare. Where you will find differences of opinion is in what to do about it.
It does not take a creative genius on the level of Tom Clancy to speculate that one day progressivist social planners running everything could decree that, in the name of aestheticism, urban planning, sustainable development or whatever other rhetorical garbage they might be spewing at some future date, only a certain number of cars will be granted entry permits to come into the city (most of them going of course to these elites who always insist upon the need for sacrifice but always on your part and never of themselves.
Workers and others lower down the occupational ladder would either have to congregate at pickup points outside the city where they would be duly scrutinized to determine whether or not their reason is meritoriously sufficient to be granted entrance to the city or --- as in the case of some in the lower class needed to serve their betters during inaugural festivities --- workers could be warehoused in barracks at their respective jobsites.
This idea of shutting down U.S. municipalities wholesale is so anathema to the American way of life that very few have intellect expansive enough to wrap their minds around it at this time and dismiss this conjecture as alarmism. Perhaps if they stop and consider what went on in the summer of 2008 in the Arkansas town of Helena-West Helena, they will see that this warning is not one of hysteria but rather a probable future for this once free land if the American people continue to uncritically swallow everything they are told about the steps supposedly necessary to curb violence, crime, and terrorism.
In August 2008 in that town in response to a crime wave, police were not directed to go after those known to be breaking any laws but rather to enforce an around the clock curfew where residents were forbidden to be outside of their homes. Violators were subject to further scrutiny by law enforcement and forced back into their domiciles if the reason coerced from them did not pass the rigors of further investigation.
Docile minions of the New World Order claim that it will only be those acting nervously or suspiciously that will be accosted. But frankly, who wouldn't act nervously or suspiciously under the constant threat of at any second of police cursing at you at the top of their lungs, getting a shot of mace in the face, or getting a gun pointed at your head with you the one having to justify why you have wandered out of the house and not the police for beating you like a rented mule.
In a story titled "Go Home Or Go To Jail!: Helena-West Helena Implements Curfew For All Ages," a resident told a reporter with MyEyeWitnessNews.com, "..you can't go to the store without being harassed by police."
That scenario brings us to yet another conjecture as to where these policies might be headed in the future if Americans refuse to wake up. What is to prevent the police from determining whether or not your trip to the store and what you plan to purchase there is or is not legitimate? After all, the all-wise Obama prophesied that there is coming a time when Americans will no longer be able to eat what they want.
Since America is edging ever-closer to the point where, in the name of public health and national security, the state must make for the individual the most detailed of personal decisions, why not kill two birds with one stone? One could easily combat both the crime spree and obesity epidemic by not only putting the innocent under house arrest but by also only allowing them to eat the provisions brought to their doors during the periods of protracted curfew and quarantine.
Preposterous, you say. Americans will never put up with living in such a manner. Well, up until recently, would they have put up with a 24 hour curfew?
Throughout the Western world, freedom as we once knew it is pretty much on its last leg. Things we once took for granted such as driving over a public bridge or even enjoying our own yards will become a thing of the past unless we vocalize our dissent. And with the attitude Obama has exhibited towards the press here in the opening days of his presidency, even the ability to do that may be endangered if the American people fail to exercise eternal vigilance.
The jury found that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of illegals tresspassing across his property but nevertheless awarded the illegal aliens (a number of convicted drug pushers among their number I might add) damages for "emotional distress". In other words, the property owner hurt their feelings.
If anything, the rancher should be heralded as a national hero.
See if you don't get a gun pulled on you if you cross the White House lawn and one time as I rode past the U.S. Capitol, saw machine guns pulled on a school bus.
If our leaders are no more important than we are as we are told in high school civics propaganda, why aren't property owners allowed the same high-caliber protection?
From his 2/16/09 broadcast, Rush Limbaugh is considering a giant TV costing $180,000.
Will the arrogance of the rich ever cease?
One can buy whatever they want if they have the money, but with the world falling apart and decscending unto Hades in a handbasket, one would think a broadcaster would have no time to mention their luxuries.
