Ann Coulter Letter

Liberals’ View of Darwin Unable to Evolve

Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were “gaps” in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in The New York Times.

After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his Wicked Witch of the West mother, saying, “Evolution, I think, is correct!”

That’s the most extended discussion of Darwin’s theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.

There’s a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.

Darwin’s theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the “fittest” to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.

The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.

Otherwise, the mutations aren’t random, they are deliberate — and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about “intelligent design” and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.

We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record — for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)

But that’s not what the fossil record shows. We don’t have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the “trade secret” of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have “secrets.”)

If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists.

Unlike high school biology teachers lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought to show if his theory were correct. He said there should be “interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.”

But far from showing gradual change with a species slowly developing novel characteristics and eventually becoming another species, as Darwin hypothesized, the fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing.

Darwin’s response was to say: Start looking! He blamed a fossil record that contradicted his theory on the “extreme imperfection of the geological record.”

One hundred and fifty years later, that record is a lot more complete. We now have fossils for about a quarter of a million species.

But things have only gotten worse for Darwin.

Thirty years ago (before it was illegal to question Darwinism), Dr. David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, said that despite the vast expansion of the fossil record: “The situation hasn’t changed much.”

To the contrary, fossil discoveries since Darwin’s time have forced paleontologists to take back evidence of evolution. “Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record,” Raup said, “such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”

The scant fossil record in Darwin’s time had simply been arranged to show a Darwinian progression, but as more fossils were discovered, the true sequence turned out not to be Darwinian at all.

And yet, more than a century later, Darwin’s groupies haven’t evolved a better argument for the lack of fossil evidence.

To explain away the explosion of plants and animals during the Cambrian Period more than 500 million years ago, Darwiniacs asserted — without evidence — that there must have been soft-bodied creatures evolving like mad before then, but left no fossil record because of their squishy little microscopic bodies.

Then in 1984, “the dog ate our fossils” excuse collapsed, too. In a discovery The New York Times called “among the most spectacular in this century,” Chinese paleontologists discovered fossils just preceding the Cambrian era.

Despite being soft-bodied microscopic creatures — precisely the sort of animal the evolution cult claimed wouldn’t fossilize and therefore deprived them of crucial evidence — it turned out fossilization was not merely possible in the pre-Cambrian era, but positively ideal.

And yet the only thing paleontologists found there were a few worms. For 3 billion years, nothing but bacteria and worms, and then suddenly nearly all the phyla of animal life appeared within a narrow band of five million to 10 million years.

Even the eye simply materializes, fully formed, in the pre-Cambrian fossil record.

Jan Bergstrom, a paleontologist who examined the Chinese fossils, said the Cambrian Period was not “evolution,” it was “a revolution.”

So the Darwiniacs pretended they missed the newspaper that day.

Intelligent design scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.

These aren’t scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It’s an accident!)

Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism — including, for example, the entire fossil record — they explain away with non-scientific excuses like “the dog ate our fossils.”

Sign Up
  • Paul Earth A.D.

    Supernatural Witness,

    Hello, long time no see. I hope you are well.

  • supernatural_witness

    It is a matter of fact that I and billions of others have been born again and have a personal knowledge of God and other spirits. It is a matter of fact that there is physical evidence that the universe is very young such as the existence of natural gas which has not yet escaped the weak hold the shale plates have upon it–evidence that it has not long been there; and such as the fact that the oceans have not reached mineral saturation though they steadily grow saltier–evidence that the process has not long been in operation; or such as the fact that entropy allows the heavenly bodies to move apart at quantifiable rates which cannot have been moving apart for more than a very short span without the sun touching the earth touching the moon; so forth and so on ad nauseum.

  • supernatural_witness

    Hi! ;o)

  • 1LonesomeDove1

     Hey! Don’t stay away so long!

  • supernatural_witness

    I post on ann every week usually and here and there on other HE writers and quite a bit on Daily Caller.

    Topics like this are great because I can tell the gospel a dozen different ways and be on topic.

  • supernatural_witness

    We tend think liberals are unreachable and we KNOW they are void of logic or rhetoric skills BUT:

    Jesus said the lift up your eyes and look for the wheat is white (ripe) for harvest. So, by faith (since they seem brain dead and blind to me) I try to get as much actual scripture and gospel out there as I can and pray the Holy Spirit will work on the other end to bring some reader around. The hard part is not over antagonizing with sarcastic rhetoric.

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    That’s good. We need people like you because,  I see them too often as reprobate and anathema, but only after a few posts and usually after my character is attacked for no reason.

    That’s when it becomes obvious that they have no intention of honestly listening to the other side, or giving it respectful consideration.

  • johninohio

    All you’ve done is to change the subject. You haven’t dealt with the real question–is what I said in that first paragraph true or not. I can only assume that it is true in your mind, but you are loath to admit it.

    You have no way of knowing how much I have listened to believers. As usual you’re just expressing your own bigotry toward those who won’t agree with you.

    In fact, I was raised a christian, but I struggled with the inconsistencies and fairy tale- like stories from my teens through most of my adult life.  And the more I learned, the wider the gulf became, until I had to admit one day that I could no longer pretend I believed it. I finally realized that the source of Christianity’s power was fear, and it’s purpose was thought control. And in a lot of cases, it’s about money and privilege for those in leadership positions. This doesn’t mean that Christianity has no redeeming qualities. However, ends don’t justify means, but in the real world, they often make the means tolerable.

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    “The hard part is not over antagonizing with sarcastic rhetoric.” – SW

    To be sure, that can be a challenge; especially when such a person mocks the ones you love most in the world (Jesus Christ and God)

    You actually corrected me once about a year ago when I said something very cruel to a liberal troll here; I don’t think you knew at the time that the person whom I was addressing was just playing you and was a well known liar. Never the less; you were right to correct me and I felt ashamed for what I had said to this person.  I also felt bad because I gave you a negative impression about myself. In any case, I wanted to thank you for that correction (whether you remember it or not).

  • ^TDO^


    And the reason you believe what you do is exactly the same as the fundamentalists.  Yet you refuse to see it.  If evolution is proven false, your beliefs go right out the window.

    Big Bang.  Why do you think Stephen Hawking keeps searching for an alternate theory?

  • supernatural_witness

    Hey, I was pointing the finger at myself about making charged remarks. It is easy to get carried away especially in this time where most are not in the valley of decision but are viciously devout anti- christs in their perspective. “A word of instruction for the wise; a rod of correction for the back of fools.”

  • ^TDO^


    I replied to you down the page.  Since you posted this twice so will I as a response.

    And the reason you believe what you do is exactly the same
    as the fundamentalists.  Yet you refuse to see it.  If evolution is
    proven false, your beliefs go right out the window.

    Big Bang.  Why do you think Stephen Hawking keeps searching for an alternate theory? 

  • R Lynn Long

    King James Bible
    And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.       Genesis 2:7

    Monkeys, ma ass—– dirt was what we were “evolved” by God… snort, snort

  • OKCorral

    Greetings from the OKCorral:
    TDO, GABE, LeAnn, Dove…what happened to Underoneperfectredumbrella?????  Have not seen her post for a lustrum.
    Old Gringo Ralph

  • ^TDO^

    And now Obama is going to propose a new national bank.  He says it is for private investors to put their money in and help with infrastructure repairs, roads, etc.

    Exactly how this will work considering infrastructure and roads are costs with no profit margins, I don’t completely understand why an investor would go there.

    Then you find out he is talking about the investment of retirement funds and it becomes clearer.

  • ^TDO^

    She’s been tweeting, Ralph.  She got tired of the bickering and name calling here.

  • supernatural_witness

    The church as an institution is flawed just as the state as an institution is flawed until Jesus comes to reign as both King of the world and head of the church. I don’t know what denomination you were exposed to but perhaps you were exposed to Christianity– the religion, rather than Christ– the personal savior. Also, receiving the Holy Spirit Baptism makes all the difference when it comes to experiencing the tangible reality of God’s presence and influence in your life.

  • 2War Abn Vet

    But, for some reason, you find many horses’ asses in the Dem Party.

  • UpLateAgain

    As proof that progressive thinking never evolves (how’s THAT for a tie-in to this week’s discussion), despite the fact that they all feel they are the ones who actually DO the thinking and evolve new ideas , I offer you a speech given by Al Smith, four-time Democratic governor of New York, given in 1936.

    It could have been given last week.  Read the whole thing, or any part of it, and you might swear he was talking about the Obama administration – particularly before the 2010 elections:

    By Alfred E. (Al) Smith
    [Alfred E. Smith, Democratic governor of New York during four terms, became the Democratic candidate for President in 1928 but lost to Herbert Hoover. In 1932 he supported Franklin D. Roosevelt for President, but by 1936 he was so shocked and alarmed by what he saw happening that he decided to warn his Party. Because of the popularity of President Roosevelt this step was considered by some to be virtual treason. Nevertheless, on January 25, 1936, Alfred F. Smith gave the following speech in Washington, D.C., to warn the American people that the Democratic Party was being betrayed.]


    At the outset of my remarks let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a candidate for any nomination by any party at any time, and what is more I do not intend to even lift my right hand to secure any nomination from any party at any time. Further than that I have no axe to grind. There is nothing personal in this whole performance so far as I am concerned. I have no feeling against any man, woman or child in the United States. I was born in the Democratic party and I expect to die in it. And I was attracted to it in my youth because I was led to believe that no man owned it. Further than that, that no group of men owned it, but on the other hand, that it belonged to all the plain people in the United States.

    It is not easy for me to stand up here tonight and talk to the American people against the Democratic Administration. This is not easy. It hurts me. But I can call upon innumerable witnesses to testify to the fact that during my whole public life I put patriotism above partisanship. And when I see danger, I say danger, that is the “Stop, look, and listen” to the fundamental principles upon which this Government of ours was organized, it is difficult for me to refrain from speaking up.
    What are these dangers that I see? The first is the arraignment of class against class. It has been freely predicted that if we were ever to have civil strife again in this country, it would come from the appeal to passion and prejudices that comes from the demagogues that would incite one class of our people against the other.
    In my time I have met some good and bad industrialists. I have met some good and bad financiers, but I have also met some good and bad laborers, and this I know, that permanent prosperity is dependent upon both capital and labor alike.

    And I also know that there can be no permanent prosperity in this country until industry is able to employ labor, and there certainly can be no permanent recovery upon any governmental theory of “soak the rich” or “soak the poor.” . .

    The next thing that I view as being dangerous to our national well-being is government by bureaucracy instead of what we have been taught to look for, government by law.

    Just let me quote something from the President’s message to Congress:
    “In 34 months we have built up new instruments of public power in the hands of the people’s government. This power is wholesome and proper, but in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of our people.”

    Now I interpret that to mean, if you are going to have an autocrat, take me; but be very careful about the other fellow. There is a complete answer to that, and it rises in the minds of the great rank and file, and that answer is just this: We will never in this country tolerate any laws that provide shackles for our people.
    We don’t want any autocrats, either in or out of office. We wouldn’t even take a good one.

    The next danger that is apparent to me is the vast building up of new bureaus of government, draining resources of our people in a common pool of redistributing them, not by any process of law, but by the whim of a bureaucratic autocracy.

    Well now, what am I here for? I am here not to find fault. Anybody can do that. I am here to make suggestions. What would I have my party do? I would have them reestablish and redeclare the principles that they put forth in that 1932 platform. .

    The Republican platform was ten times as long. It was stuffy, it was unreadable, and in many points, not understandable. No Administration in the history of the country came into power with a more simple, a more clear, or a more inescapable mandate than did the party that was inaugurated on the Fourth of March in 1933.
    And listen, no candidate in the history of the country ever pledged himself more unequivocally to his party platform than did the President who was inaugurated on that day.

    Well, here we are!

    Millions and millions of Democrats just like myself, all over the country, still believe in that platform. And what we want to know is why it wasn’t carried out.

    Now, let us wander for awhile and let’s take a look at that platform, and let’s see what happened to it. Here is how it started out:

    “We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people, to be faithfully kept by the party when entrusted with power, and that the people are entitled to know in plain words the terms of contract to which they are asked to subscribe.

    “The Democratic Party solemnly promises by appropriate action to put into effect the principles, policies and reforms herein advocated and to eradicate the political methods and practices herein condemned.”
    My friends, these are what we call fighting words. At the time that that platform went through the air and over the wire, the people of the United States were in the lowest possible depths of despair, and the Democratic platform looked to them like the star of hope; it looked like the rising sun in the East to the mariner on the bridge of a ship after a terrible night.
    But what happened to it?

    First plank: “We advocate immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 per cent in the cost of the Federal Government.”
    Well, now, what is the fact? No offices were consolidated, no bureaus were eliminated, but on the other hand, the alphabet was exhausted. The creation of new departments — and this is sad news for the taxpayer — the cost, the ordinary cost, what we refer to as housekeeping cost, over and above all emergencies — that ordinary housekeeping cost of government is greater today than it has ever been in any time in the history of the republic.

    Another plank: “We favor maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate Federal estimate within revenue.”

    How can you balance a budget if you insist upon spending more money than you take in? Even the increased revenue won’t go to balance the budget, because it is hocked before you receive it. What is worse than that? .

    Now here is something that I want to say to the rank and file. There are three classes of people in this country; there are the poor and the rich, and in between the two is what has often been referred to as the great backbone of America, that is the plain fellow.

    That is the fellow that makes from one hundred dollars a month up to the man that draws down five or six thousand
    dollars a year.  Now, there is a great big army. Forget the rich; they can’t pay this debt. If you took everything they have away from them, they couldn’t pay it; they ain’t got enough. There is no use talking about the poor; they will never pay it, because they have nothing.

    This debt is going to be paid by that great big middle class that we refer to as the backbone and the rank and file, and the sin of it is they ain’t going to know that they are paying it. It is going to come to them in the form of indirect and hidden taxation. It will come to them in the cost of living, in the cost of clothing, in the cost of every activity that they enter into, and because it is not a direct tax, they won’t think they’re paying, but, take it from me, they are going to pay it!

    Another plank: “We advocate the extension of Federal credit to the States to provide unemployment relief where the diminishing resources of the State make it impossible for them to provide for their needs.”

    That was pretty plain. That was a recognition in the national convention of the rights of the States. But how is it interpreted? The Federal Government took over most of the relief problems, some of them useful and most of them useless. They started out to prime the pump for industry in order to absorb the ranks of the unemployed, and at the end of three years their employment affirmative policy is absolutely nothing better than the negative policy of the Administration that preceded it. 

    “We favor unemployment and old age insurance under State laws.”

    Now let me make myself perfectly clear so that no demagogue or no crack-pot in the next week or so will be able to say anything about my attitude on this kind of legislation. I am in favor of it. And I take my hat off to no man in the United States on the question of legislation beneficial to the poor, the weak, the sick, or the afflicted, or women and children Because why? I started out a quarter of a century ago when I had very few followers in my State, and during that period I advocated, fought for, introduced as a legislator and finally as Governor for eight long years, signed more progressive legislation in the interest of the men, women and children than any man in the State of New York.

    And the sin of this whole thing, and the part of it that worries me and gives me concern, is that this haphazard, hurry-up passage of legislation is never going to accomplish the purposes for which it was designed and — bear this in mind, follow the platform — under State laws.

    Another one: “We promise the removal of Government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and national resources in the common interest.”
    NRA! A vast octopus set up by government, that wound its arms around all the business of the country, paralyzed big business, and choked little business to death.

    Did you read in the papers a short time ago where somebody said that business was going to get a breathing spell?
    What is the meaning of that? And where did that expression arise?

    I’ll tell you where it comes from. It comes from the prize ring. When the aggressor is punching the head off the other fellow he suddenly takes compassion on him and he gives him a breathing spell before he delivers the knockout wallop.

    Here is another one: “We condemn the open and covert resistance of administrative officials to every effort made by congressional committees to curtail the extravagant expenditures of Government and improvident subsidies granted to private interests.”

    Now, just between ourselves, do you know any administrative officer that has tried to stop Congress from appropriating money? Do you think there has been any desire on the part of Congress to curtail appropriations?
    Why, not at all. The fact is that Congress threw them right and left — didn’t even tell what they were for.
    And the truth, further, is that every administrative officer sought to get all that he possibly could in order to expand the activities of his own office and throw the money of the people right and left. And as to subsidies, why, never at any time in the history of this or any other country were there so many subsidies granted to private groups, and on such a huge scale.

    The fact of the matter is that most of the cases now pending before the United States Supreme Court revolve around the point whether or not it is proper for Congress to tax all the people to pay subsidies to a particular group.

    Here is another one: “We condemn the extravagance of the Farm Board, its disastrous action which made the Government a speculator of farm products, and the unsound policy of restricting agricultural products to the demand of domestic markets.” . .

    What about the restriction of our agricultural products and the demands of the market? Why, the fact about that is that we shut out entirely the farm market, and by plowing under corn and wheat and the destruction of foodstuffs, food from foreign countries has been pouring into our American markets — food that should have been purchased by us from our own farmers.

    In other words, while some of the countries of the Old World were attempting to drive the wolf of hunger from the doormat, the United States flew in the face of God’s bounty and destroyed its own foodstuffs. There can be no question about that.

    Now I could go on indefinitely with some of the other planks. They are unimportant, and the radio time will not permit it. But just let me sum up this way. Regulation of the Stock Exchange and the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, plus one or two minor planks of the platform that in no way touch the daily life of our people, have been carried out, but the balance of the platform was thrown in the wastebasket. About that there can be no question.

    Let’s see how it was carried out. Make a test for yourself. Just get the platform of the Democratic Party, and get the platform of the Socialist Party, and lay them down on your dining room table, side by side, and get a heavy lead pencil and scratch out the word “Democrat,” and scratch out the word “Socialist,” and let the two platforms lay there.

    Then study the record of the present Administration up to date. After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will put your hand on the Socialist platform. You don’t dare touch the Democratic platform.

    And incidentally, let me say, that it is not the first time in recorded history, that a group of men have stolen the livery of the church to do the work of the devil.

    Now, after studying this whole situation, you will find that that is at the bottom of all our troubles. This country was organized on the principles of representative democracy, and you can’t mix Socialism or Communism with that. They are like oil and water; they refuse to mix.

    And incidentally, let me say to you, that is the reason why the United States Supreme Court is working overtime throwing the alphabet out of the window — three letters at a time.

    Now I am going to let you in on something else. How do you suppose all this happened? Here is the way it happened. The young Brain Trusters caught the Socialists in swimming and they ran away with their clothes.
    Now, it is all right with me. It is all right to me if they want to disguise themselves as Norman Thomas or Karl Marx, or Lenin, or any of the rest of that bunch, but what I won’t stand for is to let them march under the banner of Jefferson, Jackson, or Cleveland.

    Now what is worrying me, where does that leave me as a Democrat? My mind is now fixed upon the Convention in June, in Philadelphia. The committee on resolutions is about to report, and the preamble to the platform is:
    “We, the representatives of the Democratic Party in Convention assembled, heartily endorse the Democratic Administration.”

    What happens to the disciples of Jefferson and Jackson and Cleveland when that resolution is read out? Why, for us it is a washout. There is only one of two things we can do. We can either take on the mantle of hypocrisy or we can take a walk, and we will probably do the latter.

    Now leave the platform alone for a little while. What about this attack that has been made upon the fundamental institutions of this country? Who threatens them, and did we have any warning of this threat? Why, you don’t have to study party platforms. You don’t have to read books. You don’t have to listen to professors of economics. You can find the whole thing incorporated in the greatest declaration of political principles that ever came from the hands of man, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

    Always have in your minds that the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it were drafted by refugees and by sons of refugees, by men with bitter memories of European oppression and hardship, by men who brought to this country and handed down to their descendants an abiding fear of the bitterness and all the hatred of the Old World was distilled in our Constitution into the purest democracy that the world has ever known.

    There are just three principles, and in the interest of brevity, I will read them. I can read them quicker than talk them.

    “First, a Federal Government, strictly limited in its power, with all other powers except those expressly mentioned reserved to the States and to the people, so as to insure State’s rights, guarantee home rule, and preserve freedom of individual initiative and local control.”

    That is simple enough. The difference between the State constitutions and the Federal. Constitution is that in the State you can do anything you want to do provided it is not prohibited by the Constitution. But in the Federal Government, according to that government, you can do only that which that Constitution tells you that you can do.

    What is the trouble? Congress has overstepped its bounds. It went beyond that Constitutional limitation, and it has enacted laws that not only violate the home rule and the State’s right principle — and who says that? Do I say it? Not at all. That was said by the United States Supreme Court in the last ten or twelve days.

    Secondly, the Government, with three independent branches, Congress to make the laws, the Executive to execute them, the Supreme Court, and so forth. You know that.

    In the name of Heaven, where is the independence of Congress? Why, they just laid right down. They are flatter on the Congressional floor than the rug on the table here. They surrendered all of their powers to the Executive, and that is the reason why you read in the newspapers references to Congress as the Rubber Stamp Congress.
    We all know that the most important bills were drafted by the Brain Trusters, and sent over to Congress and passed by Congress without consideration, without debate and, without meaning any offense at all to my Democratic brethren in Congress, I think I can safely say without 90 per cent of them knowing what was in the bills.
    That was the meaning of the list that came over, and besides certain bills were “Must.” What does that mean? Speaking for the rank and file of American people we don’t want any executive to tell Congress what it must do, and we don’t want any Congress or the Executive jointly or severally to tell the United States Supreme Court what it must do!

    And further than that, we don’t want the United States Supreme Court to tell either of them what they must do.
    What we want, and what we insist upon, and what we are going to have is the absolute preservation of this balance of power which is the keystone, the arch upon which the whole theory of democratic government has got to rest. When you rattle that you rattle the whole structure.

    Of course, when our forefathers wrote the Constitution of the United States it couldn’t be possible that they had it in their minds that it was going to be all right for all time to come. So they said, “Now, we will provide a manner and method of amending it.”

    That is set forth in the document itself, and during our national life we amended it many times.
    We amended it once by mistake, and we corrected it. What did we do? We took the amendment out. Fine, that is the way we want to do it, by recourse to the people.

    But we don’t want an Administration that takes a shot at it in the dark and that ducks away from it and dodges away from it and tries to put something over in contradiction of it upon any theory that there is going to be a great public howl in favor of that something; possibly the United States Supreme Court may be intimidated into a friendly opinion with respect to it.

    What I have held all during my public life is that Almighty God is with this country, and He didn’t give us that kind of Supreme Court.

    Now this is pretty tough on me to have to go at my own party this way, but I submit that there is a limit to blind loyalty.

    As a young man in the Democratic Party, I witnessed the rise and fall of Bryan and Bryanism, and I know exactly what Bryan did to our party. I knew how long it took to build it after he got finished with it. But let me say this to the everlasting credit of Bryan and the men that followed him, they had the nerve and the courage and honesty to put into the platform just what their leaders stood for. And they further put the American people into a position of making an intelligent choice when they went to the polls.

    Why, the fact of this whole thing is — I speak now not only of the executive but of the legislature at the same time — that they promised one set of things; they repudiated that promise, and they launched off on a program of action totally different.

    Well, in 25 years of experience I have known both parties to fail to carry out some of the planks in their platform. But this is the first time that I have known a party, upon such a huge scale, not only not to carry out the plank, but to do the directly opposite thing to what they promised.
    Now, suggestions, and I make these as a Democrat anxious for the success of my party, and I make them in good faith.

    No. 1: I suggest to the members of my party on Capitol Hill here in Washington that they take their minds off the Tuesday that follows the first Monday in November. Just take their minds off it to the end that you may do the right thing and not the expedient thing.

    Next, I suggest to them that they dig up the 1932 platform from the grave that they buried it in, read it over, and study it, breathe life into it, and follow it in legislative and executive action, to the end that they make good their promises to the American people when they put forth that platform and the candidate that stood upon it 100 per cent. In short, make good!

    Next, I suggest to them that they stop compromising with the fundamental principles laid down by Jackson and Jefferson and Cleveland.

    Fourth: Stop attempting to alter the form and structure of our Government without recourse to the people themselves as provided in their own Constitution. This country belongs to the people, and it doesn’t belong to any Administration.

    Next, I suggest that they read their Oath of Office to support the Constitution of the United States. And I ask them to remember that they took that oath with their hands on the Holy Bible, thereby calling upon God Almighty Himself to witness their solemn promise. It is bad enough to disappoint us.
    Sixth: I suggest that from this moment they resolve to make the Constitution the Civil Bible of the United States, and pay it the same civil respect and reverence that they would religiously pay the Holy Scripture, and I ask them to read from the Holy Scripture the Parable of the Prodigal Son and to follow his example.

    Stop! Stop wasting your substance in a foreign land, and come back to your Father’s house.

    Now, in conclusion let me give this solemn warning. There can be only one Capitol, Washington or Moscow!
    There can be only one atmosphere of government, tl1e clear, pure, fresh air of free America, or the foul breath of Communistic Russia.

    There can be only one flag, the Stars and Stripes, or the Red Flag of the Godless Union of the Soviet.

    There can be only one National Anthem. The Star Spangled Banner or the Internationale.

    There can be only one victor. If the Constitution wins, we win. But if the Constitution — stop. Stop there. The Constitution can’t lose! The fact is, it has already won, but the news has not reached certain ears.

  • ^TDO^

    Uh, in the context in which it was stated, yes.

    Kinsey (I know discredited, but by whom?) found that over 60% of all homosexuals 1st sexual act was with an older man.

    Of the current research in the area, most have gotten away from genetics.  Those that believe that homosexuals are ‘born that way’, tend to think it is either from a mother’s hormonal problems during gestation or from (LOL) viruses.

    Most researchers now believe that it is a environmental issue.  Some believe that there are those viruses or hormones involved also, but a great number are beginning to think it is environment only.

    And wasn’t that just as homophobic a statement as anyone ever made, ‘bone in the bum’.  Why can you say stuff like that and we can’t, LOL?

  • ^TDO^

    What is the current C-14 to C-12 atmospheric ratio?

    What was it 50 years ago?

    What was it 100 years ago, a 1000?

    What was in the surrounding area when the dating was taken?

    What was the diet of the specimen being tested?

    Unknowns and contamination.  Adds up to a lot of guesswork.

  • RayAncel

    This double dip recession brought to you courtesy of the Tea Party?

    Stock market performance under George W. Bush compared to Obama’s first two years.



    Please take a look at the Destruction of Wealth under George W. Bush and the Republican Party.
    DJIA,  -25%.
    NASDAQ, -48%.
    S&P500,  -40%.

    First two years of Obama.
    DJIA,    +49%.
    NASDAQ,  +87%.
    S&P500,  +59%.

    YES, as a retired investor, I AM better off today than two and a half years ago.

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    “A little bone in the bum, and you instantly become a ballet dancer?”

    You’ve shown us that….if nothing else.

  • RayAncel

    oops…sorry, wrong column

  • UpLateAgain

    Run the same statistics comparing the Bush years BEFORE Democrats took control of Congress (2007) and after (as I recall, the DOW was right in the neighborhood of 14,000 when Pelosi was seated – a stat you carefully avoided above) …. and if you are at all any kind of honest man, you won’t bother trying to use phony BS statistics to change the minds of people who disagree with you politically in the future.

    Not that Bush et al were even remotely conservative when it came to spending policies…. but those highly negative numbers you mentioned ALL came about after Pelosi and company took over the branch of government primarily responsible for spending.

    And your Tea party question is the MOST moronic aspect of your post. The Tea Party movement is one dedicated to controlling the profligate spending and government expansion that has demolished the economy for years now.

  • ^TDO^

    Good post.

    I had to go back and look at the top for the date.

    It is prior to the packing of the Supreme Court.

    I believe he had the majority court by 1937 and that is when all hell broke loose.

    As to precedents and super precedents, they didn’t care.  I think that if and when we get a chance, we should remember that.

    The other thing in the post that I liked (and miss) is the idea of a stated, easy to understand, platform that the candidates are ‘supposed’ to support.  When is the last time any party had done that?

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    Guy Benson
    NYC Mayor Bloomberg: No Clergy Participation at 9/11 Memorial Service
    8/25/2011 | Email Guy Benson | All Posts By Blogger

    Within weeks, Americans will commemorate the tenth anniversary of the atrocities of September 11, 2001. New York City’s planned memorial service is embroiled in controversy, as Mayor Michael Bloomberg has chosen to exclude members of the clergy from speaking or praying at the event. Unsurprisingly, this decision has sparked outrage across the city:

    Religious leaders are calling on Mayor Michael Bloomberg to reverse course and offer clergy a role in the ceremony commemorating the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Rudy Washington, a deputy mayor in former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s administration, said he’s outraged. Mr. Washington organized an interfaith ceremony at Yankee Stadium shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “This is America, and to have a memorial service where there’s no prayer, this appears to be insanity to me,” said Mr. Washington, who has suffered severe medical problems connected to the time he spent at Ground Zero. “I feel like America has lost its way.”

    New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has publicly criticized the mayor about the list of speakers, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has quietly sought to play a larger role. But the exclusion of religious leaders has struck some as particularly glaring. City Council Member Fernando Cabrera, a pastor at New Life Outreach International, a Bronx church, said he is “utterly disappointed” and “shocked” by the event’s absence of clergy. When the terrorist attacks occurred, people in the city and nationwide turned to spiritual leaders for guidance, he said.

    Not so fast, the Mayor’s office says, this controversial proscription is no different than the way official city 9/11 memorials have been conducted in recent years:

    City Hall officials, who are coordinating the ceremony, confirmed that spiritual leaders will not participate this year—just as has been the case during past events marking the anniversary. The mayor has said he wants the upcoming event to strike a similar tone as previous ceremonies. “There are hundreds of important people that have offered to participate over the last nine years, but the focus remains on the families of the thousands who died on Sept. 11,” said Evelyn Erskine, a mayoral spokeswoman.

    This seems like a reasonable explanation to me, even though I strongly support the inclusion of religious leaders at the event. If we cannot join together in prayer and spiritual reflection on a day as weighty — and even sacred — as this, then we really have lost our way. Bloomberg, who so far has not budged from his position on this question, has also been a vocal supporter of the construction of a divisive “Ground Zero Mosque.” I’ve long argued that although Imam Rauf and company have the legal right to construct a house of worship in the former shadow of the towers that were destroyed in the name of Islam, cultural sensitivity and common decency should persuade them to reconsider their plan. They have not, and Bloomberg fully supports them. He’s consistently blasted those who’ve questioned the propriety of Rauf’s designs:

    Mayor Bloomberg won’t stop talking about the mosque near Ground Zero, harshly attacking opponents yesterday who “ought to be ashamed of themselves.” Sounding more supportive of freedom of religion than freedom of speech, Bloomberg said, “I just don’t think the government should tell people where they can pray and where they can build houses of worship. “It is a shame that we even have to talk about this,” the mayor added on his WOR radio broadcast.

    The clear perception is that Muslims are being officially applauded for flouting the wishes of most city residents and building a monument to their faith in a building that sustained damage during the 9/11 attacks, while Christian, Jewish, and other faith leaders are being denied the opportunity to participate in a memorial service for the victims. While it’s obviously not a totally apt comparison, I can understand why many New Yorkers are seething. The mayor’s office has issued explanations for both decisions, and in a vacuum, each sounds logical — setting aside Mayor Bloomberg’s sneering condescension. Considered together, however, the two policies certainly feel wrongheaded. The easy solution? Relent, and invite an ecumenical clutch of religious leaders to offer prayers at the ceremony. I fear Bloomberg’s massive ego and general tone-deafness will preclude him from doing the right thing.

    My, how far we’ve “progressed” in a decade

  • supernatural_witness

    Prove it is wrong

    Perhaps, I am familiar enough with the topic to make my own arguments. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be getting my info from google– geesh. You may have heard of studying and degrees– things I have done and possess. The biggest problem with America today is that most people have been trained by the state school propaganda and never bothered to fact check against original sources or alternative sources.

  • ^TDO^

    Own a house?

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    You see” I could have found and joined a Jim Jones like cult, but I never did. Why? Because I know what the Bible says through study, whereas; those who follow a cult leader allow him to interpret It for them.
    Had they read, studied, and shown themselves approved as the Bible commands, they never would have made that mistake. But then….there will always be those “followers” who will psychologically need a leader. And there will always be those leaders, John………both secular, and non secular alike (The Weather Underground, and PLO are good examples).

    I have no problem with either the agnostic, or the atheist unless they come here and unfairly insult us as you did by belittling our intelligence with your “fear” and “thought control” comment. When I defend myself against your false assumption, I’m called a name…..bigot.

    This is what you guys cannot seem to function without. You can’t seem to express your opinion here without somehow employing insults (implied, or otherwise) and name calling to reinforce your opinions.

    Your reasons for your “faith” are, for the most part, the same as ours, yet you become the hypocrite and point fingers at us. The difference between us is, that you become angry and insulting when your “preaching” is ill received.

  • JJ_Pimpernell

    Evolution has too many flaws to be take as dogma?  I think you’ve got that the other way around. The dogma is all on your side, old man. It’s science that has the man rocks to admit what’s false, search for the truth, and adjust the view as data comes in.  If you like thinking the writings of nomadic people pass for science and truth, then go for it.  At least some of us understand things like electricity, and the science that allowed you to use the internet to spread your obtuse views.

  • JJ_Pimpernell

    are talking snakes the source you usually rely on?

  • UpLateAgain

    I was merely impressed by the parallels.  The fact that the speech was given by a lifelong Democrat was just icing on the cake.

    I too like the idea of a stated platform…. and if done right, it is a powerful inducement for electoral support…… witness the ‘Contract With America.”

  • JJ_Pimpernell

    you obviously have no idea the difference between scientific fact, theory, or law.  Please.  Brush up on science 101 before posting

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    Even though your question was not directed towards me; I will chime in.

    As I have explained to a number of atheist’s here in the past; the snake in the garden was a clear and unmistakable metaphor for the Devil.

  • UpLateAgain

    If you are asking if I interpret parable literally….. no. 

    Actually, I usually consider the people that even ask such questions to be boorish simpletons.  Are you a boorish simpleton? Just asking!

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    Brought to us by the Tea Party? Wasn’t there a recession before the Tea Party was formed?

  • RayAncel

    The American Dream Downpayment Act was passed when George W. Bush was president, Denny Hastert(R) was Speaker of the House and Bill Frist(R) was Senate Majority Leader.

    Many Republicans talk about the Community Re-Investment Act but are curiously silent about George Bush’s and the Republican Party’s prerogatives.

    President George W. Bush readily took up the homeownership baton at the start of his administration in 2001. Owning a home became one pillar of his “ownership society”, a vision in which everyone would possess a stake in the American economy.  In the summer 2002, Bush challenged lenders to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade; in 2003 he signed the American Dream Downpayment Act.

    To reinforce his effort, the Bush administration put substantial pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their funding of mortgage loans to lower-income groups.

    The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress were opposed to legislation banning ‘predatory’ lending, believing legislation would overly restrict lending and thus slow the march of home ownership; moreover, the Republicans argued, existing regulations were adequate to discourage the worst excesses.

    Seems like putting blame on the CRA is a ruse by the Republican Party to cover their own tail.

  • JJ_Pimpernell

    the anti-evolution crowd here is the same one that condemned Galileo, persecuted James Watson, and laughed at Tycho Brahe.  Yet, they go to doctors for cures based science, and enjoy the fruits of science

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    “Please take a look at the Destruction of Wealth und….”

    Destruction of wealth? You guys want to “steal” the wealth and give it to those who didn’t earn it in order to get votes. When you do this, you destroy jobs.

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    Sorry, but we’re just not that old to be the same crowd, and Galileo agreed with the Bible. That’s why he was persecuted. 
    “Yet, they go to doctors for cures based science, and enjoy the fruits of science ”

    Really? The Bible said that life is in the blood several thousand years ago, when up until about 150 years ago, science “bled” the sick often to their death.

  • UpLateAgain

    Excuse me… what obtuse view is it that you think I am trying to spread….. Old man? I haven’t preached anything but to have an open mind. And a great many (if not most) of the people posting in opposition to Ann’s column have no such thing. The ‘science’ they adhere-to (of which the majority are in any event painfully ignorant) changes all the time as knowledge is gained. There was a time, no doubt, when ‘scientists’ thought stomach aches were caused by demons. We now know they are caused by a small toad living in the stomach…… okay that was Steve Martin’s joke, not mine, but it makes the point…..Old Man. Or would you prefer it if I called you ‘Young Punk?’

  • RaymondKoepsell

    God is the author of all creation and the only source of “Truth.”  Humans can only offer opinion based upon their perceptions from an extremely narrow perspective; I joyfully acknowledge my opinions fall into that category.  Other factors, such as the individual’s propensity for and commitment to objectivity, will invariably lead to individual bias when processing the avalanche of sensory input, data, information, etc.  This is why I can see a glass as half full and someone else can see the same glass as half empty.  We’d both be correct, but observations do not equal truth.  There is only one Truth, and it hasn’t been found by science; Yahweh = Truth. 
    The paradigm that theism is a human contrivance is based upon two assertions which, when considered together, are illogical and require a breakdown of critical thinking in order to accept.  1) Science finds no evidence for God that stands up to scientific scrutiny, and posits, therefore, that the only reasonable and responsible conclusion one can draw is that creation must be Godless.  2) Science, unable to explain the origin of a Godless universe,
    thoroughly disregards significant gaps in knowledge and understanding on the way to its irrefutable but unsupported conclusion that creation must be Godless. 
    In assertion 1), “the existence of God” is dismissed by atheists as unsupported.  In assertion 2), “the non-existence of God” is embraced by atheists despite the fact that “the non-existence of God” fails to stand up to the same scientific scrutiny used to deny his existence.  Atheists are generally willing to acknowledge that science doesn’t have all or even most of the answers, and that many of the answers science has are not well understood or even contradictory; however, atheists never hesitate to abandon that humble acknowledgement and state, unequivocally, that God is a lie. 
    Atheists frequently cite Occam’s Razor, the notion that the most simple and straightforward answer is generally the right or best answer, as the reason why it is more logical to believe there is no god than to believe that we are children of Yahweh.  This is why I believe practicing atheists are irrational.  Atheism is the belief that there was nothing, then nothing happened to nothing, and then nothing exploded for no reason, creating everything.  Then a bunch of everything rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever.  Over untold millennia, these random rearrangements accidentally turned into galaxies and planets and the building blocks for life.  Over more untold millennia, a primordial ooze created from nothing for no reason mutated for no reason into self-replicating cells, which eventually mutated into organisms which ultimately mutated into humans. 
    Atheism clings precariously to the hope that entropy is merely misunderstood or misinterpreted at this time, that eventually Chaos Theory will prove that that order does not tend towards disorder, that disorder can self-organize.  Atheism clings precariously to the hope that a unified theory will emerge from science that explains why the universal constants allowing the earth to support life are locked in place and cannot be varied.  Atheism clings precariously to the hope that our universe is just one of an untold, incomprehensible number of different universes, and we’re just “Soo,ooo,ooo,ooo very lucky” to live in this universe which supports life on this planet which supports life at this time.  While clinging to these hopes, atheism will insist that, despite this wish list of future discoveries and insights, the natural universe can’t contain a God because that would be supernatural. 
    Atheist apologetics (could there even be such a thing?) assert that “we’re struggling to understand” and that we are “profoundly ignorant about many
    matters,” but in the next breath an atheist will tell a believer that he or she is delusional for their faith.  Our 22nd century understanding of the natural universe will be more radically different from our current understanding as our current understanding is radically different from what we understood about the natural universe in the 15th century.  Despite this, here we are in 2011 staking our claim for eternity.  Science hasn’t failed, but it fails to explain what it claims to know. 
    Really, what more is there than faith?  Despite all its arguments against religion, science has not given us primum movens.  With no prime mover, there is no first cause.  The Big Bang, without a Big Banger, is not just a stretch but complete and utter lunacy.  Evolution, as a root cause, explains nothing.  Evolution, as Ms. Coulter points out, can’t even serve as the trunk of the tree of knowledge we’re climbing.  At best, evolutionary theory is a small branch on the enormous tree of human knowledge – no more, no less.  Those seeking ultimate truth should open, read, and study the Bible without prejudice.   

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    Amen to that. Thanks for your testimony!

  • ^TDO^

    What did giving assistance to people for down payments and closing costs have to do with predatory lending?

    While I disagree with the bill because it was just more federal spending to no real end, it had nothing to do with predatory lending practices.

    CRA/FED/Gramm-Leach-Bliley = housing bubble.  Everything else was an effect, not a cause.

  • ^TDO^

    Theodoric of York, Medieval barber,


  • UpLateAgain

    Actually, Bush went to Congress twice with bills to rein-in Fannie and Freddie.  Both were voted down.  As to Republicans being silent on Bush’s spending extravaganzas…. Yep  a lot were and are.  But the same is decidedly NOT true for conservatives (I don’t care what their party is, or if they even have one), who have often and loudly denounced Bush’s spending on this blog.

    Nobody here calling themselves a conservative champions, or has championed, Bush’s profligate spending.  The problem is, we can’t get rid of Bush, because (as you libs can’t seem to grasp), HE’S ALREADY GONE.  The idiot doing even MORE spending at four times the rate in office NOW (that is to say for clarification… doing the profligate spending NOW) is Obama…. so he’s the guy we want to get rid-of. 


  • Paul Earth A.D.

    Have a good afternoon/evening everybody.

    For those who doubt God and His Word, and deny Christ; you will soon have more proof than you could ever have wanted to that will confirm the veracity of God’s Word. Even now God’s prophetic Word is coming to greater light and the signs which He gave us can clearly be seen. Israel becoming a nation again and the Jewish people being regathered to that nation being chief among those signs we are told to pay attention to. Read your Bibles people; and get ready. Christ will (probably in the very near future) reign from that land and the city of Jerusalem forever.

    The Biblical Evidence that
    Jesus is Returning to Earth to Reign

    Is it solely based on Revelation 20?

    by Dr. David R. Reagan

    Many people mistakenly believe that the only scriptural basis of a Millennial reign of Jesus is Revelation 20. But the concept of the Messiah returning to reign over all the earth in peace, righteousness, and justice is found throughout the Scriptures, both New Testament and Old.

    I. I believe Jesus is returning to reign on earth be­cause the Old Testament prophets say so.

    1) The Psalms

    a) Psalm 2:6-9 — David says the Messi­ah will reign over “the very ends of the earth” from Mount Zion in Jerusa­lem.

    b) Psalm 22:27-31 — David again affirms that the Messiah will be given dominion over “the ends of the earth” at the time when He “rules over the nations.”

    c) Psalm 47 — The sons of Korah rejoice over the day when the Lord will be “a great King over all the earth,” and they state that this will take place when the Lord subdues the “nations under our feet.”

    d) Psalm 67 — An unidentified psalmist speaks prophetically of the time when the nations of the world will “be glad and sing for joy.” This will be when the Lord comes to “judge the peoples with uprightness.” At that time the Lord will “guide the nations on the earth” so that “all the ends of the earth may fear Him.”

    e) Psalm 89:19-29 — The psalmist, Ethan, speaks of the Davidic Covenant and proclaims that it will be fulfilled when God makes His “first-born the highest of the kings of the earth.”

    f) Psalm 110 — David says a time will come when God will make the enemies of the Messiah a footstool under His feet. This will occur when the Messiah stretches forth His “strong scepter from Zion.” At that time He will “rule in the midst of His enemies,” for . . . “He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath, He will judge among the nations.”

    g) Psalm 132:13-18 — An unnamed psalmist speaks of God’s fulfillment of the Davidic Cov­enant. He says this will occur at a time when “the horn of David” springs forth to reign from Zion. He says “His crown will shine,” and He will make Zion His “resting place forever” for He will dwell there.

    2) Isaiah

    a) Isaiah 2:1-4 — Isaiah says that “in the last days” the Messiah will reign from Mount Zion in Jerusalem and the entire world will experience peace.

    b) Isaiah 9:6-7 — The Messiah will rule from the throne of David, giving the world a government of peace, justice, and righteousness. (Note: The throne of David is not in Heaven. It is located in Jerusalem — see Psalm 122. Jesus is not now on the throne of David. He sits at the right hand of His Father on His Father’s throne — see Revelation 3:21.)

    c) Isaiah 11:3b-9 — The Messiah will bring “right­eousness and fairness” to the earth when He returns to “slay the wicked.” At that time, the curse will be lifted and the plant and ani­mal kingdoms will be restored to their original per­fection.

    d) Isaiah 24:21-23 — When the Messiah returns, He will punish Satan and his demonic hordes in the heavens and then will punish “the kings of the earth, on earth.” He will then “reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem” for the purpose of manifesting His glory.

    3) Jeremiah

    a) Jeremiah 23:5 — “‘Behold, the days are com­ing,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land.’” (Note: The term, “Branch,” is a Messianic title.)

    b) Jeremiah 33:6-18 — A day will come when the Lord will regather the dispersed of both Judah and Israel and will save a great remnant. At that time the Lord “will cause a rigthteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth.”

    4) Ezekiel

    a) Ezekiel 20:33-44 — The Lord says a day will come when He will regather the Jews to their land and will “enter into judgment” with them. He says that at that time “I shall be king over you.” He then adds that “the whole house of Israel, all of them, will serve Me in the land.”

    b) Ezekiel 37:24-28 — The Lord says that He will dwell in the midst of Israel after a remnant of the Jews is regathered to the land and saved, and He promises that “David My servant shall be their prince forever.”

    c) Ezekiel 39:21-29 — The Lord says that follow­ing the battle of Armageddon (verses 17-20), “I will set My glory among the nations; and all the nations will see My judgment which I have executed, and My hand which I have laid on them.”

    d) Ezekiel 43:7 — While being given a tour of the future Millennial Temple, Ezekiel is told by the Lord: “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet; where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever.”

    5) Daniel

    Daniel 7:13-14,18,27 — Daniel says he was given a vision in which he saw the Messiah (“Son of Man”) given dominion over all the earth by God the Father (“the Ancient of Days”). And then he adds in verses 18 and 27 that the kingdom is shared “with the saints of the Highest One,” and they are allowed to exercise sovereignty with Him over “all the kingdoms under the whole heaven.”

    6) Hosea

    Hosea 3:4-5 — The Jews will be set aside “for many days,” but a time will come “in the last days” when they “will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king.”

    7) Joel

    Joel 3:14-17,21 — Joel says that following the battle of Armageddon (verses 14-16), the Lord will dwell “in Zion, My holy mountain.” He repeats this in verse 21. And in verse 17 He identifies Zion as the city of Jerusalem.

    8) Micah

    Micah 4:1-7 —Micah repeats in greater detail the prophecy contained in Isaiah 2. Like Isaiah, he says the Lord will make Jerusalem the capital of the world. The world will be flooded with peace and prosperity. All believing Jews will be regath­ered to Israel, and “the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion.”

    9) Zephaniah

    Zephaniah 3:14-20 — This entire book is devoted to a description of the day the Lord will return to the earth in vengeance. The prophet says that at the end of that day, when the Lord’s enemies have been destroyed, the Jewish remnant will shout in triumphant joy because “the King of Israel, the Lord,” will be in their midst.

    10) Haggai

    Haggai 2:20-23 — The Lord says that a day will come when He will “overthrow the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the power of the king­doms of the nations.” Then, using Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, as a type of the Messiah, the prophet adds: “‘On that day,’ declares the Lord of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealti­el, my servant,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the Lord of hosts.” The reference to the signet ring means the Father will grant His Son ruling authority.

    11) Zechariah

    a) Zechariah 2:10-13 — The Lord says that when He comes, He will “dwell in the midst” of the Jews, possessing Judah as “His portion in the holy land” and again choosing Jerusalem.

    b) Zechariah 6:12-13 — When the Messiah (“the Branch”) returns, He will build a temple and “rule on His throne,” and the offices of priest and king will be combined in Him. Thus, “He will be a priest on His throne.”

    c) Zechariah 8:2-3 — The Lord promises that when He returns to Zion, He will “dwell in the midst of Jerusalem,” and Jerusalem will be called “the city of Truth.”

    d) Zechariah 9:10 — The Messiah will bring peace to the nations and “His dominion will be from sea to sea.”

    e) Zechariah 14:1-9 — The Messiah will return to the Mount of Olives. The Mount will split in half when His foot touches it, and the Jewish rem­nant left alive in Jerusalem will flee the city and hide in the cleavage of the Mount. Verse 9 says that on that day, “the Lord will become king over all the earth.”

    II. I believe Jesus is returning to reign over the earth because the New Testament prophets say so.

    1) Peter

    Acts 3:21 — In his sermon on the portico of Solo­mon, Peter says Jesus must remain in Heaven “until the period of the restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.” The period of resto­ration spoken of here will occur during the Millen­nium when the curse is partially lifted and nature is restored (Romans 8:18-23).

    2) Paul

    a) 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 — Paul says that when Jesus returns “dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel,” He will also come for the purpose of being glorified before His saints. The return of Jesus to be glorified before His saints and all the nations of the world is one of the persistent themes of Old Testament proph­ecy (Isaiah 24:23, Isaiah 52:10,13, Isaiah 61:3, and Psalm 46:10).

    b) 2 Timothy 2:12 — Paul says “if we endure, we shall also reign with Him.”

    3) John

    a) Revelation 12:5 — John sees a vision in which a sun clothed woman (Israel) gives birth to a male child (Jesus) “who is to rule all the na­tions with a rod of iron.”

    b) Revelation 19:15-16 — In his description of Jesus returning to earth, John says He bears the title, “King of kings and Lord of lords,” and John says He will “rule the nations with a rod of iron.”

    c) Revelation 20:4,6 — John says that after the return of Jesus to the earth, He will reign with His saints (“those to whom judgment has been given”) for a thousand years.

    III. I believe Jesus is returning to earth to reign because the Heavenly Host say so.

    1) Gabriel

    Luke 1:26-38 — When the archangel Gabriel ap­peared to Mary, he told her that she would bear a son named Jesus who would be called “the Son of the Most High.” He then added three pro­mises that are yet to be fulfilled: “the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.”

    2) The Four Living Creatures and the 24 Elders

    Revelation 5:9-10 — When John is raptured to Heav­en and finds himself standing before the throne of God (Revelation 4), he hears “the four living creatures” (special angelic creatures called seraphim in Isaiah 6) and “the twenty-four elders” (probably representative of the redeemed) sing­ing a song of praise to Jesus. In this song they say that Jesus is a Worthy Lamb who has made His redeemed a kingdom, “and they will reign upon the earth.”

    3) The Angels of God

    Revelation 11:15 — Voices from Heaven make a proleptic proclamation in the midst of the Tribula­tion: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” (Note: A proleptic statement is one that speaks of a future event as if it has already occurred. This is a com­mon form of expres­sion in prophecy be­cause all future events are settled in the mind of God as if they had al­ready happened in history.)

    4) The Tribulation Martyrs

    Revelation 15:3-4 — At the end of the Tribula­tion, right before the final pouring out of God’s wrath in the form of the bowl judgments, all the Tribula­tion martyrs who are in Heaven join together in singing “the song of Moses . . . and the song of the Lamb.” In that song, they declare the Lamb (Jesus) to be the “King of the nations,” and they proclaim that “all the nations will come and wor­ship be­fore Thee.”

    IV. I be­lieve Jesus is returning to reign on the earth be­cause Jesus said so.

    1) Matthew 19:28 — Jesus said that during “the re­generation” (the same time as “the period of res­toration” referred to by Peter in Acts 3:21), He will “sit on His glorious throne,” and the Apostles will join Him in judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

    2) Matthew 25:31 — Jesus said that when He returns in glory, “the Son of Man . . . will sit on His glori­ous throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him” for judgment. The throne of Jesus is the throne of David which has always been locat­ed in only one place — in Jerusalem (see Isaiah 9:6-7 and Psalm 122).

    3) Acts 1:3-6 — Luke says that Jesus spent 40 days teaching His disciples about the kingdom of God. Then, as He was ready to ascend into Heaven, one of the disciples asked, “Lord is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” The question indicates that Jesus taught a time would come when the kingdom would be restored to Israel. Jesus’ response to the question indicated the same thing. He did not rebuke the question. Rather, He simply said it was not for them to know the times and seasons when the kingdom would be restored to Israel.

    4) Rev­ela­tion 2:26-27 — Jesus says that He has a special reward for any “over­comer” who keeps His deeds until the end: “To him I will give author­i­ty over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron.”

    5) Revelation 3:21 — Jesus makes it clear that the overcomers will reign jointly with Him: “He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” Again, the throne of Jesus is the throne of David (Luke 1:32 and Revela­tion 3:7). The throne of David is in Jerusa­lem, not in Heaven (Psalm 122). Jesus currently shares His Father’s throne. He is not sitting on His own throne and will not do so until He returns to this earth. Then He will allow the redeemed to share His throne with Him.

  • ^TDO^

    The following is a short history of this country and its political
    leaders since January 3, 2007.  That was the day that Democrats won
    control of both Houses of Congress.

    On that day, the Dow Jones average stood at 12,621.27, the GDP, for
    the previous quarter, was at 3.5%, unemployment hovered at 4.6% and
    through George Bush’s economic policies, the country had enjoyed 52
    straight weeks of positive job creation. 

    January 3, 2007 saw Barney Frank take control of the House Financial
    Services Committee and Chris Dodd picked up the reins as majority leader
    of the Senate Banking Committee.

  • UpLateAgain

    So.. JJ Pimpernell,

    I’m still waiting for the answer to my question.

    You posed a question to me as to whether or not I got my information from talking snakes.  That question was clearly just meant to insult or incite… or it was legitimately asked by a boorish simpleton.  So which was it?  ARE YOU A BOORISH SIMPLETON?

    I want you to know that I understand if you are. Just tell me and I’ll go easy on you in the future.

  • RayAncel

    Bush – last year spending. FY2009 (Oct 08-Sept 09)
    Obama – first year spending. FY2010 (Oct 09-Sept 10)

    All numbers in billions of dollars.
    Auto Bailout—13———36
    War suppl(1)-162
    War suppl(2)-106

    Martin Feldstein was quoted, “FY2010 will be Obama’s first year. That is his first budget. FY2009 was Bush’s budget.  Even a 5th grader can see that revenues will go down due to the recession, so deficit spending almost has to take place during these times.”

  • UpLateAgain

    Okay – we agree.  Bush was a jerk when it came to spending.  What has that to do with Obama?

    Bush is no longer president.  I apparently can’t say that often enough for you libs to catch on.  He really, really, really, really, is no longer president.  I’m not making that up.  It is absolutely true!  Ask anyone who is not a liberal… and they can verify that for you.  Liberals, for some reason I am unable to fathom, can’t seem to grasp that fact… but it really, really, really, really, is true!

  • RayAncel

    This Republican-controlled Congress overwhelmingly passed “H.R. 1309: Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011″ on July 12, 2011.

    It’s purpose: “To extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program, to achieve reforms to improve the financial integrity and stability of the program, and to increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risk, and for other purposes.”

    Why does the government subsidize millionaires buying insurance for their large homes on beachfront property?  Most of this money goes to two states; Florida and Texas.

    When I was a kid, most beachfront dwellings were cottages.  Now, thanks to taxpayer financed insurance, wealthy people build mansions.

  • Anonymous

    …(..”>-Cuckoo cuckoo

  • RayAncel

    The National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP) is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA).  

    The 2005 hurricane season resulted in claims which the program’s annual premium income could not cover.  To pay claims, the NFIP borrowed from the U.S. Treasury.  Prior to 2005, the NFIP’s borrowing authority had been limited by statute to $1.5 billion. Congress made up for the shortfall by increasing the program’s borrowing authority three times between September 2005 and January 2007 (from $1.5 billion to $20.8 billion).  The NFIP currently owes $17.775 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

    Thank you Republican-controlled Congress from January, 1995 through January, 2007.

  • UpLateAgain

    Yep.  This is a point brought up repeatedly by John Stossel as another example of why we have to shut down government spending.

    And just for the record… only the House is controlled by the Republicans…. NOT Congress.  I don’t expect you to have to have citations ready for everything you say, but I do expect you to state matters of common knowledge accurately.  The Senate is still Democratically controlled.

  • UpLateAgain

    That’s why we threw the bums out in 2006.  Unfortunately, they were replaced by Democrats who spent even more rapidly and vapidly.  So we have to throw them out next.  Can I count on your support?

  • RayAncel

    more from

    “Under both current law and this legislation, the NFIP may borrow an additional $3 billion from the Treasury.”

    “CBO also estimates that the changes made by H.R. 1309 would increase net income to the NFIP by $4.2 billion over the 2012-2021 period.”

    “H.R. 1309 would impose intergovernmental and private-sector MANDATES, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), on public and private mortgage lenders.”

    Why do I get the feeling that this Republican-controlled Congress will be adept at redistributing wealth from the bottom-up?

    Why wasn’t this program ABOLISHED?

  • Mike_M_Davis

    Paul, this is TRUE, and supports exactly what I was telling you. This author writes “Thus, carbon dating says nothing at all about millions of years.”

    Whoever said it did? That’s where K-40 comes into play, because it’s the only way to positively date inorganic compounds. C-14 can only measure the decay of organic specimens. See my previous comments, above.

    But the previous article you posted was deliberately false.

  • UpLateAgain

    Question:  Are there any liberals out there who understand that when you go to a battle of wits, you should bring some ammunition?

    I’m outta here.  Later guys

  • Stiles_77 the profound

    RayAncel, that is anformative post, but in order for your source to have relevance it must apear in an abbreviated 9 minute segment on youtube or they  just can’t get it. 

  • Mike_M_Davis

    I should say the summation is true. I’m scanning the rest now… Not so much, but I’ve wasted enough time on this.

  • Mike_M_Davis

    Lynn, these guys will just make the argument that you haven’t shown any “proof,” and that the PBS series is wrong, because it doesn’t support the Genesis record. They’re not interested in science, or even facts. They’re only interested in arguing in favor of what they choose to believe. In the end, they’re not serious about it, only refuting reality. Good luck with that.

    It’s pathetic how narrow-minded these people are.

  • R Lynn Long

    Given a choice of God playing Mud Paddies with mysterious friends and deciding to turn the mud into us OR we may be cousins with simians—- I think the latter is more logical—– imagine that!

  • ^TDO^

    We have, day after day, for the last two weeks.

    Where have you been?  Oh yeah, ignoring it and not rebutting ours.

    So quit with the bullshiite

  • ^TDO^

    The Church did NOT suppress Darwin.

    Where do you come up with this stuff?

  • ^TDO^


    You never answered.

    The first life.  That first one celled animal/bacteria, virus.

    Where did it come from?

  • Anonymous

    Geezer, like my new moniker?  Pretty sophisticated, eh?

    That’s cute; you have a new sycophant in Marxist Mike.  The more things change the more they stay the same…

    See, what I cannot figger out geezer is why you are flailing around with fatally flawed Darwinian Theory.  I would think with your background you would be pushing this discussion more in the direction of micro-evolutionary theory.  Maybe citing some of Paul Sniegowski’s work or even Frank Horodyski’s stuff?  Are you trying to speak to your sycophants like Mike at their primitive level?

    Geezer, I’m having a little trouble with Marxist Mike; he touts himself as an expert climatologist with proof that AGW is a fact (as Q.E.D.).  Last week he posted a link which emphatically stated the IPCC GCMs were 100% accurate.  I asked him his opinion (like 5 times) on the Svensmark
    effect with relation to Ion-induced nucleation on tropospheric molecular
    clusters { Astrophysical Journal 472, 891 (1996)} but he ignores me.  I’m starting to wonder about his scientific credentials.  Could you maybe help him get pointed in the right direction?  I’d think the CERN experiment would be a good starting place.

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    ‘Gay’ Activists Kill Cash Sources For Christian Charities


    A shopping network that contributes some of its profits to leading Christian family organizations is battling an Internet-organized campaign by homosexual-rights activists.

    The Charitable Give Back Group, formerly known as the Christian Values Network, says activist websites that enable users to create their own “cause” boast they have prompted hundreds of corporations to cut ties with the shopping network because it contributes to “anti-gay” non-profit organizations.

    The activists are mobilizing through websites such as and says it is “organized around more than a dozen leading cause-based communities, ranging from gay rights to women’s rights to animal welfare.”

    Earlier this month, a petition with 700 endorsers prompted Starbucks founder and CEO Howard Schultz to back out of a speaking engagement at a leadership conference hosted by well-known evangelical Christian pastor Bill Hybels, whose Willow Creek Church teaches marriage is reserved for one man and one woman.

    One petition at claims that it forced the popular Internet movie rental site Netflix to quit the Charitable Give Back Group with only 300 signatures.

    An online signer wrote:

    “Shame on you, Netflix, and any other company which supports CVN’s donations to hate groups. I choose not to support you unless you stop supporting CVN or CVN stops permitting donations to hate groups.”

    The referenced “hate groups” include Focus on the Family, the Catholic League and the Family Research Council, which are targeted because of their support for traditional marriage.

    Responding to the campaign, the Catholic League said in a statement that “radical proponents of gay marriage have taken the culture war to the marketplace.”

    “Rejecting diversity and tolerance, these activists have declared an economic war against any organization that embraces the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage,” the Catholic League said.

    The Catholic League rejected the assertion by the activists that some of the recipients of the funds are Christian “hate groups.”

    “This is a lie,” the group’s statement said.

    Customers who shop through the Charity Give Back Group can choose to give a portion of their purchase price to one of 170,000 established charities in the network.

    John Higgins, president of CGBG, told WND that the activists “initially caused 350 big name retailers to pull out of the network because of their lies and distortions.”

    Higgins received an email from Walgreens announcing the drug store chain had terminated its affiliation because “it has been determined that you may have ties with discriminatory organizations, which is a violation of Walgreens terms and conditions.” also has boasted of success.

    “Thanks to your voice, Expedia,, Avis, Westin and Apple have joined Microsoft, Macy’s, Delta, and more than 200 other corporations and cut ties with, a network that allows people to donate part of their online purchases to hate groups.”

    But the website urged much more to be done.

    “Unfortunately, hundreds of other corporations are still participating,” it said. “If you haven’t already, sign our letter to the companies still using CVN and we’ll follow up soon on our next target.”

    Rejecting the activists’ “lies,” Higgins argues that CGBG is politically “neutral.”

    “We ask our retail partners to also remain neutral,” he said.

    One self-described “gay-Christian blogger” from San Francisco touts his success in getting retailers to “dump” CGBG.

    On his blog he describes the response he received from an executive at an unnamed corporation he talked into leaving the charity network.

    “I mentioned it to my wife,” the executive told the blogger. “… For the first time I can tell her I did something for you people, and I’m happy to do it.”

    The blog targets CGBG because of the Family Research Council’s membership in the network.

    “This boycott campaign is based on anti-gay and anti-women organizations receiving financial support from good corporate citizens,” the blogger wrote. “It is based on a known hate group receiving financial support from good corporate citizens. This is about being a good neighbor, a good person, and being a good friend. This is about empathy, tolerance, and understanding.”

    Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told supporters last week that the online political activists “have engaged in a misinformation campaign that bullies retailers including Netflix, Walgreens, Petco, and Westin Hotels into discriminating against customers and charities based on their religious beliefs, specifically the traditional and biblical view of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

    Perkins pointed out that marriage between a man and a woman is the law in 44 states and has been upheld by voters in 31 of 31 states where it has appeared on the ballot.

    Higgins told WND that CGBG has countered the online activists’ distortions with the truth.

    “Once these retail partners heard the facts, many of them have realized that they had been had,” he said.

    So far, he said, 250 of the 350 retail partners have come back online, and he expects more will follow.

    “We just want the retailers to be consistent,” he said. “There are other charity sites like ours that weren’t targeted by the activists, and the same retailers that dumped us were still donating money to the same charities we had on our site.”

    Higgins said he “found that in many cases a junior executive made a knee-jerk reaction to dump CGBG, and once a senior manager heard the truth, the retailer has come back online with us.”

    The petition that caused Starbucks’ Schultz to back out of the Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit in South Barrington, Ill., Aug. 11 and 12 called Hybel’s church “anti-gay.”

    The petition said it was “unacceptable” for Schultz to speak at Willow Creek, which “has a long history anti-gay persecution.”

    Hybels rejected the characterization.

    “Willow is not only not anti-gay, but Willow is not anti-anybody,” he said.

    The pastor lamented “a growing trend to throw stones first and ask questions later.”

    Tom Minnery, executive director of Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink, noted the campaigns by the online “gay” activists.

    “They don’t want to just throw stones,” he said on the ministry’s CitzenLink Report webcast. “They want Christians and anyone who doesn’t embrace the concept of same sex marriage to go away.”

  • R Lynn Long

    Now—————– EXACTLY————- who got killed?

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    Does the article mention murder or death? I must have missed that.

    I thought you would have been pleased to know that homosexual activists like yourself have been quite successful in attacking Christians (just like you do here). May God help you Lynn, one day soon you better decide if you serve Christ or Satan. The consequences are eternal.

  • R Lynn Long

    As usual—–liar—– you changed your headline.

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    The headline is clear to anyone who can read and comprehend, if you still have trouble understanding the meaning, then perhaps you should read the article. The word kill here is used as an expression, as in killed the cash cow. Although cash and currency not being truly alive in the first place; it cannot literally be killed –it’s an expression, one which such a well educated and smart man as yourself should be aware of.

  • R Lynn Long

    Yeah,,,,,, C n P—– then lies….. congrats.

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    Again, I don’t know what’s so difficult for you to understand. The word kill, as used in the headline of the posted article; is an expression. When congress defeats a bill it is sometimes described as being killed (that they killed the bill). No literal meaning of murder or taking of a life is intended; this because a bill is not a living being. I would have thought that a person such as yourself, who’s constantly praising your own intellect and education would be aware of this often used expression. I guess you’re not as smart as you frequently claim.

  • R Lynn Long

    You posted “Gays kill” first—– now you “only” lie— and you continue to do so.

  • Kathryn P

    Have they created living cells? No, but they also can’t exactly replicate the exact conditions from the big bang and allow components to stew for millions of years. However, they have created nucleic acids and lipid bilayers that were not at one point from living components by mimicking conditions of the big bang. There’s only so much that can be done because the exact circumstances are impossible to replicate, but the data they’ve gathered is a fairly strong argument for the formation of the components of life.

    And I’m not trying to be rude, but from what I understand with most of the people who suggest Intelligent Design is that implies that things are perfect now. But evolution hasn’t stopped. We just don’t notice it because it takes usually hundreds, even thousands of years before a significant change is noticeable.

  • Mike_M_Davis

    Now you see? This is exactly my point. You demand evidence to support Darwin’s theory, and when someone offers it to you, you reject the source as unreliable. And what supposed “underlying controversies” about Australopithecus (Lucy) are you referring to? I’d sure like to hear them.
    1lonesomedove1 asked where all the fossilized intermediary humanoids are, and R Lynn Long offered an outstanding book that breaks them down into 22 distinct species. And instead of conceding his point, you avoided it totally.

    A satirist once pointed out the game creationists play to try to destabilize Darwinism. They’ll demand to see an intermediary fossil that bridges the gap between two species, and when one is found, they suddenly cry; “Aha! Now there are two gaps!”

    That’s EXACTLY what you’re doing. You’re not interested in the truth, you’re only interested in looking right. Here’s a bulletin: you’re not.

  • Mike_M_Davis

    Better read my post to Lawfriendly again:

    “Lawfriendly, you’re right that there’ve been theories for centuries about evolution (and the church did a fabulous job of suppressing them). But Darwin’s theory is based on the process of natural selection, which now is an established fact.”

    The church has for centuries suppressed the concept of evolution over creation, just as you and 1lonesomedove1 are doing right here, and many other important discoveries too. But I NEVER said they suppressed Darwin per se, as Darwin’s theory is based on natural selection, which only a fool would deny is happening today. I’m not surprised that you’d try to twist my words to fit your agenda however.

    Look how the church treated Galileo Galilei, or the Copernicus Law of a Heliocentric Solar System, which the church was reluctant to accept 60 years because it was “un-Biblical.” Had it not been for that suppression, who knows what other discoveries Galileo might have made.

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    “1lonesomedove1 asked where all the fossilized intermediary humanoids are…”

    This is an absolute lie. I never once asked for this, and you can go to my activity page and look for yourself.
    What I asked for were fossils that show a steady transition from one species to a completely different one, as with the dinosaur to the bird.
    If you can’t read and comprehend what’s written here, then how do you expect us to believe you can read and comprehend anything else?

    We know that humans change, but they change today due to breeding, not evolution. Still, this is not one species turning into another.

    Now, while the author of a book might very well break them down into 22 distinct species according to the authors explanation as “he” believes it, but it in no way shows the actual physical existing fossils by giving an internet link where we can actually see the photos, or learn what museum we can go to see them first hand.

    That’s because there aren’t any.

    All you do whenever you’re adequately countered, is leave for hours trying to think up a new approach which is as dumb if not dumber than your last one.

    Then when we make statements like…………

    “Ya see Mikie, Genesis says that we were made from the “dust of the ground”. If you analyze our chemical makeup, man does indeed consist of the chemical compounds found in the earth according to science.”

    “And this is harder for you to believe than coming from primordial ooze all the way to Beethoven “by accident”?”

    …… just ignore it because you have no answer, while we answer every comment you make.

  • Mike_M_Davis

    With these folks, the only possible answer to “We don’t know yet,” is “That’s proof of the hand of God.”

    They say ignorance is bliss… If so, then why do these people always seem so miserable?

  • 1LonesomeDove1


  • 1LonesomeDove1

     “…………just as you and 1lonesomedove1 are doing right here,….”

    I swear, all you do is lie. I’m not suppressing anything here. I’m posting my opinion the same as you are.

    Have you been removed from this forum for your opinion due to any suggestion from me to the moderators? Has anyone else? No.

    You’re still posting here, so tell me just how I’m suppressing anything.

    I know, you won’t answer, and we all know why.

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    BTW….Galileo was persecuted because he AGREED with the Bible.

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    Why do you continue on about this meaning of the word ‘Kill” here? It’s very petty and rather childish. I’ve adequately explained the meaning and usage of the word three times now. But since you still cannot seem to comprehend the usage of the word as used in the title of this article, nor do you gain any further understanding from reading the article; I will put it another way for you. The article could have read: Gay Activist’s stop, ruin, destroy, put an end to, interfere with Cash sources for Christian Charities.

    You have often demonstrated just how immature and childish you can be when you have no legitimate arguments or defense for those things you support and believe; but by continuing to play dumb here about the word “kill” — you have sunk to a new low; that’s an expression too!

  • 1LonesomeDove1

     Miserable? We don’t go to liberal sites looking to fight you guys. You come here, you miserable people you.


  • 1LonesomeDove1

     It’s my opinion that, given the necessary power, Mike would not only suppress our opinions….he would have us executed for our beliefs.

  • Mike_M_Davis

    You didn’t ask where the missing links were? You sure about that?

  • 1LonesomeDove1

     Missing links for what? If you say missing links from one humanoid to another, No.

    If you say from one species (dinosaur) to a completely different one (bird) , yes.

    You didn’t say that. You lied about what I asked for.

    Why did you do that?

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    I ask Mike where it is that I ever asked where all the fossilized intermediary humanoids are, like he just lied about?

    I also ask Mike where has he been suppressed here on anything, like he just lied about?

    I have also asked Mike where we have ever kissed up to Nazis here, as he has lied about.

    We ask Mike many questions.

    What are his answers?

    Crickets, crickets…….

    Yet he wants to be accepted as a contributor here?

  • Steven Chavez

    TO JERRY, you are THE weirdest poster I have ever come across.  You are one of my main reasons not to reply.  Re-posting my comment is pretty stupid!

    The Daily Lobo is the University of New Mexico newspaper, which means I am near universities contrary to your comment that I didn’t know anything about Journalism classes since I wasn’t near one which I have been near since 1973. I know pretty much about everything going on here at UNM especially by outside groups who are recruiting our young and naive students who I’m trying to warn.  The links you posted are from its online edition and they let anyone comment on there just like on here INCLUDING YOUR MULTIPLE NAMES AND PERSONALITIES!  I’m talking about the actual hardcopy newspaper and before the internets were invented by Al Gore.  

    I started being “active” in researching Communist Party and Soviet KGB fronts in 1986. Roxy McKenzie was during that time and I went to every editor after that and FINALLY on October 18, 2001 they printed my “Peace groups are corrupt.” BUT THEY NEVER WROTE AN ARTICLE WHICH WOULD HAVE EXPOSED THEM FURTHER! That’s what I wanted and they made every excuse not to write it but they wrote plenty of glowing articles on the protests but never did they print on who these groups were connected to, meaning the CPUSA. A letter is not the same! I was a regular on talk radio exposing the groups and the audience were fearful for my life and from “peace” people. I also gave several speeches at our law school with about three hundred people per speech. My topic: “Why is the Communist Party left out of public discussion and analysis?” My flyers at the university never lasted more than a couple of hours but my radio audience came to see my evidence in person, plus to see how handsome I am which they were surely in awe.

    NOW SOMETHING REALLY STRANGE HAPPENED.  The online site has an archives section and the newspapers are scanned in full.  I didn’t realize this till about five years ago when I went to the archive ONLINE section, to find the edition and photo of a Peace and Justice protest that had signs of “WE DESERVED IT” concerning 9-11, and looked up my letter AND IT DISAPPEARED OR NEVER APPEARED IN THE FIRST PLACE.  I then went to the Zimmerman Library and found the actual newspaper, UNDER GUARD by an old friend of mine, since these were their only actual archive copies. I then told the employee of the disappearance on the website and she called an administrator who came over to see the proof.  We then walked to the Lobo office and he asked to see how the process was done.  He then showed the photocopy and then the online edition which didn’t have it. As a result of that, the Dean of Journalism and the Editor, obviously a different editor from 2001, were called into the office.  I had to wait outside but they both came out and apologized but the LETTER IS STILL NOT THERE BUT, you can google it “Peace Groups are Corrupt” and it shows up since it was on their website. Check out the archives “October 18, 2001″ and see if you find the same “Corrupt” letter.  

    I had two other letters with one on “Abortion kills the Destiny’s” (not exact) which is something I wrote about here just last week and “Your vote is dishonorable if it is based on race or color,” which was printed before the 2008 election.  These are not on the Communist Party which were censored and not printed. The editors would tell me I couldn’t print the name of the head of the New Mexico Communist Party because it was “unverifiable” and/or “slanderous.” I gave them the Communist Party printout which had their names and if it was also slanderous to print the head of the Democrat or Republican Party.  What it was really about, was that they themselves were connected directly, or indirectly, through Fronts, to the Party and didn’t want to EXPOSE THEM TO THE STUDENTS WHO THEY SOUGHT TO RECRUIT!

    Did you read the links to the Daily Lobo you posted? They’re on the Communist Party which they allow SOMETIMES, including by others, who have their letters deleted. NO LETTERS ON HATE ISRAEL/JEWS ARE EVER DELETED! There are also testimonies by students whose professors indoctrinating in class and students who are given lower grades due to their political opinions, and even religious/Christian, in papers or class discussion.

    Have you ever heard of “INDOCTRINATION U” BY DAVID HOROWITZ? “101 Worst Professors?” David is a former Communist with ties to the most radical groups in the sixties, including the murderers, the Black Panthers but he is now reformed and revealing all about the Communist Party tactics. EVER HEARD OF MARK RUDD of the Weather Underground? He went to Cuba for terrorist training and was a domestic terrorist just like Bill Ayers, Obama’s non-friend and non-author of one of his two books. RUDD TAUGHT HERE IN ALBUQUERQUE at a Community college and hired by an activist President but retired just last year. He is now hired by UNM for a reason I do not know according to the Faculty Salary Handbook that is public record. The school is now full of Leftists and its newpaper would make the Communist Party’s “People’s World” proud. Two years ago, UNM hired David Hilliard, a former Black Panther, for $35,000 to teach two classes with both having about ten students. The class was on “Hip Hop and Rap” and how it dealt with society activism. REALLY! WHAT WAS HIS REAL PURPOSE TO BE THERE? TO RECRUIT WITH MARK RUDD! All this took place at the university you said I was not even near!

    SO BY US GOING BACK AND FORTH, it proves that it doesn’t do any good since IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO REASON WITH A BRAINWASHED PERSON! You just don’t know what you are talking about. Why are you so offended when I write something about COMMUNISTS?

    WANT MORE NAMES? How about Gerry Bradley, who was head of the NM Peace Council and NM Marxist Educators that invited George Meyers “overthrow” and he cheered the loudest! He had a core group of about ten members but each one was directed to start their own group so now there were ten groups with ten members each! GREAT KGB TACTIC which now you have TEN SPONSORS for a protest. But they recruited students who were really for peace but in the 80′s they were aiding the COMMUNIST SANDINISTAS and the COMMUNIST FMLN in El Salvador. GERRY, AND ANOTHER PROFESSOR FROM CUBA, NELSON VALDEZ, WERE ALSO AIDING THE CPUSA AND KGB, and Cuba’s DGI.

    Now to 2005. GERRY and Martin Heinrich, an Albuquerque City Council President, announced the MINIMUM WAGE ISSUE WHICH WAS A CPUSA NATIONAL DIRECTIVE! “Workers of the World Unite.” Gerry also brought it up in the Santa Fe city council which now has the highest minimum wage, or living wage in the country at $10.25 per hour. The main speaker and supporter of the wage issue in front of Heinrich’s council was EMIL SHAW, the head of the NEW MEXICO COMMUNIST PARTY! MARTIN HEINRICH, then ran for Congress in 2006 and won and again in 2008 and is now running for Senate! GERRY BRADLEY is now helping Eric Griego, who is the head of the Voices for Children that Gerry is employed by. Gerry, a MARXIST, before Voices, was appointed to the Labor Department by Governor Bill Richardson who in the 80′s was Congressman and was entering resolution into the Congressional Record by MARXIST CPUSA/KGB DUPE GERRY BRADLEY! WHY WAS BRADLEY SO “ACTIVE” in helping Martin Heinrich becoming Congressman and now Senator, and helping Eric Griego now? IS HE SEEKING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS THROUGH HIS CLOSE FRIENDS AND THEN PASSING THEM ON TO OUR ENEMIES???????

    So you see Jerry, YOU OPENED A CAN OF WORMS! DOES ANY OF THIS INFO CONCERN YOU OR ANYONE READING THIS? Even Ann is afraid to say or write “Communist Party” in any of her articles and books but yet she writes about “TREASON?” The CPUSA IS VERY POWERFUL but yet they hide under rocks like the cockroaches they are and then when someone writes about them, or their friends in the Democrat Party, they come out and attack EXACTLY WITH THE TACTICS OF JERRY! THAT’S WHY HE HATES WHEN I WRITE ABOUT HIS COMRADES AND WANTS TO DISCREDIT ME! HE’S JUST ANOTHER COCKROACH AND NOW THE LIGHT IS SHINING ON HIM WHICH HE HATES!

  • Anonymous

    Geezer, are you saying that Marxist Mike is one of those Primeval men made from a Primordial mud pie?  Not nice geezer, not nice at all.

  • Mike_M_Davis

    We’ve been through this, remember? Acanthostega (fish with legs and toes that could crawl onto the land), Archaeopteryx (part reptile, part bird), therapsids (early mammals, evolved from reptiles).

    You truly are one hopeless IDIOT.

  • Mike_M_Davis

    You’re living evidence of evolution yourself: half man, half cuckoo.

  • 1LonesomeDove1

     Those are nothing but claims, not evidence. And we’ve been through that with you also.

    Either way to choose to perceive it, I want actual physical fossil evidence for these steady transitions. Not drawings and stories written in a book. You don’t accept the Bible for the same reasons, so why would I accept the same from you when you have nothing better to offer?

  • 1LonesomeDove1

     In other words, when I ask you for that evidence, you offer nothing but more insults.

    You represent the evolutionist world to a “T”.


  • 1LonesomeDove1

    We need you here, Mikie. You’re great evidence and proof positive as to what we go through and expect from your kind. You first get countered, and then you get angry. Then you ultimately reduce your argument down to ad hominem insults.

    Way ta go, boy!


    (Nawwww, you guys don’t suppress anything…..sure ya don’t)

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    Time will tell. To be sure, Christians and Christianity are being persecuted throughout the world today. So far, we here in America have been spared the worst of it. As American Christians we still have our rights to free speech and freedom to worship; but that could quickly change as it has in the U.K and Canada to name but two. Christians in China, in the Middle East, Indonesia, Africa and other places are being tortured and murdered for their faith in Christ. These people have had their homes and churches burned down, have had to witness the torturing and murder of their children (including infants), they have been starved to death and denied international food supplies meant to help them ..etc.. The Bible clearly tells us that we shall be hated and persecuted for our Faith in Christ; that during the Tribulation period, all who do not worship the Beast (anti-Christ), or receive his mark/number;  will not be able to buy or sell or do anything –that they shall be put to death. This Satanic hatred towards Christ’s own has existed since His Resurrection and the beginning of the church age, it continues today and as we see; it’s getting worse and worse, very rapidly. Christ is coming soon. All the signs He gave us to watch for that would indicate His nearness; are all in some stage of fulfillment right now and will reach their maturity during the Tribulation. And even as things continue to deteriorate, as our world becomes more and more evil and the persecution of His children grows; we have this great hope of being with Him soon.

    Come Lord Jesus.

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    And the more people, like Mike, who come here and act the way they do, the more undecided people who will be persuaded and saved after they SEE how they act.

  • Anonymous

    Reply for Kathryn:

    Kathryn, wanna see something cool?  Ask Mike Davis a question he cannot answer with a pre-provided talking point, he DISAPPEARS!  You know how when the USS Voyager crosses the WARP barrier and goes into hyper space and POOF it just disappears in a big flash of light?  It’s kinda like that.

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    Again…..Mike has made comments…..asked questions…..has been answered.

    Again…..Mike has read comments…..has been asked questions…..and crickets, crickets

    Eventually he comes bach with, “Dirty F%&*$#@&))(%##@$*Sunsa&*$#@&))(%##&%*………(insert ad hominem of choice here)______________________________.”

    And, YEP!  I’m convinced. Evolution MUST be true.


  • Paul Earth A.D.

    “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:11-14).

  • R Lynn Long

    What a sneaking low life piece of shit you are….. why didn’t you just admit it was an accident—- INSTEAD OF PROVING you are a worthless lying scum who will not admit anything—- and who back stabs when you can.

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

    The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?” Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion’s stars are flying apart.

    How is it that this writer of Job knew that Orion is a bound star cluster, or that Pleiades is drifting apart?

    Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

    And they say the Bible is counter science?

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    What “accident” are you referring to?

    You have stated that I changed the title of the article and I have not, if you can read; it still states: ‘Gay’ Activists Kill Cash Sources For Christian Charities.”

    To this you wrote:

    R Lynn Long 2 hours ago in reply to Paul Earth A.D.
    Now—————– EXACTLY————- who got killed?

    As I stated, nowhere in the article does it declare that anyone (a human being or other living creature) got killed. As I have explained now four times; the word “kill” is used as an expression. The expression implies or states that Gay Activists have stopped, interfered with, and attempted to put an end to monies going to Christian Charities. This is a fact and the title of the article, as far as I’m concerned; is a fitting one. And to this, you now revert back to calling me a number of derogatory names.

    Grow up Lynn.

  • R Lynn Long

    The headline on your ORIGINAL post as 

    ‘Gay’ Activists Kill 
    Cash Sources For Christian Charities.”

    I responded…. ‘you CONSCIOUSLY changed it and began the lying.

  • Paul Earth A.D.

    Like the scripture I posted states; these people do not, and cannot; understand God or His word –this because they are spiritually discerned, and if a man has not the Spirit of God/Christ; they cannot know, believe or understand the things of God –no matter how much evidence is presented. Such people, whether they call themselves Christian or not; are spiritually blind to God’s revealed Truths.

  • R Lynn Long

    oh yeah,,,,, you being so honest and all….

  • A_friendly_reader com/blogs/abc-blogs/caught-tape-alligator-attacks-trainer-134014942–abc-news-topstories.html

    What’s your current disqus addy to send to?

    Jerry 8 12 12

  • John Anderson

    ad hominem argument = non logical.

  • John Anderson

    If cars are made of metal, then why is there still metal? If cake is made from flour, then why is there still flour? If houses are made from trees, then . . . oh, nevermind.

  • John Anderson

    Once again with the ad hominem, Mary? Have you any argument, or just insults?