Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Right Wing Is Still Filled With Haters.
So Robert W. Fortner wrote this article.
"Did Andrew Breitbart Lay A Trap For Sherrod's Fraud... Unbelievable!"
I found it on Brian Donavan's facebook page.
Here is a link to Brian Donavan's facebook note.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=429114467808&id=769569671&ref=mf
Robert W. Fortner like so many is not interested in truth or facts. However this little diatribe of his wasn't originally his idea. Alas we must look at his article.
Andrew Breitbart is a media genius.
Wow! Well this is already on the downhill slope. Andrew Breitbart however may actually be a media genius. He plays fox news and the conservative blogs like a fiddle. They eat out of the palm of his hand and bite what he tells them hook line and sinker.
He proved it originally with his brilliant handling of the ACORN ‘hooker’ scandal which he skillfully manipulated so that the corrupt media was forced, against its will, to broadcast corruption in one of Obama’s most powerful political support groups. But Breitbart’s handing of that affair is nothing compared to his brilliant manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod ‘white farmer’ scandal.
The acorn scandal that showed how Gilles and O' Keefe had done selective editing in order to trash the organization. The same organization that was exonerated in court after the scandal. O' Keefe same person who was later convicted of trying to tamper with Senator Landrieu's phone lines. Basically O' Keefe successfully trashed an innocent organization into bankruptcy and you are still hanging on to the misinformation that this was a good thing. Don't let the truth get in the way. Breitbart released an edited tape that was meant to make Sherrod look bad when the whole tape showed the truth. Breitbart took a shot to his credibility and will probably take another if and when Shirley sues him.
It all began last Monday, July 22, 2010. As the country watched in horror, Breitbart released a snippet of a tape on his “Big Government” site which showed an obscure black female official of the Dept. of Agriculture laughing to a roomful of NAACP members about how she’d discriminated against a destitute white farmer and refused to give him the financial aid he desperately needed. As she smirked to the room, she’d sent him instead to a white lawyer - ‘one of his own kind’ - for help. The black woman was Shirley Sherrod - and almost immediately she became the center of a firestorm of controversy which exploded throughout the country. Within a day of the release of that infamous tape, the head of the Dept. of Agriculture, spurred on by Obama, demanded " and received " Sherrod’s resignation. Breitbart had won.
So Breitbart participated in the release of video that was edited to make Sherrod look bad instead of telling the truth. This is shameful on the part of Breitbart and you for accepting it in any way. Obama has already admitted that they were wrong in how they handled the Sherrod incident. To bad you can't admit the same thing. Breibart won? Because he cause Sherrod to be fired? So when Sherrod was offered her job back what do you call that?
But then seemingly Breitbart’s actions began to explode in his face. As Sherrod screamed in protest, FOX News released the entire text of her speech last March to the NAACP. And there on tape Sherrod was shown supposedly repenting of her racism against a white farmer and instead championing his fight to win funds to keep his farm afloat. Within hours of that entire tape being revealed, the entire world turned against Andrew Breitbart. Conservatives throughout the country were enraged that he’d endangered their reputations by releasing a ‘doctored’ tape. Breitbart, they thundered, had dealt a fatal blow to the conservative media. I confess that I also was horrified at what I saw as the clumsiness and stupidity of Breitbart in ‘doctoring’ a tape to make a supposedly innocent woman look guilty. But now I discover I have been as guilty of haste to judgment of Breitbart as the Dept. of Agriculture was of Ms. Sherrod.
Then why are you writing this article?
Only now am I realizing the real purpose for Breitbart’s release of that tape snippet. It was to allow him to cunningly trick the media into exposing one of the most shocking examples of corruption in the federal government - a little known legal case called “Pigford v. Glickman”.
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/?singlepage=true
“In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.” The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.
Oh yes, the conspiracy bit begins. Here is the thing this lawsuit and the statement following it are correct. Now we need to see how we can turn things into half truths and link them together to make something salacious.
But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs - 400 black farmers - had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America.
Okay not quite all the information but not an inaccurate statement. Let's start to fill in the gaps.
After the lawsuit was filed, Pigford requested blanket mediation to cover what was thought to be about 2,000 farmers who may have been discriminated against, but the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the mediation, saying that each case had to be investigated separately. As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all black farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.
Source: http://file.wikileaks.org/file/crs/RS20430.pdf
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman
What they then ended up with was over 23,000 claims most the claims were track A style which meant the farmers accepted a settlement payment of $50,000 of which only 15,638 were approved in the track A program. The track B which was for amounts over the $50,000 had fewer then 200 farmers. Beyond that there were 70,000 applications that were either filed late or not allowed to proceed.
So the total amount paid out on just track A was $1,006,404,262. So setting aside 1.25 billion was not a bad idea.
There are also still Track B claimants of which the largest so far was $13 million dollars.
There was only one teensy problem. The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers. According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Oops.
Now this part is basically correct. However just because you have a claim doesn't mean you get paid. However in an effort to be smart the money has been set aside for those that do have a legitimate claim. So the people who do rightly have a claim get their due compensation.
Well, gosh - how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, you’ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action - Shirley Sherrod. Oops again.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/110/024/Is_There_More_to_Sherrods_Dismissal.html
Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States - a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting. Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of “Pigford v. Glickman” in 1999 only applied to a total of 16,000 black farmers. But in 2008, a junior Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Obama.
Now let me state something clearly at this point. Your a bigot. You are also an idiot. Claims of race fraud as you wrote show your inability to think and your pensive terms show your bias. Facts however are far more truthful. The reason Shirley Sherrod was part of the case was because the farm group she and her husband worked with got screwed by the USDA. New Communities farms was one of the largest African American owned farms in the United States. So yes they went for a track B process in the case and won. They won because they had the evidence. Evidence that they were discriminated against back as far as 1981. Long before Obama was much of anything in politics.
From an arbitration hearing:
"Chief arbitrator Michael Lewis's opinion said that the example of the USDA's demand for New Communities' timber proceeds "smack[ed] of nothing more than a feudal baron demanding additional crops from his serfs.""
Do you get it now? They were wronged and they did what they had to in order to receive justice. They sued. Calling it a fraud shows how reprehensible you are. You should be ashamed.
Also giving Obama sole credit for the passing of H.R. 899; S. 515 does an injustice to what was also worked on by Grassley and Kennedy. You know Grassley the republican Senator from Iowa. A bill that was passed with bi partisan support.
Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim.
Hardly, this bill was passed as part of the 2008 farm bill. And it was signed by President Bush.
Your calling it a race claim shows your reprehensible character. It was a case of discrimination and it was a blatant case by the USDA. Which is fine I guess as long as you are white.
As for Ms. Sherrod? Well, she’s discovered too late that her cry of ‘racism’ to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself - and her corruption. Sherrod has vanished from public view. Her ‘pigs’, it seems, have come home to roost. Oink!
And she was chosen by the USDA in 1999 to head up Office of Rural Development in Georgia. Maybe because the USDA needs to work on improving it's image and treating all people fairly.
Also a note to Brian Danovan. I feel you are as reprehensible as Mr. Fortner for posting this. You claim to be a christian. Must be nice to cover your cesspool of a soul with the pages of the bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2006058,00.html?xid=rss-fullnation-yahoo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Communities
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/crs/RS20430.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman
http://www.aolnews.com/article/usda-to-pay-black-farmers-1-25-billion-in-discrimination-case/19369678
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/June2007/062107boyd.pdf
http://washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_HR_899.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.899:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Grassley
http://www.can-you-hear-us-now.com/2010/08/andrew-breitbart-is-media-genius.html
Posted by understudy @ 01:32 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Monday, August 9, 2010
Mindless dribble from tea baggers.
So I caught this article from a facebook friend. This is the crap the tea baggers buy into.
The original article is here.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26137
Nothing like a little sensationalism to get one through the day. Let's look at this bunch of pablum.
"Americans have drawn a line in the sand to say the all out partisan political corruption across this nation stops here and now! Politicos got comfortable in believing their money and global contacts could propel them into powerful positions here whereby they could leap from there into fame, fortune, and notoriety “by any means necessary” whether citizens liked it or not."
Well maybe I misjudged. I would love the stop of partisan political corruption. Corporate execs getting tax shelters and high government positions, yes I would like that to stop also. However something tells me this is the bait to set the trap of luring me in under false pretenses. Let's wait for it.
"That philosophy also ushered in Barack Hussein Obama who is neither a novice nor a political innocent. He is nobody’s pawn. He is the leader of decades-long negative propaganda and deception via the Saul Alinsky methodology and his outrageous agenda, though well known, remains ongoing."
You mean the idea of stopping political corruption was what got Obama elected. Damn and here I thought it was other issues like the war, the economy, and a change from the previous 8 years of lies and deceit. Yes, hope and change it such a negative premise under which to run a campaign. You mentioned Saul Alinsky methodology and outrageous agenda. You mean like community organizing and grassroot efforts? Gosh I thought we wanted the citizens involved. You don't mean the same Saul Alinsky who wrote “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals,” because the tea party took it's methods directly from that book.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7D78B2CE-18FE-70B2-A889E10B1C707BA6
"America will never regain her national standing in the world until and unless Americans stop being politically correct and start becoming straightforward about the dangers this nation is confronted with. "
Oh the fear mongering begins.
"There is a traitor in the White House Oval Office and he is surrounded by co-conspirators who are also actors in his destructive scenario. Let me be clear (as Barack Obama loves to say). There is a definite difference between the character and motives of any elected leader coming into such an honorable position with stated intent and actions towards destroying our national way of life and those who step forth to disclose it and resist it."
Ah, so Obama and his evil henchmen are out to destroy the American way of life. Yeah because in the almost 2 years in office so much has changed.
"The citizenry who have enough common sense to realize the dangers we face because of their actions dare to take on these traitors to stop them before they can complete their task. They are patriot heroes of today. Mark them well, because their day will come when American people will look back and properly thank them for their faith, honor, valor, trust, courage, and patriotism. One such deserving non politico hero is LTC Terry Lakin who is standing up to defend the constitutional oath he took upon enlisting in the military. Support him. Let him know he is not alone. Thank him for his stand. Pray his peace in the Lord God. Thank God for him. His victory is already assured!"
"[Disclaimer: My comments about LTC Lakin and the “Safeguard Our Constitution” site are not endorsed or advocated by them. But, I would be remiss if I allowed such a governmental atrocity to pass by unnoticed and without comment and recognition that “There but for the grace of God go (any of us).”]"
Oh yes, we will be saved by the crackpot brigade. Terry Larkin is going to throw away a great military career because of tabloid bovine fecal matter. The birther movement in all it's glory. His victory is not assured. His sad defeat is almost certainly assured. Let me know how all that praying goes after the trial.
"Americans can distinguish between people who desire to help us from those who are determined to hurt and even kill us. This present Obama administration continues to dig into the core of America’s fabric to pull loose every thread and leave her totally naked and vulnerable before this nation and the world. As well, Obama has further startled onlookers by labeling our friends as enemies and our enemies he has embraced as friends. No surprise there!"
Some interesting symbology there. Care to back it up with say, facts.
"Obama and many DEMS hijacked the political process by registering as Democrats when, in fact, they make up a combination of socialists, progressives, communists, Marxists, anarchists, and UN-American detractors. In particular, Obama registered, campaigned with, and was nominated by the Democratic Party. What’s more, although there are factions of the “Democratic Progressive Party” (DPP) scattered all throughout America, they are not legally recognized as a valid political party in America to enter campaigns which would gain them enough votes to be seated. Therefore, they deliberately schemed to hijack the Democratic Party. And led by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and others who believed the Democrats were too timid to put forth their agenda, in 1991, they formed the progressive caucus within the halls of the United States Congress and used that status as a means to lend false credibility to their cause and illegitimate platform."
Ah yes, the stereotyping so you can know your enemy even if you don't want to know a thing. These are the Rev. Dowell's terms for the people who make up the Democratic party. Nice to know someone missed the reality boat. The DPP is a political party in China. Please get a grip. It has no association with the Democratic party. Their platforms don't match. This is a baiting effort to induce fear and to hell with the truth. It's an effort to maintain the fear of the great evil commie who is out to get you. Grow up. You have zero facts for backing up the accusation of collusion between Rep, Sander and Rep. Waters with the DPP. We will state this, for Reverand you sure do lie a lot.
"The election laws mandate that Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates who campaign for federal office have to first be nominated by their political party, which route was used by Obama and others. And, since there is no legitimate “ Democratic Progressive Party” in America which can legally nominate anybody, how does Obama along with the others get away with foisting an illegal progressive platform on the American people and codify it by the legislative process? Obama is illegitimate in more ways than one, but this is more than likely one other way that will lead to his ouster in accordance with the United States Constitution and the rule of law. In fact, the DPP is actually a communist China entity and all other “progressive parties,” are beholden to that nation. Therefore, Obama-DEMS are determined to push America not only towards Middle Eastern Sharia Law and Islam, but also to sell us out to China and Communists."
This is such a lie that you have to really be an idiot to believe it.There are no facts in this statement.
"By the time exasperated citizens finally come across the truth and recirculate old news that has been tossed out like a bone to a dog, Barack and his “reform” have systematically and deliberately hacked into every area of our lives and have gone inside to sit on our chests to weigh us down. Meanwhile, Obama has already begun to circumvent our combined Congress by recruiting and moving people underground to undercut the Constitution, with his support. As I said from the outset, Obama had no intention of obeying the oath of office he took when he ran for office. Long before he was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, he had already recruited his loyal followers to carry out the most devious plan ever and he continues to draw more of them and their money in to help him!"
More rampant speculation. Deplorable at best.
"Barack Obama is no friend of America. He is illegally and unconstitutionally organizing and leading a lobbying force of monumental proportions from out of the White House in order to help him create his “citizen government,” to eventually bypass the legally constitutional legislative process. Moreover, they have been on a practice run. They have developed their own online voting booths that feed directly into the Wells of both the United States House and the United States Senate. And it is no secret he is very near to taking over all social networking sites on the internet to be able to censor and control all areas of communication and, thereby, chill free speech."
A government by the people, of the people, for the people. Yes, the president wants the citizens involved in their government. What an outlandish idea. If you want free speech on the internet you better learn what net neutrality is. Why it is important that the corporations don't control the lines of communication. That would require research and thinking. The author has not shown a capability for either.
"Obama’s Organizing for America (OFA) the offshoot of his “Obama For America” (OFA) has latched onto many national and international “partnerships.” They have aided in providing online access to all of the pending bills. And their purpose is to bring about “Direct Democracy.” The GOVIT site is better than the United States government website and more accessible. With permission from the Obama Administration, they have generated the software and sites that allow anybody anywhere to sign up and to vote at the same time as our elected representatives and senators in Washington, D.C. And, they know it is happening, too!"
The OFA is the same group always has been. The site allows people to view legislation and express their opinions on it. What an awful idea. Of course there would not be any right wing sites that do that would there? This false sensationalism is just showing how the facts would be awfully inconvenient.
"The GOVIT supporters believe that our elected leaders don’t know what the American people want; therefore, their purpose is to, in the near term, completely bypass Congress and create their own laws which will affect the entire nation. Anybody will be able to vote online even though Congress has not enacted any laws for them to do so, and the American people are unaware such activities (and more) are going on even as Obama feigns ignorance. Congress needs to step up and investigate that website, shut it down, and ensure the Executive Branch never institutes anything else like it"ever again! That Obama-generated ploy is misleading, subversive, unconstitutional and, regardless of the fact that Obama is their leader, those activities are illegal and dangerous to the general health and welfare of this nation."
You mean bypass like the Religious right tried to do with Prop 8 in California. How is the millions that was spent on that doing. The Govit site is supposed to help make government more transparent to it's citizens. You can view laws there and express a point of view on them. Doesn't matter what affiliations you have.
"Contrary to popular belief, the Smith Act of the 1940s is alive and well in the land. In fact, as of February 2010, it has been updated. Anybody who reads it will see how closely it mirrors the Obama Administration ideology, and that Obama is courting impeachment, a trial, heavy fines, and/or imprisonment for many years, as a criminal traitor."
How does the author manage to sleep at night when spewing such crap. The Smith act was of the 1940s and used against the "commie threat." It barely withstood muster many were acquitted and in 1957 most of the convictions were declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. The updated version you mention is the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2010 and that is still in committee.
http://mountainrunner.us/2010/07/5792_thornberrysmith.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-5729
"Now, I hope the reader understands that Barack Obama is blatantly and arrogantly setting up this nation for a fall and to deliver it into the hands of our enemies near and far by enacting laws which are unconstitutional, by enacting laws through the Executive Order process, by hauling in his self-appointed, unvetted and ungodly people and shoving them between those who were lawfully approved by Congress to serve and himself. And, by Obama vigorously building up his own coalition grassroots, parliamentarian government within our Republic, he has more than provided enough evidence to support his impeachment and criminal trial and punishment in accordance with the United States Constitution and the rule of law."
The tale of the collapse of government. This is grade school mellow drama. I would like to know what evidence for impeachment there is.
"Obama has done all he knows how to subvert the American political election process by his personal perpetual campaigning and his wholly partisan form of governance. His overall illegally undue influence can only result in a failed process and a failed nation. He must be stopped and Congress must step forward and act now to let him be the example to deter anybody anywhere who is harboring the self-same ideologies to take up where he will have left off. Unless steps are taken to stop Obama’s subversive actions, we are only pushing the problem down the road. And Obama is already up there with his criminal forces waiting to push back. Can anybody say, “Iran,” “Cuba,” “Venezuela,” and more?"
So basically with no real evidence and just a lot of fear you want congress to start investigating, find something he did wrong or better yet make it up and then impeach him. How about Congress gets with job of passing a budget, reducing the deficit, and dealing with the economy. I see zero correlation between what is going on with the Obama administration and the countries you mentioned.
"But for the corruption running rampantly throughout our legal system and government, Obama and all of his cohorts who apparently want American citizens to believe they are all exempt from having to obey the law would, themselves, have likely become the American example of a modern-day Nuremberg. And, the only reason they have remained in office for so long is because too many of our elected legislators are instigators and perpetrators. Moreover, they are timid and our judiciary is corrupt. But the loyalty of free citizens of the United States of America belongs to the United States Constitution and not to the man who takes - and forsakes - the oath “to protect, preserve, and defend” it. Opting instead, to set himself up as the dictator-arbiter of every area of our lives."
Still zero evidence.
"In the final analysis as pertains to American societal values, morals, mores, standards, norms, I believe citizens need to be more discriminating - not less. Americans continue to reject any of Obama’s attempts to “reform” America and to redefine new societal and cultural norms for us, our children, and grandchildren and expect us to like it. Too much damage has already taken place because of his narcissist self-loathing and self-loving (at the same time) and hatred of America. Untimely deaths and overall destruction all across this nation has been the unwelcome result. Americans are not deceived by any of them. Show it now and when you get out to pull that lever to cast your all-important vote on November 2, 2010! "
This has to be one of the worst pieces of dribble I have ever read. It is a mindless unconnected rant without a scant of factual backing. It is a hate filled piece of blather that has zero merit. If this is the kind of writing that the tea baggers like. I doubt they pose much of a concern as it reflects on a low standard of intellect. While the founding fathers were whiners when it came to dealing with the king. At least they went forth with a certain amount of rhetoric and reason.
Posted by understudy @ 08:19 AM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Friday, July 30, 2010
American Screed
A website called American Thinker put up this ridiculous article by Bill Warner on July 30,2010.
Calling this article tripe would not be enough to declare the utter fecal matter that drools forth from this article.
It does not encourage discussion or thinking. As a matter of fact it asks that your shut your brain off and let the information seep in through an orifice meant as an exit only.
Barack Obama and Slavery
So let's take this mental black hole and much like the leak in the gulf we will try to plug it.
Slavery still stalks the American consciousness, its wounds yet festering in many hearts. If Barack Obama were to set his mind to it, he could heal much of the damage this peculiar institution wrought on our national soul. This great and tragic error that must be given justice. Obama is the best person in the world who can recognize, remember and honor the deaths of 125 million and the enslavement of tens of millions of people.
The reason slavery still stalks this nation is because it has still bigots and racists in it. Who cannot accept those who are different as equals. Barack Obama is president there is a black man in the white house. His job is to deal with the economy, environment, and yes even civil rights. However saying that Barack Obama could heal much of the damage is wrong. He could not. He is president not a magician. Asking him to acknowledge the deaths does not change the past or current attitudes of those who refuse to change.
His unique qualifications can be found in his names. Until he was 20 years old, he went by the first name Barry. Then he decided to be called Barack Hussein Obama, his original birth name.
Ok this is metaphysical clap trap here. I went by my initials until I was 16 because my first name Brendhan can be hard for kids to pronounce. Plenty of people have gone by nicknames. Many of us drop them as we get older, because we are not kids anymore. His unique qualifications can't be found in his name. I am Irish and carry an Irish name I am named after a famous writer who was more known for his drunken bouts then his writing. Does this make me qualified to go and change the way people drink in Ireland? Of course not.
Many people seem to the names "Barack" and "Obama" are African names. They are not.
Baraq [Barack] was the name of the winged horse-like creature that took Mohammed to Paradise in the Night Journey. Baraq can also mean God's blessing. Obama is Swahili for Osama, who was one of Mohammed's chief warriors. Osama also means lion. Hussein reminds some Americans of Saddam Hussein, and Obama's supporters get upset if it is used. Hussein was the name of Mohammed's grandson. So Obama's entire name is based upon Islamic mythology and African conquest. Barack Hussein Obama means [Allah's blessing] [Mohammed's grandson] [One of Mohammed's finest warriors].
Actually Obama is an African name. It is from the Luo people and it means "to be bent" or "to be twisted." It comes from the Luo tribe. It also has an Arab history and a Japanese history. All you have to do is look up Obama surname and you find this. So this part of the article he wrote was wrong. Let's look at some more.
Barack actually is a benediction. It means bless or blessed. The winged horse the author talks about is called Al-Burāq which means lightning. The only places you will find that link Barack to the winged horse are in republican media sites. Once again some simple research would be the way to get actual answers here.
However the article doesn't want you to focus on facts it wants you to focus on the idea that Barack has a muslim background. That he represents a supposed Islamic threat to your freedoms. The article states that his name represents the Islamic conquest of Africa. Well it doesn't. Sorry but this is just another failure in this article.
Obama's name reveals a part of history that is unknown or hidden about America, Africa and slavery. It also reveals a history of the destruction of native African civilization. His name came from his father, a so-called Arab African. The word Arab is the clue to the hidden history.
No it does not. The translations on his name the author got wrong and saying his name represents hidden history of African and slavery after saying it represents the Islamic conquest of Africa is wrong also. Here is another interesting bit of history for you. Most of Africa was not part of the Islamic faith and most of it still is not part of the Islamic faith.
A century ago, 76 percent of Africans practiced traditional or animist religions, with only a small minority of Muslims and Christians. Source
The less then blatant attempt to consider the fear mongering that Barack is a Muslim and represents a threat to Christian values is so deplorable here that it speaks more to the poor character of the author and those who chose to believe this excrement. However I am sure the author will continue to do more.
Kafirs (non-Muslims) rarely refer to Islam, but call it by an ethnic name whenever they can. When Islam conquered the Middle East, the conquerors were not called Muslims, but Arabs. In Eastern Europe the Muslim invaders were called Turks. In Spain conquering Muslims were referred to as Moors. Thus it is that the Islamic culture in Africa, Arab African, is referred to with an ethnic name, Arab Africans, like Obama's father, are Muslims who leave behind their African culture and adopt the Arab culture.
What are you talking about. The sentence about Kafirs? Why is it even there. It makes no sense and contributes nothing to the paragraph it is a part of. Since you put it there and worded it so poorly let's look at this linguistic nightmare of words. Kafir basically is a term for non Muslim or non believer. Someone who rejects God. Of course that being the God Allah. You may have heard of another definition for this term. The word infidel.
Here is an interesting little fact for you. Not all Arabs are Muslim. I know this ruins the chance to continue the fear mongering stereotype. I mean those pesky facts getting in the way.
And yes the Turks did invade part of Eastern Europe and many other parts. They has a place in history known as the Ottoman Empire. There was also the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the British Empire and plenty of others. And yes the Moors invaded Spain. " Kafirs (non-Muslims) rarely refer to Islam, but call it by an ethnic name whenever they can. When Islam conquered the Middle East, the conquerors were not called Muslims, but Arabs. In Eastern Europe the Muslim invaders were called Turks. In Spain conquering Muslims were referred to as Moors. "Thus it is that the Islamic culture in Africa, Arab African, is referred to with an ethnic name, Arab Africans, like Obama's father, are Muslims who leave behind their African culture and adopt the Arab culture." So since we have A and B it must equal C. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. No they did not necessarily adapt Arab culture. I know plenty of Christians who are not Vatican culture. Someone's faith is not always a part of their overall culture. Christians can be Vegan, Jews who do not keep kosher will eat pork. The author continues to show utter misinformation.
The Arab African Muslim has always been associated with slavery because Islam is the driving force in the history of world slavery.
Let me make this statement here for the tea baggers who want to absorb this trash. Lies. This statement is false and misleading and the author if he even has two brain cells to rub together knows it. The slave trade with the new world usually involved dealings with tribal non muslim groups. It had nothing to do with the Asian slave trade or the battles between China, Japan and other nations in the Asian hemisphere. The statement the author makes is baseless without merit and completely false.
Islam's connection with slavery starts with Mohammed. The exact details of how slaves are taken are described in detail in the Sira, Mohammed's biography. The Sira is a sacred text since it relates Mohammed's words and deeds, called the Sunna. Everything he did is the perfect pattern of behavior for all Muslims.
Again a completely false statement. Slavery had existed in tribal cultures long before Mohammed. So Islam's connection with slavery started long before the prophet Mohammed come to power. Mohammed was a businessman and a rather astute one. He got is own religion going and slaves are great on an economic level. He dictated the guidelines so of course he is considered the perfect Muslim. Jesus Christ is considered the perfect Christian. Siddhartha Gautama is the perfect Buddhist.
Mohammed was involved in every single aspect and detail of slavery. He bought and sold slaves both retail and wholesale. He gave them as gifts, used them for sex, received them as gifts, stood by as slaves were beaten, attacked. He enslaved tribes, and owned black slaves. Indeed, his rise to political success was financed, in part, by the profit of his slave trade.
Thomas Jefferson did almost the same thing. He didn't enslave entire tribes but he had many slaves. The economic benefit made him wealthy and in some form contributed to his success.
So the sacred pattern of Mohammed and Islam is the enslavement of non-Muslims, kafirs. For 1400 years Islam has enslaved all races and cultures including Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians, animists, and atheists. Only Muslims are free of being enslaved.
So this is where the fear mongering continues. The Islamic threat is that you can all become slaves. The Muslims had slaves and will have them again if they come to power. he only way to stop them is to have a Muslim stop them and that Muslim is Barack Obama. Good grief. Take a look at our history and you will see that we did a lot of same things.
Obama could tell us that there is only one way to understand Africa and slavery and that is to understand political Islam. For 1400 years Islam has steadily been at work in Africa. The easiest place for Americans to see Islam's annihilation of kafir civilization is in North Africa and Egypt. Egypt used to be a Christian and Coptic (the descendants of the Pharaohs) country. North Africa was a Greek and Christian culture, and at one time a part of the Roman Empire.
Now for part 2 of the article where we are told what Obama could do. Except that the statement starts off by being misleading. Remember up until a century ago. Most Africans were tribal religious and what are most of them now? Christian. So the Christian culture took a hit. Things like the Inquisition will do that.
The Coptics are Egyptian Christians, not the descendants of Pharaohs. You can be Muslim and be Coptic. You know what is causing the decline in Christian Coptics these days? Lower birthrates. That's it. You want to take over have more kids. So you can indoctrinate them.
The first Islamic assault on African culture was the jihad that annihilated Coptic Egyptian culture and Greek culture in Northern Africa. Today these areas are Arabic and Islamic.
The conversion tool place over hundreds of years and as Christians may want to recall the wars known as the Crusades. The Christians lost. You don't get to be the religion or culture of choice when you get your ass kicked. You know why they Muslims won? They used their heads they firmly believed in education particular to math and science. While they were expanded on Algebra, the Europeans were still in the dark ages.
That was just the thin end of the jihad wedge. Over the next 1400 years, Islam took approximately 25 million slaves out of Africa. An Arabic word for African is abd, the same word that is used for black slave. Arabic has about 40 words for slaves. White slaves are mamluk. Islam took more than a million European slaves into slavery. The highest priced slave in the Meccan slave market was a white woman.
They want your white women. This statement is so pathetic that the author should just give up writing now. The way the Ottoman Empire got white slaves was they won the battles. The same way other Muslim tribes and armies got them. They won battles. Of the slaves that were taken by Muslim conquests most of them stayed in the middle east of Eastern Europe. They were not traded to the new world.
There is great deal of collateral damage when a slave is taken. A warring party attacks a tribe and when enough of the protectors are killed, the rest will surrender and become slaves. All of those who were strong enough to work were taken away in a forced march for days. But there are many who are left behind -- the young, the old, and the sick and injured.
Did we all not learn that War is Hell? Maybe we should use this as a reason to avoid war.
Estimates vary, but from 5 to 10 people left behind died as the result of taking one slave. So for 25 million slaves, we have the deaths of 125 million Africans over a 1400-year period.
This is the part where the author pulls numbers out of his ass in the hopes of maintaining the fear levels. Also this 1400 year period he keeps mentioning is bovine fecal matter.
When the story of slavery is told in America, as in the movie Roots, the sailors get off the boats and capture the Africans and make them slaves. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Actually it is right right right.
When the white slaver showed up in his wooden ship, he made a business deal with a Muslim wholesaler. Jihad was the machinery that Mohammed used, and his model worked well in Africa as slavers filled the slave pens for the same reason that Mohammed did it: profit. Whites only traded slaves with Islam for about 200 years. Islam was in the slave trade before and after selling to the West.
Nope, they would either be taken by force or they would barter a deal with tribes that had conquered other tribes. The Muslims had nothing to do with it.
If you would like to learn about the Arab African slave traders that came from the same area of Africa that Obama's father came from, read Tippu Tip and the East African Slave Trade (Leda Farrant, Northumberland Press, 1975). Tippu Tip looked African, but he was 100% Arab and Muslim. By the way, Arab is not a racial term, but a cultural/language term.
Yes, try actually reading the book and how the Author worked on helping setup plantations and businesses in African and made a fortune on the slave business by keeping tribal slaves in Africa for the European settlers in Africa. Not by sending them to the new world. Note: he did help with some of slave business that took place in Brazil.
But the slave trade had another effect. Africa slowly became Islamic. Jihad worked in many ways to bring about conversion. Sometimes trade introduced Islam and a hybrid Islam/native African religion evolved. Then jihad was used to purify and remove the African culture to result in a purer Islam. But in the end, half of Africa fell to Islam.
Trade can have an effect on culture. However the statement that half of Africa fell to Islam is false. Maybe we should all become isolationists and not trade with anyone including China. This guy is a just a moron.
The oddest thing is that many people have the idea that an Arab African is the same as African. When the Arab culture replaces the native African culture the culture is not African. African culture is no more Arab than Hindu culture is Arab. Sharia law is just as foreign to native African culture as it is to ours.
Yes, because people like you just write paragraphs of misinformation. Then when people are confused you don't understand why. Let me give you a clue. You are the one creating the confusion.
The magnitude of this problem is seen in Darfur, where Arab Africans are destroying Africans who are not yet Arab enough. This is a centuries-long jihad to annihilate the native African culture. This process is no different than the process by which Coptic Egypt became Arab Egypt. Islam is not a religion but a complete civilization whose stated goal is to replace all other civilizations. There has never been a historical example of a country that kept its native culture after Islam entered. So Africa is an ordinary historical example.
"The actual conflict is not only about race or religion, but about resources as the nomadic tribes facing drought are going after the territory of sedentary farmers." Source. Islam is a religion. Cultures change when new management takes over. I am sure the Indian tribes in the US would agree with that.
The ignorance about the history behind Obama's names is the root of why he can achieve such an impact. Obama represents the chance to help heal the curse of slavery in America by revealing its complete history. He is a descendant of a white woman who had slave owners in her ancestry. His African father descended from those who enslaved the Africans. Obama is descended from slave owners and slave traders, but he does not have a single drop of slave blood in him.
So now once again Obama's name is the cure for all the world slavery issues and it's history. Are you kidding me? Now watch for this shocking statement. Barack is black. I know you are just letting that whirl in your head. Let's gop further he black and does not have a whole bunch of slave ancestors. Yes, it's true you can be born black and not have a slave or a sharecropper in your background. I would love to know the sources for saying that Barack anscestors were slave traders and slave owners. Guess what this Irish white boy doesn't have any slave owners in his background either. That doesn't make me better or worse then anyone. It iwas just they way my history happened.
Since race trumps all, everyone sees him as being representative of America's slave descendants. It becomes true simply because in a race/culture-obsessed society, some want it to be true. Obama's slave ancestry is a fiction and not reality.
Race does not trump all. That is a bigoted statement. And no not everyone saw him as descended from slaves. Some of us can actually read. it still doesn't change the fact that he is wait for it......black.
So Obama is half enslaver, by ancestry, and half slave, by choice. He is the most uniquely positioned to tell the truth, the complete truth about Islam, Africa, America and slavery.
He is no more positioned for you points then I am for a discussion on the history of Ireland.
Now here is the last little twist to Obama's name. He called himself Barry, an Irish name, for many years in America. He changed what he wanted to be called after he went to Pakistan for a three-week stay. He left America as Barry and returned as Barack.
This is the part where the author want s you to believe he is a secret Muslim with an agenda against whitey. I see you have a firm grasp on reality there.
Some whites may have bought slaves from Islam for 200 years, but after that, their culture was first to outlaw slavery. So Obama changed his name from a culture that abolished slavery to a name from a culture that has enslaved others for 1400 years and has a highly detailed doctrine of slavery.
You know I remember when people freaked out when Metallica got hair cuts everyone freaked out. They were just hair cuts. You could say that their music went downhill after that but it wasn't the fault of the haircuts. He dropped his nickname. Deal with it. It did make him someone with a slave agenda.
This is the world that Obama spans: from slavery abolition to the eternal enslaver. He represents hope to many American descendants of slaves, but his ancestors were never enslaved. No one else could tell the story that Obama knows. He could tell the story of how 125 million Africans died. He could tell the story of how 25 million Africans became slaves. There is an enormous irony that descendants of the slaves that his ancestors created now look to him for justice. And he could give them real justice by telling the complete truth of their enslavement. Only he has the power to make others listen.
The right wingers love to make the statement that Barack is the messiah to the left wingers. Yet this is the statement from a right wing moron that says Barack has all sorts of power the left would never believe.
Obama has shown himself to be a world citizen with his speech in Berlin, and his speaking the truth of the complete story of slavery would be historic, and could reverse centuries of ignorance and lies. He can stand up and tell the world the true complete story of slavery. It would change history far beyond the election cycle.
Ohh, nice bit of pandering. Why don't you actually try the truth. It fits so much better then the false misleading statements and lies. Barack has done more to help race relations then you who peddle fear mongering could ever hope to accomplish. I have to admit I know a lot about the history of slavery but then again I paid attention in school. Nothing you pointed out would bring about the change you believe it would.
Posted by understudy @ 12:41 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The not so controversial census.
Well I got my census report.
What did the census paper ask?
What race I was?
Well I am Caucasian. I realize that some bean counter up in DC may not know that but my race has never been an issue.
How many people live in my house?
2. If you call my house and get my answering machine you can tell that also.
How is person 2 related to person 1?
Well she is my wife according to the public records that has a copy of my marriage certificate.
What is the race of person 2?
I did not see a box for exotic beauty so I checked off white.
We don't have any kids so there was no person number 3.
And all my other wives live elsewhere.;)
What they didn't ask.
My income.
Which can be found out by looking at my property tax records or many other ways. Broke is still broke.
Any disabilities.
Which could be found out if I had a handicap parking permit or many other ways.
What was my source of income.
Which can be found on my Linkedin Page, facebook, myspace, or by asking me.
How much my house cost.
Which is available at the tax appraiser's office. Which can be found online.
How many cars I own.
2 which you can find out from the DMV or by driving by my house.
How much I pay for insurance.
About the same as most 42 year old men who are married and have a wife who is 31. Who own a 5 year old corolla and a 21 year old F-150 with no accidents and no tickets.
If I receive food stamps.
I don't and that can be found out with checking the Dept of Ag.
How much I pay for utilities.
Which FP&L and AT&T have on file. I hope I pay less than others but I doubt it.
If some census worker wants to come by and take GPS coordinates I just hope they will match to the ones that are used by Google Maps. I also hope they match the one's the Dept of Ag uses when I registered my bee hives.
So after all is said and done. Jerry Day and Michele Bachmann don't just look and sound like loons. They are insane.
Posted by understudy @ 05:15 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Kyle tries to refence his own crap as a reliable source.
Careful folks Kyle is at it again. He thinks because he wrote a book he can reference it as a source.
The original story. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240325
Evolutionary scientists claim humans and dinosaurs could not possibly have co-existed.
That's right Kyle they make that claim because it's true.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dinosaur-bone-age.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7102-worlds-oldest-biped-skeleton-unearthed.html
The oldest biped skeleton is around 4 million years old. The dinosaur era ended 65 million years ago. Now this is the tough part for Kyle we will do some math.
65 million - 4 million = 61 million year difference. That is a big difference.
They insist that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans arrived on the scene. Yet the available historical and physical evidence proves that dinosaurs and humans lived together only a few thousand years ago (see Lyons and Butt, 2008).
Ahhh look he is citing the book he wrote as a reference. Sorry Kyle you fail. Your book is crap.
One proof of this fact is the abundance of "dragon legends." These legends, from all over the world, describe creatures that match many of the dinosaurs and flying reptiles in the fossil record (pp. 13-45).
Wait, so I am suppose to believe that humans and dinosaurs exist at the same time because people believed in dragons? This is the difference with science it is not a matter of belief it is a matter of facts and evidence. You have no evidence and no facts.
The evolutionary attempts to explain away the similarities between dinosaurs and the creatures historically labeled as "dragons" fail completely. For example, in the Zhucheng, China area, over 50 metric tons of fossils have been collected, with thousands more fossils still in the ground (Cha, 2010).
And not one of them was a dragon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503035.html
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90782/90873/6899106.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/02/thousands-of-dinosaur-footprints-reported-found-in-china/1
Dinosaur fossils are so plentiful that paleontologist Xu Xing said they "can even be found in some farmers' private courtyard areas next to their houses" (2010). Local residents have been "digging up 'flying dragon' bones for use in medicinal concoctions for generations" (2010, emp. added). Residents have long associated the dinosaur fossils with the ancient creatures known as "flying dragons."
Please note he says he is finding Dinosaur fossils. That the term flying dragon is a quote for what some of the local residents may refer to them as. There has been not one shred of evidence to support the idea that any of these were dragons in any way shape or form.
It is no mere coincidence that descriptions of dinosaurs and flying reptiles match the ancient descriptions of dragons. As Daniel Cohen stated: "No creature that ever lived looked more like dragons than dinosaurs. Like the dragons, dinosaurs were huge reptiles.... It sounds as though the dragon legend could have begun with dinosaurs" (1975, pp. 104,106).
Daniel Cohen also wrote about the possibilities of Bigfoot, the Kracken, and other legends. He states that it "sounds as though" but he offers no proof.
The Bible clearly states that God created all creatures, both flying reptiles and dinosaurs, as well as humans, on days five and six of Creation. The repeated references to dinosaur fossils being connected to dragon legends adds historic evidence to the convincing case that dinosaurs and humans co-existed in the past and were not separated by millions of years.
The bible does not use the word dinosaur. Considering the term Dinosaur wasn't coined until 1842. Also looking through Genesis not once on the day four or five of the biblical creation time line does it say Dinosaurs or Dragons. So now you are misquoting and misinterpreting the bible.
Posted by understudy @ 05:33 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Monday, March 1, 2010
Biology Today 1975 Second Edition
I am now the proud owner of a used copy of Biology Today (Second Edition) 1975
Creationist quote miners lose.
Kyle Butts and other creationist have been using this book to try and disprove evolution. After I had email exchange with the author David Kirk I decided to try and find an actual copy. I found a used copy that cost about $2.00 plus a few dollars for S&H. It arrived in the mail today. I read through it to see the actual quote. It is amazing when you read what is discussed in the chapter how wrong the the creationist actually are. The lies are deplorable.
Attention creationist. I now have an actual copy of this book. The author is aware of your misdeeds. You lose.
Also while this book is 35 years old and may not hold the latest and greatest in scientific information it is a fascinating book. There is still so much of this book that can impart such wonderful information. I am glad to have a copy.
Posted by understudy @ 10:36 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Friday, February 26, 2010
Kyle Butts Says New Scientific Discovery Proves Creationism. Hey Kyle do you even have a clue?
Kyle Butts once again tries to show how scientific discovery means that creationism is right and well science is just inconvenient when it comes to God.
The original article from Kyle Butts. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240319
For 80 years-two generations-the majority of biology textbooks have propagated the lie that life spontaneously arose in a "primordial soup" near the surface of the ocean.
Oh here we go again. Abiogensis talks about the creation of life and it was anything but spontaneous.
Creationists who have not been duped by the evolutionary hype have pointed out for just as long that not only is the spontaneous generation of life biologically impossible, but the "chemical soup" theory is demonstrably false.
Wrong again. Why do you persist in promoting falsehoods? The scientist who have also attempted the Miller-Urey experiment have shown there was a flaw with the original experiment that instead of producing 5 amino acids it produced 22 amino acids. Creationists are not being duped they are being stubborn. They refuse to accept the facts. The truth doesn't matter no matter how much evidence there is.
Finally, after almost a century, the scientific community has admitted that the chemical soup theory cannot be correct. Nick Lane, from University College London, stated: "Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all" (as quoted in "New Research...," 2010, emp. added).
Hey Kyle, this does not contradict Abiogenesis. It merely offers an addition to the Miller-Urey experiment. Nick is also a firm believer in evolution and a premiere biologist. In talking about his book Life Ascending. He states this:
It was a world on which life emerged, 3,800 million years ago....
Whoops I guess that fits right into a creationist view on the age of the earth. Also the hydrothermal vents were a great break throiugh for science because they show how life can exist without light or UV radiation. There are several experiments that have been done in regards to what conditions life could have been created under. What is great about those experiments is they show complex organisims arise under a large variety of conditions.
In 1929, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that UV radiation "provided the energy to convert methane, ammonia and water into the first organic compounds in the oceans of the early earth. However, critics of the soup theory point out that there is no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can't exist" (2010). So, with a simple wave of the hand, 80 years of evolutionary indoctrination is dismissed without so much as tinge of guilt about misleading two generations of children and adults. What is even more remarkable, and heartbreaking, is that the "primordial soup" idea is being replaced with another scenario that is equally flawed and biologically impossible. According to the "latest research," life arose in deep-ocean hydrothermal vents. Yet the "hydrothermal vent" theory has just as many defects and errors inherent in it as the "primordial soup" idea.
Abiogenesis is a work in progress. There is more information to be discovered. In 1929 the idea of life without light was a foreign concept. This is not done with a simple wave of the hand. Also so it is clear Abipgenesis is not evolution. You cannot seem to get that concept through your head.
If history is any indication of what will happen, we can expect to see the "primordial soup" idea remain in textbooks for several more years. Slowly but surely, over the next several decades, it will be replaced with the "hydrothermal vent" theory (or some other that might pop up). After years of indoctrination, the vent theory will be replaced by another, equally implausible scenario that allegedly explains how life spontaneously generated from non-living chemicals millions of years ago. This perpetual cycle of theory replacing theory will continue ad nauseam. The only thing that can stop this vicious, destructive cycle is for the scientific community to admit that spontaneous generation is biologically impossible-a fact that has been verified by every relevant biological experiment for the past 160 years (Lyons, 2009).
Sorry but using Eric Lyons as a source is a boatload of fail. Eric is not a biologist. The term of indoctrination is a interesting one. Considering that is exactly what the members of religion do to their followers. Science doesn't indoctrinate. Science educates. The idea that things can change and be updated in science textbooks is a good thing. As our knowledge in matters increases we need to improve the educational materials to our students. The bible hasn't taken much of an update lately has it?
Yet, if they admit this truth, they are faced with the reality that George Wald so concisely stated more than 50 years ago, when he said that the only alternative to spontaneous generation is "to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position" (Wald, 1954, 191[2]:46). How many times must the evolutionary community admit to indoctrinating millions of children for decades with false ideas before we demand that they be held accountable?
The biggie quote out of context. Read what George Wald actually said and the intent behind it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57
The best part is science is accountable. It does hold to the rigor of the scientific method. It does make scientist retract that which does not hold up.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" is a statement that has been preserved for 3,500 years. To this date not a single scientific discovery has invalidated the statement. How high must the stack of outdated, error-laden, evolutionary-based science textbooks reach before society returns to truths found in the only book that "shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31)?
You are delusional if you believe that. The scientific evidence has shown that the Universe and the Earth and their creation and existence do not fit with the story of Genesis. Also the creation of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. You keep trying to throw garbage into your articles. The planet earth is not here because of Evolution.
I had several people point out to me that Kyle does this for a living. He is paid by other churches to come out and lecture on the bible and creationism. The problem is if he stopped being deceitful he would be out of a job. Kyle will resort to nothing more than circular reasoning or try to go off topic. This is the worst kind of deceit and indoctrination. He claims that science is guilty of this but science has evidence. Kyle should have a mirror.
References:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5900/404
http://www.nick-lane.net/About Life Ascending.htm
http://www.nick-lane.net/Life Ascending Chapter 1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Posted by understudy @ 10:23 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
