Tag Archives: nuclear


Thought provoking post about recognizing and dealing with our anger.  This is a serious topic that challenges us all – at least if you hold to Jesus’ definition of unrighteous anger.  One of the questions posed:

Do you stretch and enlarge the category of anger so it includes you? I know a man who doesn’t think he is angry even though every hour or so he threatens to rip off someone’s head. His narrow definition of anger? An angry person actually rips off someone’s head. Since he only wants to rip off someone’s head, he isn’t angry.

Non-serious side note: It reminds me of Andy Bernard from The Office: “They’re sending me to management training.  Well, anger management training.”

Do taxpayers benefit from affirmative action in police and army hiring? Short answer: No.  This is just politically correct racism, which like many other PC actions can be unethical, expensive and deadly.

The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%. That’s the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.

“It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community,” said Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane. “It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation.”

Does political correctness provide good value for taxpayers? Shouldn’t taxpayers get the best candidate available? What about the people who will die in life and death situations, because the best candidate wasn’t chosen? Who suffers the most from the effects of political correctness?

Michael Moore is wrong again, on many levels.  As tempting as it is to think that if we just confiscate 100% of the wealth of the super-rich that we’ll fix our economy, there are actually some downsides.

The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. It does indeed sound like a “ton of cash” until one considers that the 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit.

That’s before we even get to dealing with the long-term debt of $14 trillion, which if you’re keeping score at home, is between 10 to 14 times the entire net worth of all of the country’s billionaires, combined. That includes the all-powerful Koch brothers ($40 billion between them), the all-powerful George Soros ($14.5 billion), all the Walton family (of the Wal-Mart fortune), Steve Jobs, Oprah (at a paltry $2.7 billion), the Google Founders, Michael Bloomberg, and the Mars family (of the candy bar empire).

A very important distinction on rights.  The word is thrown around far too lightly and usually ends up with someone’s true rights being trampled.

You see, it is the concept of rights that has been bastardized to the point that sycophantic statists now lay claim to other people’s property, their labor, and their money. Moreover, when collectivists don’t get their way, they boycott, they protest, they storm statehouses, and they threaten to kill those who would otherwise disagree.

To union thugs, village idiots, and other collectivists, there is mistaken belief that there is aright to: a job, a house, subsidized transportation, “free” abortions, ”free” health care, high-speed internet, collective bargaining for public unions, and [insert wanton desire here: ______].

There have been many who have debated the subject of Rights for centuries. However, this definition may be the clearest explanation of “rights” as it relates to action and inaction, or the difference between freedom and slavery:

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

There is a simple litmus test, based on the above, which is to ask a single question when being told that something is a right: At whose expense?

Obama Demands That Taxpayers Fund Sexual Pleasure Training for Girl Scouts – Planned Parenthood at work again.  It is sad to see that the Girl Scouts let them in.

Not surprisingly, false teaching ghouls couldn’t wait until the bodies in Japan were cold before using the tragedy to oppose nuclear energy: A Nuclear Nightmare: Why Japan Should Serve As A Lesson That Nuclear Power Is Not Viable.  Oh, the false teacher there says nukes are fine once the safety of the plants can be “fully guaranteed,” but those are weasel words meaning “never.”  Of course we want safe nuclear energy, but the protests and lawsuits have made this power more costly.  The global warming / climate change lobby is a farce, but even if it was true the Greens should embrace nuclear energy as a viable option.  What they really are is anti-people.  They know they’ll always have plenty of energy and in their hypocrisy they use it in abundance, but they deny it to developing countries and make it more expensive for the average person.  Oh, and they cost people jobs left and right.

Dead theory walking “highlights the many ways in which an intelligent design perspective is continuing to have increasingly more explanatory power in the investigation of “natural” systems, while underscoring the epic failure of the evolutionary paradigm to do likewise.”  Go read the whole top 10.

  • No.4: Anything to do with the bacterial flagellum gets my attention and this particular discovery is my favourite on the 2010 list. Despite all the literature we have on this nano-motor inferring its unnatural origin, Nature reported in August on the ability of the motor to undergo rapid changes to its shape while the flagellum is spinning at high speed, causing a rapid change in direction. Try doing that with a man-made motor. “A supplemental movie available free online from Nature shows this process in motion. … The task of explaining how these complex, synchronized biomechanical structures evolved by chance processes just got exceedingly more difficult.” By the way, did I mention this is an actual motor?
  • No.2: A second genetic code is discovered. Explaining one code via completely unguided means is problematic, but two? “The article seems to miss the obvious implication that more codes and algorithms imply more design.”
  • No.1: With respect to Richard Dawkins I’m sure, “new research reveals optimal design of the eye” that “open[s] up potentially fruitful areas for biomimetic research.” One might ask, if it’s so badly designed, as Dawkins would have us believe,[3] why are we trying to copy it?

Some important thoughts about the risks of being an outspoken pro-lifer (and by pro-lifer, I mean anti-abortion):

We are always told of reasons why we can’t speak up against abortion. If we speak in Church, we’re told it’s too political; if we speak in the political arena, we’re told it’s too religious. If we speak in the media we’re told it’s too disturbing; in the educational realm, it’s too disruptive. On the public streets, it’s too distressing for children; in the business world it’s too controversial, in the family it’s too divisive, and in social settings it’s just impolite. So if abortion is wrong, where do we go to say so?

The answer is we have to stop looking for a risk-free place to fight abortion, and speak up in all those arenas! There is a calculus in the heavens that says, “Greater love than this nobody has, than to lay down his life for his friends.” If we want to protect the unborn, let’s be willing to give our lives for them. Let’s stop counting the cost for ourselves if we speak up and start counting the cost for them if we are silent. The pro-life movement does not need a lot of people; it needs people who are willing to take a lot of risk.

Planned Parenthood Exposed.  Still waiting for the Left to decry the threats and bullying of people like this . . .

HT: All American Girl

Nice sendup of global warming. Hat tip: Vern Rigg Kaine


If I were an Olympic ice skating judge there would be automatic 10 point deductions for pink tassels and 25 point deductions for clown costumes.  Or perhaps disqualifications.  Seriously, people.  That’s just wrong.

A Reformed Evanjellybean Reconsiders Lent — by Marie

That insane pilot sounds kind of like a tea partier, huh? — Only if you ignore his closing comments and the other Bush-bashing, as the Washington Post did:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Doesn’t sound tea-partier-ish to me.

19 points that undermine the claims of global warming alarmists — only 19?

Iran is a nuclear power, just as predicated by President Bush in 2007.  Olbermann et al mocked him and supported Iran’s leader.  I’m sure they’ll be apologizing any time now . . .


“Holy Anorexia” and Sanctified Starvation — Yikes!  This is a difficult but important topic, as it shows what can happen when people ignore or don’t have access to the word of God and start making things up based on personal experiences. 

Catherine of Siena was bulimic. So was Theresa of Avila.
. . .

They were not reading God’s Word, which was forbidden at the time, but instead were relying heavily on their subjective, ecstatic experience. Furthermore, the notion that they, as sinners, could participate by physical suffering in Christ’s redemption of humanity belies an almost incredible hubris on their part.

If the election of Barack Obama was to improve our standing with the world, why were homegrown terror plots on the rise in 2009?

Our approach to terrorism is fatally flawed by its priority of political correctness.  We should do as the Israelis do and screen for terrorists, not weapons.  And we can’t be naive about the terrorists’ “If at first you don’t succeed…” approach:

You ever hear what the IRA once told the British? “We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky all the time.” That’s how terrorists think: stop them nineteen times and they’ll keep coming back for a twentieth bite at the apple.  That doesn’t mean that they can’t be deterred or suppressed; but you can’t do either by waiting for them to commit a crime and then arrest them all.  You do either by finding them and killing everybody who doesn’t surrender, and by detaining the ones who do so that you can interrogate them and get more intelligence about their compatriots still remaining alive and at liberty.

Here’s a surprise: President Obama’s appeasement to Russia didn’t work