Visit (All Calculators are functional.) Over 100 FREE online calculators to use.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Stephen Hawking's former wife Jane knew her husband and his mathematical creations

Stephen Hawking (In a nutshell) As told by his former wife of 30 yrs

Jane Hawking was for a quarter century the wife of Stephen Hawking. Her first book, Music to Move the Stars, McMillan, New York, was printed in 2004 but is no longer in print, reveals much about the atheist Stephen Hawking.

Atheistic faith masquerading as science

As usual with atheistic scientists, Hawking’s atheism long predated his science. His influential mother Isabel was a Communist, and in his teen years he admired the strongly anti-Christian mathematical philosopher Bertrand Russell.

As with Dawkins, his arguments for atheism are juvenile, e.g.

We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburb of one of a hundred billion galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence.

Jane (née Wilde) met Hawking in 1962, their marriage soon produced three children. Yet although Stephen lived far longer than anyone expected, his body deteriorated markedly. Jane said in 1986, “Without my faith in God, I wouldn’t have been able to live in this situation.” Unfortunately, Stephen’s antitheism became more dogmatic and vicious, which caused major conflicts. Yet she stuck with him, following 1 Corinthians 7.12–17. But eventually Stephen ended the marriage after 25 years. Jane later wrote an insightful autobiography, revealing the conflicts between her Christian faith and Stephen’s dogmatic atheism.

Stephen Hawking: the closed mind of a dogmatic atheist

Jane Hawking was, for a quarter century, the wife of Stephen Hawking, one of the most famous living "scientists" of today.

The book contains much background about Jane’s courtship with Stephen, their marriage, and the problems in their marriage due to the domestic friction that one would expect when a family member is seriously handicapped.

The book provides much insight on the age-old conflicts between science and religion, a subject that Jane discusses in depth. Jane also provides much insight into the minds of the world’s leading scientists, especially cosmologists.

Jane married Stephen Hawking knowing that he had an incurable disease, but, believing that his life would be short, they hoped to jam as much love and fulfilment into what they thought would be only a few years together (Stephen outlived all expectations, and they were together for over 25 years). They married fairly young, and soon had three children. For years, Jane was an astounding care giver, dealing with Stephen’s progressive physical decline and heavier demands. She managed the household, reared the children, and hauled him around for years before a serious respiratory incident forced them to hire full-time professional nurses. She also recounts her battles with the British health care system, and with Cambridge University for access.

Jane’s belief in God as creator of the universe vs Stephen’s atheistic faith

One factor that was central to their relationship—and eventual divorce—was religious conflicts. Jane notes that ‘Stephen had no hesitation in declaring himself an atheist despite the strongly Methodist background’ of his family (p. 46). She concluded that his reasoning was, ‘as a cosmologist examining the laws which governed the universe, he could not allow his calculations to be muddled by a confessed belief in the existence in a Creator God’ (p. 46). With candid insights into her private spiritual experiences, Jane draws her own conclusions regarding God’s role in the universe.

Jane also discusses in detail the anthropic principle, which she calls ‘an important cosmological principle of the twentieth century’ (p. 153). She observed that the strong version has a ‘close philosophical affinity to the medieval cosmos’ where humans were at the center of creation (p. 153). She then concluded that the anthropic principle places humans in a ‘special place at the centre of the universe’, just as did the Egyption system, and that, ‘for the medieval populace, this special position was a strong statement of the unique relationship between human beings and their Creator’ (p. 153).

She adds that, as a direct result of the focus of modern cosmologists on mathematics, the concept of a personal God became irrelevant for these scientists because, in their mind, their calculations diminished ‘any possible scope for a Creator’, and

‘they could not envisage any other place or role for God in the physical universe. Concepts which could not be quantified in mathematical terms as a theoretical reflection of physical realities, whether or not the actual existence of those physical realities was proven, were meaningless’ (p. 155).

(In other words Stephen Hawkings and other atheists cannot explain God in mathematical terms. Their "god" is mathematics. It demands concepts in mathematical terms via man's creation of himself through the millions of years concept of goo to you.

Their Mathematical equations are "cooked" via the millions of years factored into their meaningless concepts of creation based on math alone. Their empty theories try to explain man's existance but can't because all of man's wisdom is foolishness with God.)

Her major concern is that she perceives—and discusses extensively why, based on discussions with her husband and the leading physicists of the world—that the result of the goals of science would eventually result in the situation where

‘Human reactions in all their complexities, emotional and psychological, would one day ... be reduced to scientific formulae because, in effect, these reactions were no more than the microscopic chemical interactions of molecules’ (p. 156).

The result was that ‘in the face of such dogmatically rational arguments, there was no point in raising questions of spirituality and religious faith, of the soul and of a God who was prepared to suffer for the sake of humanity—questions which ran completely counter to the selfish reality of genetic theory’, evidently referring to the work of Richard Dawkins and others (p. 156).

Jane notes,

‘at the end of the twentieth century, religion finds its revelationary truths threatened by scientific theory and discovery, and retreats into a defensive corner, while scientists go into the attack insisting that rational argument is the only valid criterion for an understanding of the workings of the universe’ (p. 200).

She concludes that the complexity of the cosmologist’s calculations and the admiration their discoveries have caused some people

‘to fall into the trap of believing that science has become a substitute for religion and that, as its great high priests, they can claim to have all the answers to all the questions. However, because of their reluctance to admit spiritual and philosophical values, some of them do not appear to be aware of the nature of some of the questions’ (p. 200).

Although scientists offer explanations, they ‘acknowledge that they are still very far from reaching’ the goal of answering ‘why’, noting that many scientists

‘arrogantly even aspire to become gods themselves by denying the rest of us our freedom of choice and disputing our right to ask the question “Why?” in relation to the origins of the universe and the origins of life. They claim that the question is as … inappropriate, as it would be to ask why Mt. Everest is there. They dismiss the suggestion that the question ‘Why’ is the prerogative of theologians and philosophers rather than scientist because, they say, theologians are engaged in the “study of fantasy”: belief in God can be attributed to “a shortage in the oxygen supply to the brain”.

Their theories reduce the whole of Creation to a handful of material components. They complain with a weary disdain of the stupidity of the human race, that human beings are always asking “Why?” Perhaps they should be asking themselves why this is so.

Might it not be that our minds have been programmed to ask “Why?” And if this is the case they might then ask who programmed the human computer. The “Why” question is the one which, above all, theologians should be addressing’ (p. 201).

She concludes by opining that, since the modes of thought by scientists

‘are dictated by purely rational, materialistic criteria, physicists cannot claim to answer the questions of why the universe exists and why we, human beings, are here to observe it, any more than molecular biologists can satisfactorily explain why, if our actions are determined by the workings of a selfish genetic coding, we sometimes listen to the voice of conscience and behave with altruism, compassion and generosity’ (p. 200).

In the latter days of their marriage, her ‘attempts to discuss the profound matters of science and religion with Stephen were met with an enigmatic smile’ (p. 465). Stephen usually ‘grinned’ at the ‘mention of religious faith and belief, though on one historic occasion he actually made the startling concession that, like religion, his own science of the universe’ also required a leap of faith as did theism (p. 465).

Jane approvingly quoted scientist-theologian Cecil Gibbons, who concluded that ‘scientific research required just as broad a leap of faith in choosing a working hypothesis as did religious belief’ (p. 465). Although in theory, a leap of faith in science ‘had to be tested against observation’, the problem is that a scientist has to ‘rely on an intuitive sense that his choice was right or he might be wasting years in pointless research with an end result that was definitively wrong’ (p. 465).

When asked if he believed in God, ‘Always the answer was the same. No, Stephen did not believe in God and there was no room for God in his universe’ (p. 494). When Stephen gave his usual atheistic answers in Jerusalem, this struck Jane as especially ironic, and she quipped:

‘My life with Stephen had been built on faith—faith in his courage and "genius", faith in our joint efforts and ultimately religious faith—and yet here we were in the very cradle of the world’s three great religions, preaching some sort of ill-defined atheism founded on impersonal scientific values with little reference to human experience’ (pp. 494–495).

As he got older, Stephen became more and more hardened in his atheism. As a result, Jane notes that although in the early days their arguments on religion ‘were playful and fairly light-hearted’, in later years they increasingly

‘became more personal, divisive and hurtful. It was then apparent that the damaging schism between religion and science had insidiously extended its reach into our very lives: Stephen would adamantly assert the blunt positivist stance which I found too depressing and too limiting to my view of the world because I fervently needed to believe that there was more to life than the bald facts of the laws of physics and the day-to-day struggle for survival. Compromise was anathema to Stephen, however, because it admitted an unacceptable degree of uncertainty when he dealt only with the certainties of mathematics’ (p. 201).

(Mathematical theories are NOT certain by any means. Stephen Hawking's theories cannot be proven because they are based on science fiction written in his world view of mathematical creation. The universe of creation is limited to his creative mind which is very limited and flawed.)

As Stephen became more famous, his associations changed to more and more eminent scientists, which Jane had to admit she did not find appealing. The contrast between her old friends and the world’s leading scientists who became their friends (as Stephen became increasingly renowned in his field) was enormous.

Their old friends were able to talk intelligently about many things and show a ‘human interest in people and situations’. In contrast, as a whole, their new friends were ‘a dry, obsessive bunch of boffins’, little concerned with people, but rather very concerned with their personal scientific reputations. She adds, ‘They were much more aggressively competitive than the relaxed, friendly relativists with whom we had associated in the past’ (p. 296). Their old friends’ dedication to science verged on the person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge, in comparison with the ‘driving fanaticism’ of their new friends (p. 296). Jane stresses that she concluded that

‘Nature was powerless to influence intellectual beings who were governed by rational thought, [but] who could not recognize reality when it stood, bared before them, pleading for help. They appeared to jump to conclusions, which distorted the truth to make it fit their preconceptions’ (p. 312).

Jane’s solace in religion

Religion permeated Jane’s world, as is obvious from her extensive discussions. This world, though, her husband did not want any part of, nor did most of his friends. It was a world that Jane eventually left, partly because the antagonism of Stephen and his atheistic friends. She concluded that most famous scientists, her former husband among them, were dogmatic atheists, unwilling to even reason on the evidence for design in the universe. Jane even called physics a ‘demon goddess’. Such scientists, in turn, saw someone such as Jane, who believed in God, as an ignorant person who inhabited a world that they were not part of, nor did they want to be part of.

Stephen’s view of the world was a universe ‘which had neither beginning nor end, nor any role for a Creator-God’ (p. 389). And this was a universe in which Jane did not want to live, and which many people increasingly see as not only unreal, but one that avoids reality.

Jane summarized her concept of much of the research, of which her husband was in the forefront, as ‘theorizing on abstruse suppositions about imaginary particulars traveling in imaginary time in a looking-glass universe which did not exist except in the mind of the theorists.’ This she described as ‘the demon goddess of physics’ (p. 372).

(Stephen Hawking's former wife Jane knew her husband and his mathematical creations as, "theorizing on abstruse suppositions about imaginary particulars traveling in imaginary time in a looking-glass universe which did not exist except in the mind of the theorists."

Her summary of the combined efforts of her former husband and other atheists explains the black hole mind of Stephen Hawking and his fellow researchers who deny God as the Creator!

Hawking lives in a world of suppositons about imaginary particulars in imaginary time. Hawking lives in the science fiction type world of star trek/star wars etc, where nothing is real. He is trapped in a "time warp" of disbelief created by himself.)

The fact that many came to look at Stephen as godlike is discussed in several sections of her book. She stated,

‘I found myself telling him that he was not God. The truth was that supercilious enigma of that smile which Stephen wore whenever the subjects of religious faith and scientific research came up was driving me to my wit’s end. It seemed that Stephen had little respect for me as a person and no respect at all for my beliefs and opinions’ (p. 536).

One of her strongly held opinions was that ‘reason and science alone could not furnish all of the answers to the imponderable mysteries of human existence’ (p. 536). Yet this ‘simple and fairly obvious’ truth was ‘most unpalatable to those people who had come to believe in Stephen’s immortality and infallibility’ (p. 537).

The fact is, in the minds of many people, Stephen’s scientific theories became ‘the basis for a new religion’ (p. 537). Nonetheless, she concluded that ‘Religion for me had to be a personal relationship with God and through it … I found the germinating seeds of an incipient peace and a wholeness which I had not known for a very long time’ (p. 572).

Stephen’s state of health was often extremely precarious, modern medicine and twenty-four-hour nursing care (he carried his own mini-hospital with him everywhere) allowed Stephen to pursue a ‘hedonistic way of life, compensating ever more tenaciously for his disability, ever more assured of his own invincibility, mocking the untimely death whose grasp he had evaded’ (p. 476). What sustained Jane was trusting ‘in God through darkness, pain and fear’ (p. 484). When she tried to help Stephen understand the solace she obtained from her faith, and especially the Bible, Stephen ‘was insulted by any mention of compassion; he equated it with pity and religious sentimentality’—something for which he had contempt (p. 485).

Jane discusses her friendship with many well-known cosmologists, many of which were close and personal friends. The theistic evolutionist John Polkinghorne, whom she states she admired, was one of the few who was a great encouragement to her, partly because he helped her realize that ‘atheism was not an essential prerequisite of science and not all scientists were as atheistic as they seemed’ (p. 246).

Jane’s assessment is especially critical because she was able to stand back and observe both the worlds of science and religion in order to make objective judgments. Indeed, her book clearly represents an effort to come to grips with some of the central questions of humanity, and why she accepted theism and rejected the atheism of virtually all the leading scientists with whom she spent much of her life, including, especially, her husband. She was the proverbial fly on the wall, giving us insight that can be found nowhere else into the thinking of the world’s leading cosmologists.

Jane abandoned by Stephen

Although many other women might have left Stephen because of his intolerable attitude toward her, and especially what she represented, she stuck by her husband through everything. It was he who left her for another woman. She tried in vain to reconcile with Stephen—his terms were, he would live at home with his family for part of the week, and the rest of the week he would live ‘with his ladylove’ (p. 574). This was unacceptable to Jane. His selfishness and hedonism had shown through again.

Much of this work is a contrast between a woman deeply conscious of her Christian spirituality, and a man firmly closed to any theistic spirituality. It is also a sober warning against a Christian becoming unequally yoked with an unbeliever in marriage. Jane concluded that faith is the outward expression of one’s spirituality that ‘can make sense of all the wonders of Creation and of all the suffering in the world’ and give ‘substance to all our hopes. However far-reaching our intelligent achievements and however advanced our knowledge of Creation, without faith and a sense of our own spirituality there is only isolation and despair, and the human race is really a lost cause’ (p. 594).

One cannot read this book without truly admiring Jane and feeling the struggle that she faced. It is an important work for all people interested in not only science/religion conflicts, but also the human needs that so many of us possess.

The book Music to Move the Stars by Jane Hawking
McMillan, New York, 2004 is no longer in print. A revised watered down edition is available in print.

Stephen Hawking's former wife Jane knew her husband and his mathematical creations as, "theorizing on abstruse suppositions about imaginary particulars traveling in imaginary time in a looking-glass universe which did not exist except in the mind of the theorists."

Jane Hawkings's book about her husband is truly an eye opening look of Stephen Hawking's world view as seen through her eyes up close an personal. It is rebuking evidence of why the pseudo science of Stephen Hawking is "intellectual" nonsense.

This is the prime reason it is no longer in print.

Stephen Hawking (In a nutshell) As told by his former wife of 30 yrs

Thursday, October 1, 2015

This is what Volkswagen used to rig emissions tests


This is what Volkswagen used to rig emissions tests

Volkswagen used a defeat device to rig emissions tests of diesel vehicles to cheat regulators. What is it? How does the ‘device’ work?

Anil Sasi

The ‘defeat device’ is a manipulated software, not a physical ‘device’. VW managed to circumvent the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) strict emission standards by programming the main software that controls the engine to ensure that it would operate with maximum anti-pollution controls only when the car was being tested. At all other times, including during normal driving, these controls were relaxed, which improved the performance and power delivery of the cars, while simultaneously reducing engine wear.

In a car, there is invariably a trade-off between pollution control and engine performance. If the carmaker were to focus excessively on lowering emissions, mileage would go up as the fuel is burnt completely, but power delivery would likely suffer. Also, while an engine running at a hotter temperature would likely lower emissions, its life would be reduced.

The VW ‘defeat device’ software controlling the engine came on when the vehicles were being tested for compliance with EPA standards, and went off during normal driving to allow maximum engine performance. According to the EPA, the algorithm used information about how the car was being steered, how long the engine ran, and atmospheric pressure to “precisely track” the conditions that corresponded to a federal emissions test.

VW wrote the programme codes for the software that operationalised the equipment. According to the EPA, the software ran the engine with “dyno calibration” settings designed to lower pollution when it detected testing in progress, while running on “road calibration” for the rest of the time.

The EPA’s Federal Register defines a ‘defeat device’ as “a type of AECD [auxiliary emission control device] that reduces the effectiveness of vehicle emission controls in situations when such reduction in effectiveness is not approved or permitted by EPA”. In 1995, the EPA fined General Motors $11 million for turning off carbon monoxide controls when the air conditioning was on.
(Too bad there isn't a "defeat device" to turn off the gestopo EPA. Staffed with enviro wacos who use their masked suppression of freedom similar to vw masked their auto emmissions to seem as if they were following the EPA regulations.

The EPA masks their regulation inforcement to seem as if they are doing you a favor buy destroying America via their gestopo tactics of enviro waco enforcment of regulations that are anti American.)
Story Reports

Thursday, September 24, 2015

5.6 million people's fingerprints hacked from OPM (US gov personnel)

5.6 million people's fingerprints hacked from OPM (US gov personnel)


The agency’s statement does admit that hackers’ ability to exploit the stolen fingerprints “could change over time as technology evolves,” perhaps as more biometric authentication features are built into federal government security systems.

The increased number of stolen fingerprints represents only the latest in a series of calamitous revelations from OPM about the hacker intrusion that led to the resignation of the agency’s director Katherine Archuleta in July. Aside from the 21.5 million social security numbers taken by attackers and the newly confessed 5.6 million fingerprints, the agency has also confirmed that hackers gained access to many victims’ SF-86 forms, security clearance questionnaires that include highly personal information such as previous drug use or extramarital affairs that could be used for blackmail.

“The American people have no reason to believe that they’ve heard the full story and every reason to believe that Washington assumes they are too stupid or preoccupied to care about cyber security,” Senator Ben Sasse wrote today in an email.

When hackers steal your password, you change it. When hackers steal your fingerprints, they’ve got an unchangeable credential that lets them spoof your identity for life. When they steal 5.6 million of those irrevocable biometric identifiers from U.S. federal employees—many with secret clearances—well, that’s very bad.

On Wednesday, the Office of Personnel Management admitted that the number of federal employees’ fingerprints compromised in the massive breach of its servers revealed over the summer has grown from 1.1 million to 5.6 million.

Victims included intelligence and military employees with security clearances.

5.6 million people's fingerprints hacked from OPM (US gov personnel)


(Islamic terrorists now have data about postal employees, military personnel etc etc. The security clearance information hacked opens up other doors of information for the enemy. Terrorists can target US citizens with ease now thanks to the obama regime and its ongoing effort to destroy America.) Story Reports

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Planned parenthood murders babies

DENVER, July 30--New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) is a wealthy, multi-state Planned Parenthood affiliate that does over 10,000 abortions per year. PPRM has a contract to supply aborted fetal tissue to Colorado State University in Fort Collins.

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

Since PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in its 2nd trimester procedures, any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law (1 USC 8).

“We’d have to do a little bit of training with the providers or something to make sure that they don’t crush” fetal organs during 2nd trimester abortions, says Ginde, brainstorming ways to ensure the abortion doctors at PPRM provide usable fetal organs.

When the buyers ask Ginde if “compensation could be specific to the specimen?” Ginde agrees, “Okay.” Later on in the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing,” Ginde remarks. “If you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”

Ginde implies that PPRM’s lawyer, Kevin Paul, is helping the affiliate skirt the fetal tissue law: “He’s got it figured out that he knows that even if, because we talked to him in the beginning, you know, we were like, ‘We don’t want to get called on,’ you know, ‘selling fetal parts across states.’” The buyers ask, “And you feel confident that they’re building those layers?” to which Ginde replies, “I’m confident that our Legal will make sure we’re not put in that situation.”

As the buyers and Planned Parenthood workers identify body parts from last fetus in the path lab, a Planned Parenthood medical assistant announces: “Another boy!”

The video is the latest by The Center for Medical Progress documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Elected officials need to listen to the public outcry for an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while the 10 state investigations and 3 Congressional committees determine the full extent of Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby parts.” Daleiden continues, “Planned Parenthood’s recent call for the NIH to convene an expert panel to ‘study’ fetal experimentation is absurd after suggestions from Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Ginde that ‘research’ can be used as a catch-all to cover-up baby parts sales. The biggest problem is bad actors like Planned Parenthood who hold themselves above the law in order to harvest and make money off of aborted fetal brains, hearts, and livers.”
Abortion and the Bible


139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.


22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.

22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.


31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?


44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.


1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

In these verses it is brought directly to the reader that God's view of life begins before birth. Psalm 22 shows the beginning of our relationship starting before birth. In Psalm 139 the verses specifically show our relationship with God before birth as He formed us and had already planned our days to come. Jeremiah 1 again emphasizes God's relationship with an unborn child and Isaiah 44 comforts with the picture of God's faithfulness during the formation before birth. God does not look at our lives from birth to death; He views us from conception onward.

These passages certainly contain separate contexts and were meant for differing audiences, but it is with their diversity that the strength of the argument is made. There is not just one verse in one situation that mentions God's view of human life to include the before birth stage; there are many verses in many situations. The Pro-Life view stands directly on the Truth as shown through the Bible; God's view is that life begins before birth.

We do not need to decide when life begins, but accept what God has already shown, that life begins before birth. It is impossible to take a life before birth and be justified. The beliefs and ethics of God are not situational and do not provide the exceptions. Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.

Christians must understand that supporting abortion is opposed to God and his righteousness. We must not allow the heretical views of the world a place to seep into our individual beliefs or the churches that we attend. Taking a stand on abortion in your church is easy; you have God and the Bible on your side.
Good News Post (KJV) Bible

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Affirmative action shooter story

Read Rush Limbaugh's trascript talking about why affirmative action played a big part in the recent gay black man murdering his former fellow co-workers live on tv.

Rush explains how and why government affirmative action played big part in what happened. Excellent commentary!

Decades of Cruel Liberalism Created Vester Flanagan's Victim Mentality
August 27, 2015


RUSH: We have learned a lot more since we completed the program yesterday about the details behind the scenes that led to the shooting near Roanoke, Virginia, yesterday. I've learned a lot more about the shooter and his relationship with people he worked with and people he worked for throughout his career. Bryce Williams is his stage name. And it turns out...

Let me go at this from the standpoint of my experience in the business of broadcasting. I want to take you back to the early 1970s. I left home at age 20 in 1971 for my first job away from home. It was to Pittsburgh. It was actually a suburb station in McKeesport, and I was there for a year and a half, and I got a job actually in the city of Pittsburgh, KQV, which at the time was owned by ABC.

And it was at about that time that the federal government and the FCC began minority hiring requirements on all broadcasters, federal relations governed broadcasting. Broadcasting, you gotta pass certain tests, or did every five years in order to have your license to broadcast renewed by the government on the basis that the airwaves you were using were public, and so they were regulated by the 1934 Communications Act.

And we had the modern era of feminism that had just been born in the late sixties, the Gloria Steinem/Betty Friedan version that has screwed everything up now. I'll give you an example. I mean, we can give you examples left and right. The story we didn't give you yesterday about the heroics on the train in France. You know what happened in France? Everybody in that train ran for the hills except some American men.

And what you had in the rescue effort on that train was American maleness. You had American -- what used to be universal, worldwide manliness -- masculinity on display. Heroics were performed; people were saved. The situation was diffused, while people ran for the tall grass. The people that ran for the tall grass are the people have been indoctrinated by political correctness. Men who are shamed into not being men, men who have been henpecked or whatever into denying their maleness and masculinity on the basis that it is predatory.

And this is the chickification of the country. And in some parts of the world, that has taken place with the rise of feminism. And that's just a brief aside to illustrate that which I'm speaking about here. The way this manifested itself at radio and TV stations all across the country was, mandates went out from the federal government to owners of broadcast properties, that they had to begin hiring on the basis of quota and not merit.

And what happened in the early stages of this, and what I think it continues to this day, by evidence of what we saw yesterday in Virginia, is one of the end-of-the-road results of this kind of government overreach. It's mandatory minority hiring. Merit was thrown out in many cases. I saw... My point is, here I saw many qualified men who had been in broadcasting for years and climbing the career ladder in broadcasting (the way you did) lose their jobs, just get fired for no reason other the federal government was mandating that certain number of or percentage of on-air jobs be held by women and African-Americans and what have you.

And it was new. And because it was new, ownership and management was particularly afraid and therefore particularly energetic to be seen following the new federal guidelines, which were actually mandates. As such... You can argue about this. I'm not raising this to argue about the merits of this. I'm raising this to try to give you a timeline to explain some actions that took place yesterday.

So you end up having qualified people summarily fired simply to make room for what were required by government to be minority hires. They had to. It was an early way of looking at diversity demands, if you will. This is not to wring hands over qualified people being fired. I'm not doing it. I'm just telling you that the history. This goes back to the 1970s, the early 1970s. Perhaps prior to that, but I think that's when it was. I came close to being one of those let go.

At the time Pittsburgh was -- and it may still be -- a top 15 market. It was a big, big radio market, and programmers... And, by the way, everybody in radio who was around back then is nodding their head in agreement when I talk about this. They know exactly what I'm talking about. There are so many frustrated people that ran radio stations then and still do today. They try to have the best staff they can with the budget they've got and then they had to comply with all these government mandated hiring rules.

And they ended up having to put people with no experience whatsoever into jobs, positions that required experience. They were unable... And I'm talking about on air. That's where these jobs were seen, these mandatory hiring rules could have been demanded for the entire staff of a radio or TV station, but they manifested themselves in on-air positions because those are the ones that were seen. So that's where the compliance could easily be seen.

And, I mean, I don't blame the people that got hired. I don't blame the people that were not qualified. That's not a rant on them. It is simply what ended up happening is that a lot of people who had no business being in this business got hired. And once they were hired, you couldn't fire them for any reason. In many cases, you had either hold onto 'em or you had to promote 'em. As time went on, it became a little easier to get rid of them if they were not any good, but you had to replace them with...

You had to keep your percentages in order to satisfy the government license renewal time and any other time as well. So this kind of compliance has been going on since the 1970s. And it has led to a lot of people who are not qualified in this business -- and once they're there, you cannot get rid of them. Well, you can, but you have to replace them with similar characteristic replacements. And we're not talking about merit here.

Now, at this time is a little different because now 30, 40, 50 years have gone by, and there are plenty of qualified minorities. Back then and for 10-15 years afterward, we were not talking about qualified at all. That was the whole point. That's why it was such a friction-laden policy. It caused animosity like you can't believe. Now, the murderer in Virginia had been fired from numerous other TV stations that he would have never been hired at to begin with had he not been a minority.

And I say that, simply because looking at his work career the guy never did make it anywhere. He was just... And, in addition to that, all of this created -- and it still does to this day -- a victim mentality. You know, I've always thought that quotas and affirmative action were ultimately insulting to the supposed beneficiaries. They were stigmatized. If it was known by people that they got the job not because of any particular talent or any particular skill, but because of their gender or their skin color, they were stigmatized.

Just as kids who had an "in" with the owner or the general manager who got hired, who had no business being there. They were stigmatized as well. Anybody who was not qualified who got hired based on something other than merit, stigmatized. And I think the combination of the stigma and the victim status creates a beneath-the-surface seething that effervesces, and in some people it boils over and blows up. This Bryce Williams guy, Vester whatever his name is. (interruption)

That's right, Vester. Vester Flanagan was hired repeatedly to meet these EEO and affirmative action goals, and he was fired repeatedly. Most likely his incompetence got him fired. But it was also attitude related. When he was fired so many times for these reasons, he couldn't deal with it, and he went postal. No, let's not say that. He lost it. He went mental health on everybody while deep in this stigmatized victimhood.

And this is what happens when employment performance standards are lowered or disregarded for the sake of giving people something that everybody knows they're not competent to do. I listened to people who have hired this guy and worked with him at various stations talk about him, and it was clear that he had no affection -- they had no affection for him, and vice-versa -- and it was never a pleasant experience for anybody, and he had to be let go at practically every job.

(This is the status quo in government jobs especially the post office. Many manority people are hired or promoted etc based not on qualifications but on affirmative action that forces unqualified people into the workplace for others to take up the slack. Sometimes they perform so bad that they are forced to retire etc.) Story Reports

However, they were forced by the government to do all this anyway, to meet employment goals and objectives for diversity and all kinds of things. And particularly if you're a business regulated by the government. You have to do this posthaste. You cannot play around with it. They hold your future, the government does, in the palm of their hands. And I think this incident that happened in Virginia, which is multifaceted, but it really isn't that complicated when you get right down to it.

If you're gonna be honest with yourself, and if everybody looking at this wants to be honest with themselves, what happened here is not really that complicated. The people are. This particular guy. It is a perfect example of what happens every day because of employment requirements that have nothing to do with competence or talent, merit, success building on success. The difference is, most people don't die. People don't die most of the time, thank goodness.

The employer just has to swallow the results of their incompetence and grin and bear it and hope everything turns out. The thing about this is it's really a cruel thing to do to people, to stigmatize them this way. It's a cruel thing. It's looked at as, "No, no, Mr. Limbaugh! It's not cruel. It's an opportunity." Yeah, I can see the argument that it's an opportunity, giving somebody a chance to do something.

But when people who are qualified who've been working their whole lives in a particular business or field and had to work their way up and climb the ladder, when they are just summarily dispatched for somebody that has never done it before or has been repeatedly fired but now is hired to meet some federal requirement, I guarantee you there's friction, and there's a stigma.

And this is the ultimate insult to the supposed beneficiaries of all of this supposed decency and goodness. All these marvelous good intentions, trying to help the downtrodden, it ends up, in many cases, doing the exact opposite. It's cruel to be forced to hire people who can't do the job. It is cruel to be pushed into a job that you can't do surrounded by people who can do it.

And then if you come to the job already thinking you're a victim and already thinking you're stigmatized and as unqualified, I'm telling you, it isn't a healthy circumstance. That's why I think the crutch of being a victim is what they all fall back on. It's a way of blaming everybody else. It's a way of blaming coworkers. It's a way of blaming the boss. It's a way of blaming the management. And what we have here, folks, are victims of liberalism once again. But we're not supposed to look at it this way.

We're supposed to see only the good intentions behind these policies.


RUSH: Okay, so after all of that -- which, by the way, is indisputable. Now, it's different now. I don't want to be misunderstood. There are qualified minorities now. They're all over the place. They've been in the business awhile. They have begun to climb the ladder; they've exhibited talent. All that, that's fine. But this guy wasn't. Obviously he wasn't and he kept making the rounds and he kept getting fired.

He was all ticked off that he didn't get the job that supposed to get. He had PTSD 'cause he couldn't get the job he wanted! So he's relying on victimhood; the world was against him. He was one of these people always looking for trouble, he always was... He would walk around the office waiting for somebody to say anything that he could interpret as racist, to give him an excuse for failure, to give him an excuse for not making it.

And then that would... He'd think he'd heard something; then he would tell himself he heard it, and it would just magnify in his mind to the point that he exploded. And it was known. I mean, everybody that worked with the guy knew he wasn't right. It's just... I don't know. I watched the father of reporter on TV today. I can't put myself in these people's shoes like I... It's so needless. But despite all of this, Ben Shapiro has a great, great take on this at Breitbart.

The headline of his piece: "Black, Gay Reporter Murders Straight, White Journalists -- Media Blame the Gun." Democrats Blame the Gun. Oh, yeah. We have an angry minority (plus add angry homosexual to the mix now), and we've been told that we are to recognize certain things when homosexual bias exists. We're supposed to not notice those things when the situation is reversed. Now we have to blame the gun, now we have to blame gun control, now we need more gun laws, now we're gonna blame PTSD.

As I say, the media's conflicted here over where to really place the final blame, so they choose the gun.

That's the safe way to go.


RUSH: Now, this Vester Flanagan guy. He also said that the Charleston shooting is what got him. That was the final straw. So he went out and bought a gun a couple days later. He bought the gun legally, by the way. He went out, got the gun, and... Now, who hyped the Charleston incident? What was noteworthy about the Charleston shooting to you? I'm gonna tell you what it was noteworthy to me about it.

You know what I couldn't believe about that? You know the one thing that stood out about the Charleston shooting to me? I've never seen it before or since. The unilateral, immediate forgiveness of the shooter by the families of those victims that were shot in that church. I could not... I was so moved by that, I commented on it at the time. They were deeply Christian, and they did not...

None of the people inside that church and their families, not one of them sought to turn that event into some political circus. They tried to tamp it down. They offered forgiveness for the shooter. They did it in the Christian way.
People not Christian will not understand it. It will not make any sense to them. And you could tell when it happened that that reaction... I mean, you should have seen it.

If you remember this, many in the Drive-By could not believe it, and there are guests on the nighttime cable saying, "I couldn't do it. Forgive? I never heard anything like it. I don't understand Christianity." They did. That was part of the making peace with the whole thing. That was giving it all to God, putting trust in God. That's what they chose to do as their means of coping, dealing with it. So who hyped it? Who hyped it?

The Drive-By Media hyped it. They would not let it go. The race hustler hyped that incident, and we had to pull down the Confederate flag. We had to have this whole dog and pony show. The Confederate flag caused all this. Meanwhile, the families of the victims couldn't be found. They were privately dealing with this, their grief, in their religious way. But the Drive-By Media, the media itself?

I mean, they whipped up the racist angle to the Charleston shooting to the point this guy admitted that what happened there is what set him off. He might not have heard, because so little was made of it. The families of the victims immediately offering forgiveness -- and even, to an extent, an understanding. Now, according to the UK Mirror, we get more journalism/truth about what happens in this country than we do in our own media.

According to the UK Mirror, Vester Flanagan's apartment's full of "unwashed sex toys, gay porn and cat feces." Clearly we have somebody here that was unbalanced. It's a sad, sad case situation. And I dare say... I'm speculating, but reading between the lines, people that work with the guy knew it. Nothing they could do about it. Any attempt to help him by suggesting that he seek some kind of therapy or help for mental disease, can you imagine what he would have done with that?

He'd have run off and talked about discrimination, bias, and whatever. So everybody's hands were tied, again because of the stigma and because of the victim stats and because of the federal government's power over these properties by virtue of their being regulated. But he saw the media raising hell and the Confederate flag being pulled down, so he wants in on some of that action. They got him all revved up and ready to go.

Here's Russ in Cincinnati as we have some people want to weigh in on this on the phone, so we'll do that and get into the latest political news in due course. Russ, I'm glad you called. Great to have you on the program. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Thank you. Glad to be here.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: Longtime listener. I was smiling to myself, as you recounted some of the statements about the journalists and a career in journalism and the people that you have seen and run into, because it was the same for me. I was very fortunate. I became a news anchor when I was 21 years old, in a small market. It was '95 I think at the time. But then I moved to Louisville, Kentucky, which is, you know, at that time a top 40 market.

I was amazed at the amount of bias. I don't know that I was sophisticated enough to know what it really was, but I saw people -- quote "people" -- that I talked to. I saw parts of stories that I had followed that had nothing to do with what I had seen. I was anchoring and was told at one point that I now had to do co-anchor -- her name was Bunny -- and that she was gonna be my co-anchor. Apparently she had just graduated from some fine girls' school but, you know, hadn't ever worked in a radio station. She may have done an internship. Then I was dealing... We had a perfectly good white sportscaster who --

RUSH: Was this TV or radio you're talking about here, now?

CALLER: This is TV.

RUSH: TV. So you had to have a co-anchor that had never done it before?

CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. She did it on a class project or something, but after I got to know her, I asked her. I said, "Jen, how many times have you done this? Have you? Did you ever?" 'cause she didn't know some of the basics. She didn't know how to write a script. She didn't know how to produce the news to tell the people in the booth what to do next, to write out the script. It was amazing. And she never went out to cover a story. In fact, they did a feature on her when she came because she was going to be the first white, full-time female anchor in Louisville at the time. Now, we're going back to the early seventies.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And one of the lines from the article was, "And once Carson and Dean were off the air, she went out to dinner with me so I could get to know her better, and the somewhat portly Dean stayed back and prepared the 11 o'clock news." So I knew right away, I was no longer the star of the show. The sports guy wasn't too bad. He was a nice guy. But he was very difficult to understand and when he got nervous he couldn't be understood and obviously --

(I remember a guy that was a minority "supervisor" who got someone else to do his paper work and computer work because he could not use a computer. When he got nervous you could not understood his speech. When he was not nervous you could barely understand what he was saying. I had to tell him I could not understand what he was speaking and ask him a couple of times to repeat his speech all the time. He was a "nice" guy but not qualified for the position he was in at all. Because he was a "minority" he got the supervisor job.

At a later date his minority supervisor was caught giving answers to another minority person the interview questions for a supervisor job!!!! The supervisor minority in charge was Not fired and as far as I know and did not receive any decipline. This is also "affirmative action" in action. This supervisor got her original job only because she filed an EEO complaint!!)
Story Reports

RUSH: See the bottom line here? What we have here is a living, breathing example of this. I lived through it. Always was in radio. It did not happen to me, I want to stress. I saw it happen to others. It did not happen, but I saw it. It was discussed constantly. It created bitterness, created anger. There were some people... A lot of people were apolitical, didn't understand it. "What do you mean, EEOC? What do you mean affirmative action? What do you mean diversity?"

They didn't understand. I don't think "diversity" was a term back then. But they didn't understand it. Their whole experience had been, "Work hard, get good, get as good as you can, get noticed, get lucky, get hired." And then after you get hired, work your butt off and try to climb the ladder; go to a bigger market. All of a sudden, they get thrown out for somebody that's never done it before because they happen to be not a man, and they didn't understand it.

My only point is that this stuff is alive and well today, but it has created a circumstance where people who are in the business have no business being there. The only thing they're gonna do is fail and get fired and then get angry and be stigmatized and fall back on victimhood status. And if they're not there mentally, and if their fires of anger are stoked by external sources, such as the Drive-By Media and whoever knows whatever else, and they're not all there, then you have potential like this.

My only point in this, folks, is there are explanations for this. Whether people want to face it or not is another thing, but it is not the gun. It is not the Second Amendment. It had nothing to do with it. The guy got his gun legally. It has nothing to do with it. The gun's an inanimate object. This was this guy who went and got the gun for a specific reason and pulled trigger on specific people for a specific reason.

You could have had all kinds of gun control in the world, you could have gotten rid of the Second Amendment, and this guy would have found a way to do what he did, because he was the problem. And since in this country people are never responsible for what they do, they are the product of their environments or whatever, I'm trying to tell you how this guy was made into what he is. He wanted to be something. He wasn't good enough to be it.

But he got hired nevertheless because it was the safest thing to do or safer thing to do it all these places where he worked. It was just... It wasn't worth it. And then the day came where they had no choice but than to get rid of him, and that just makes him even angrier. And he chalks that up to bias. He chalks it up to racism or unfairness or whatever. He turns on the TV, and he sees he's validated in thinking that.

And every time there's an incident of crime where race is involved, this guy turns on the TV and he sees that his anger in his own mind is validated, that the world is stacked against him. He doesn't have a chance no matter what. He's better than anybody else around, but they never give him a chance. Then he has to listen to all these people make fun of him on the staff, supposed racists. It just builds and builds and builds. Not the gun.