Jesus was born to suffer the punishment on the cross for your sins.
There are two options.
(1) Accept Jesus as your Saviour and be born again, prepared for eternal life in Heaven.
(2) Reject Jesus as your Saviour and spend eternity in the torments of hell.
Be diverted your toys and vanities and listen to this salvation message just for you.
...........................
Jonathan Edwards Matthew 25:46
Thus you see it among young and old. Multitudes of youth lead a careless life, taking little care about their salvation. So you may see it among persons of middle age, and with many advanced in years, and when they certainly draw near to the grave.
— Yet these same persons will seem to acknowledge that the greater part of men go to hell and suffer eternal misery, and this through carelessness about it. However, they will do the same. How strange is it that men can enjoy themselves and be at rest, when they are thus hanging over eternal burnings: at the same time, having no lease of their lives and not knowing how soon the thread by which they hang will break. Nor indeed do they pretend to know. And if it breaks, they are gone: they are lost forever, and there is no remedy!
Yet they trouble not themselves much about it, nor will they hearken to those who cry to them, and entreat them to take care for themselves, and labor to get out of that dangerous condition. They are not willing to take so much pains. They choose not to be diverted from amusing themselves with toys and vanities.
...............................
The Eternity Of Hell's Torments
A Sermon Preached in April, 1739
By Jonathan Edwards
These shall go away into everlasting punishment.
...............................
The 2nd Death
Monday, December 21, 2015
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Canned Air For Sale
(At first I thought this was a joke, but its no joke. Canned air is for sale.)
...............
Vitality Air
Canadian company which started out as a joke bottling Rocky Mountains air has seen its product fly off the shelves in pollution-hit China, with first shipment selling out in four days.
A Canadian start-up company bottling fresh air from the Rocky Mountains has seen sales to China soar because of rising pollution levels.
Vitality Air was founded last year in the western Canadian city of Edmonton but began selling in China less than two months ago.
“Our first shipment of 500 bottles of fresh air were sold in four days,” co-founder Moses Lam says in a telephone interview with the Telegraph.
A crate containing 4,000 more bottles is making its way to China, but he says most of that shipment has been bought.
A 7.7 Litre can of crisp air taken from Banff National Park in the majestic Rocky Mountains range sells for roughly 100 yuan ($15.47), which is 50 times more expensive than a bottle of mineral water in China.
Vitality Air’s biggest challenge is to keep up with demand because each bottle of fresh air is filled by hand.
Maybe those in China could use this idea with maybe a few more filters added considering the intake will be extremely polluted air.
A breath of compressed air
Maybe they could "Can" their own and save a few bucks.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
How to make Hardtack
Hardtack is an inexpensive and long lasting way of sustenance, in the absence of perishable food. How to make Hardtack, as another use of flour on a survival scenario.
...............
Hardtack is a hard cracker-like biscuit made of flour, salt and water, was one of the most typical rations issued to soldiers and sailors by the U. S. government because it was fairly nutritious and unlikely to spoil. Hardtack’s use as a military ration can theoretically be traced back to Roman times, but the first widespread usage by American soldiers was during the Civil War...
After the Civil War, this hard bread continued to be a staple of the soldier’s diet and was made in government bakeries located in eastern cities. Shipped in barrels to the troops in the west, Hardtack had to be tough. This toughness made Hardtack ideal for campaigns and patrols away from the post or fort.Normal breads were too delicate to survive the long trips west and would spoil very quickly. Hardtack was extremely hard and was called "teeth-dullers," "digestible leather&,quot; "angel cakes,” and “ammo reserves" by those who ate the hard bread. Some Hardtack was so hard it had to be broken with a rifle butt or a "blow of the fist" to prepare for eating. Soldiers normally softened the pieces by soaking them in coffee, frying them in bacon grease or salt pork fat, or crumbling them in soup.
The Question arises constantly as to the correct recipe for hardtack. Here it is: Flour - Water - and a little salt. Mix together to obtain an elastic, but not sticky dough, Roll to inch thickness, bake in 400 degree oven until slightly brown.Allow to cool (may still be somewhat soft). Put in 200 degree oven until hard. Prick with nail or sharp instrument.
NO BAKING POWDER, SODA, SUGAR, CINNAMON, RAISINS OR ANYTHING ELSE!!
(C rations contain a form of hardtac in the shape of a cracker. You can make your own. Hardtac from the civil war still exists but I am not sure if its edible.
Hardtac lasts very long when its prepared correctly. I think it is a very good choice for a survival food. Bake some and be prepared.)
TipsForSurviving.com
(Honey also keeps for a very long time. Stock up on honey also. I think one could survive on honey and hardtac for a long time even if they didn't eat much else.)
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Closet Muslims
.....................................
.....................................
There here be ready.
.....................................
.....................................
Tips For Surviving
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
GooToYou.com
FineTunedUniverse.com
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
GooToYou.com
FineTunedUniverse.com
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)
(wired.com)
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
(wired.com)
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
Psalm
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.
Psalm
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.
Job
31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
Isaiah
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.
Jeremiah
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
FineTunedUniverse.com
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
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
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.
.......................
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
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
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.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
"Planned Parenthood" murders babys then sells them
...................
...................
...................
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
Psalm
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.
Psalm
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.
Job
31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
Isaiah
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.
Jeremiah
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
FineTunedUniverse.com
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Crimes of Hillary Clinton
...............
The Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now
Hillary finally hands over her server—after it's been professionally wiped clean.
Sidney Powell
After years of holding herself above the law, telling lie after lie, and months of flat-out obstruction, HIllary Clinton has finally produced to the FBI her server and three thumb drives. Apparently, the server has been professionally wiped clean of any useable information, and the thumb drives contain only what she selectively culled. Myriad criminal offenses apply to this conduct.
Oh right, I forgot. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Ms. Clinton had declined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure—so there was no internal oversight. And oh yes, her name is Clinton, and she has long deemed herself above the law. The rules only apply to everyone else.
............
............
............
(Hillary is a liar/criminal. She is also a traitor. She is no different than those in congress who have voted to support the illegal laws that have been stamped "legal" by congress and obama.
We have a lawless government that inforces laws at their will.) Story Reports
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts
Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts.
..............................
Planned parenthood Sells Baby Parts PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S TOP DOCTOR, PRAISED BY CEO, USES PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS TO SELL BABY PARTS
PPFA Senior Director of Medical Services Deborah Nucatola, Other Planned Parenthood Leadership Documented Selling Aborted Baby Parts in 3-Year Investigative Journalism Study.
LOS ANGELES, July 14—New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.
In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA’s Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.
The buyers ask Nucatola, “How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?”
“It makes a huge difference,” Nucatola replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”
Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”
Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the fetus from vertex to breech orientation before intact extraction is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531).
Nucatola also reveals that Planned Parenthood’s national office is concerned about their liability for the sale of fetal parts: “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” she says. “But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).
A separate clip shows Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards praising Nucatola’s work to facilitate connections for fetal tissue collection. “Oh good,” Richards says when told about Nucatola’s support for fetal tissue collection at Planned Parenthood, “Great. She’s amazing.”
The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its “Human Capital” series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization. Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.”
.........................
.........................
Watch the summary videos of specific undercover meetings from CMP’s Human Capital project documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby body parts.
.........................
.........................
(Is there any doubt America is under God's judgement?) Story Reports
.........................
.........................
.........................
Learning In the Womb
.........................
.........................
National Right To Life
..........................
..........................
Abortion and the Bible
Psalm
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.
Psalm
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.
Job
31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
Isaiah
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.
Jeremiah
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.
..............
..............
Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Graphic)
..............
..............
GoodNewsPost.com (KJV Bible Online)
..............
..............
ThisWasYourLife.org
..............
..............
..............
Rev 20:11-15
20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Once you die in yours sins it is too late to have your name written in the lambs book of life.
If your name is not in the book of life you will be cast into the lake of fire for all eternity.
....................
....................
....................
God has a set of Books in which everything we say and do are recorded. In one Book, called the Book of Life, are recorded the names of every born-again believer. The Bible says anyone whose name is not found in the Book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire to be tormented forever. In other Books are recorded every sin which we've committed and also the good we've done. It is important to realize that no matter how much one's good works outweigh the bad, they will still be cast into the lake of Fire if their name isn't found written in the Lamb's Book of Life. This is why Jesus sternly warned in John 3:3, “Ye must be born again.”
We are all born into sin. Unless you trust in Jesus your sins are not forgiven and you name is not written in the book of life.
Because your name is not in the book of life your sins must be judged and your punishment is eternal in the lake of fire.
..............................
Planned parenthood Sells Baby Parts PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S TOP DOCTOR, PRAISED BY CEO, USES PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS TO SELL BABY PARTS
PPFA Senior Director of Medical Services Deborah Nucatola, Other Planned Parenthood Leadership Documented Selling Aborted Baby Parts in 3-Year Investigative Journalism Study.
LOS ANGELES, July 14—New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.
In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA’s Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.
The buyers ask Nucatola, “How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?”
“It makes a huge difference,” Nucatola replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”
Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”
Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the fetus from vertex to breech orientation before intact extraction is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531).
Nucatola also reveals that Planned Parenthood’s national office is concerned about their liability for the sale of fetal parts: “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” she says. “But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).
A separate clip shows Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards praising Nucatola’s work to facilitate connections for fetal tissue collection. “Oh good,” Richards says when told about Nucatola’s support for fetal tissue collection at Planned Parenthood, “Great. She’s amazing.”
The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its “Human Capital” series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization. Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.”
.........................
.........................
Watch the summary videos of specific undercover meetings from CMP’s Human Capital project documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby body parts.
.........................
.........................
(Is there any doubt America is under God's judgement?) Story Reports
.........................
.........................
.........................
Learning In the Womb
.........................
.........................
National Right To Life
..........................
..........................
Abortion and the Bible
Psalm
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.
Psalm
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.
Job
31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
Isaiah
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.
Jeremiah
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.
..............
..............
Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Graphic)
..............
..............
GoodNewsPost.com (KJV Bible Online)
..............
..............
ThisWasYourLife.org
..............
..............
..............
Rev 20:11-15
20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Once you die in yours sins it is too late to have your name written in the lambs book of life.
If your name is not in the book of life you will be cast into the lake of fire for all eternity.
....................
....................
....................
God has a set of Books in which everything we say and do are recorded. In one Book, called the Book of Life, are recorded the names of every born-again believer. The Bible says anyone whose name is not found in the Book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire to be tormented forever. In other Books are recorded every sin which we've committed and also the good we've done. It is important to realize that no matter how much one's good works outweigh the bad, they will still be cast into the lake of Fire if their name isn't found written in the Lamb's Book of Life. This is why Jesus sternly warned in John 3:3, “Ye must be born again.”
We are all born into sin. Unless you trust in Jesus your sins are not forgiven and you name is not written in the book of life.
Because your name is not in the book of life your sins must be judged and your punishment is eternal in the lake of fire.
Friday, July 24, 2015
Secularism obscures the truth and revises history.
Secularism obscures the truth and revises history.
When most of us were in school, everybody knew that the terms "BC" and "AD" meant Before Christ and Anno Domine, meaning "in the year of our Lord." But those terms are disappearing as authors now prefer the terms "CE" and "BCE", which are abbreviations for "Common Era" and "Before the Common Era."
As the online encyclopedia Wikipedia points out, "since the later twentieth century, use of CE and BCE has been popularized in academic and scientific publications." It is also being used "by publishers wishing to emphasize secularism and/or sensitivity to non-Christians." In other words, they are changing the terms to erase Jesus from history under the guise of not wishing to offend anyone. The secularists, on the other hand, have no qualms about offending Christians.
This is what secularism does. It obscures the truth and even revises history in subtle or overt ways. Applied chemist and creation scientist Mark Cadwallader says that the use of CE and BCE is "clearly another example of the assault on Christianity. Radical atheists," he says, "have been agitating for freedom from any reference to Christianity and especially its founder. They will disguise and revise history itself to obscure the truth of Jesus Christ."
.........................
Another Attempt to Erase Jesus from History
.........................
.........................
I remember riding in a car with someone who claimed he was an athiest. As we moved down the highway he made a comment about telephone poles. He wanted them to be redesigned so they would not look like a cross.
He also was "offended" by the markers on the roadside that indicated someone died in a car accident. The markers were in the form of a cross and flowers etc.
He also was bothered by vechicles that had any kind of reference to God or Jesus.
In other words he was offended by anything that referenced Jesus.
Why?
It was because everytime he saw a marker, telephone pole, bumper sticker etc he was reminded that there is a God and therefore he was reminded of sin and the judgement of God.
God has put the knowledge of him in every man and woman.
..................................
Romans:
1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
When most of us were in school, everybody knew that the terms "BC" and "AD" meant Before Christ and Anno Domine, meaning "in the year of our Lord." But those terms are disappearing as authors now prefer the terms "CE" and "BCE", which are abbreviations for "Common Era" and "Before the Common Era."
As the online encyclopedia Wikipedia points out, "since the later twentieth century, use of CE and BCE has been popularized in academic and scientific publications." It is also being used "by publishers wishing to emphasize secularism and/or sensitivity to non-Christians." In other words, they are changing the terms to erase Jesus from history under the guise of not wishing to offend anyone. The secularists, on the other hand, have no qualms about offending Christians.
This is what secularism does. It obscures the truth and even revises history in subtle or overt ways. Applied chemist and creation scientist Mark Cadwallader says that the use of CE and BCE is "clearly another example of the assault on Christianity. Radical atheists," he says, "have been agitating for freedom from any reference to Christianity and especially its founder. They will disguise and revise history itself to obscure the truth of Jesus Christ."
.........................
Another Attempt to Erase Jesus from History
.........................
.........................
I remember riding in a car with someone who claimed he was an athiest. As we moved down the highway he made a comment about telephone poles. He wanted them to be redesigned so they would not look like a cross.
He also was "offended" by the markers on the roadside that indicated someone died in a car accident. The markers were in the form of a cross and flowers etc.
He also was bothered by vechicles that had any kind of reference to God or Jesus.
In other words he was offended by anything that referenced Jesus.
Why?
It was because everytime he saw a marker, telephone pole, bumper sticker etc he was reminded that there is a God and therefore he was reminded of sin and the judgement of God.
God has put the knowledge of him in every man and woman.
..................................
Romans:
1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
How to turn off location services on an I Phone and more
Is your cellphone spying on you? Yes it is and you agreed to it.
.......................... .......................... It's not just iPhones recording your every move. Just about every phone and cell carrier does. The information is just a little harder to get to. "People don't read the fine print," Hamer said. But is it legal? Constitutional attorney Eric Friday said yes. "The Constitution limits what government can do, it doesn't limit what private companies can do," said Friday. "As long as we enter into an agreement with that private company and agree to turn over our data in exchange for their service, there's no law broken." ....................... ....................... (Obama or others can mine this data and use it to manipulate you and the public. A recent example was the flag flap in SC where almost instantly the gov of sc was calling for the removalof the battle flag of Virginia with "social media" support. Social media also data mines to manipulate you and everybody else to portray news in a way that favors a certain agenda. Because you are tethered to "social media" the data miners know your every move etc. They HERD you and the public like cattle on social issues in the news and especially politicians who use the manufactured "crisis" to make sure it won't go to waste to furter their political agendas. Yes you are helping the feds and the state run national news media to manipulate your own thoughts through social media, local media, national state run media etc etc. The government data mines cell phone, tables etc that have apps installed. They form a profile on you that is updated in real time everytime you communicate.
An End User License Agreement (EULA) is a legal contract between a software application author or publisher and the user of that application.
Most people just agree when installing an app and don't read the EULA agreement.
In most app EULA agreements you agree to ALLOW the app to take control of EVERYTHING on you cell phone. This includes your camera, recorder, contacts, manipulating other apps on your cell phone as though you were etc.
You can turn an app off but another app can turn it back on etc. These apps mine your data and sell or provide it to companies and of course obama and his regime.
Your cell phone, laptop, tablet, desktop etc are constantly sending data to computers that track your every move.
Now you begin to see how obama, corporations and the news media manipulate the public as if they were in a cattle stampede.
You have been BRANDED in effect. Your profile is manipulated as much as possible and you were not aware of it many times.) Story Reports
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Obama secret race database
Obama secret race database
NY Times
The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
Civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.
.............................
.............................
.............................
(This is similar to what hitler did before and during WW2. Hitler used IBM and their punch card system to inventory everything especially information on jews or any other information the nazi's wanted to catalog for current and future use.
Hitler used the "social medium" of the day,IBM puch cards, to locate an murder jews and millions of others.
Obama and his regime are and have been doing the same thing as hilter did. Gathering information about the enemy, Americans, for evil purposes. The enemy is ANYONE who disagrees with obama or is a "threat" to his regime.
Hitler used IBM, obama is using google and other data mines. Your cell phone is a direct link to obama's data base via google and the other apps on your cellphone tablet etc. The apps have the ability to listen in to you call, liten in to you just talking, turning you camera on and off and it goes on and on. Check out the details of most apps and you will see you MUST agress to let them take over your phone!!!!
The enemy as I have said all along is "within". He looks and speaks like a man that is possessed and in fact is doing satan's bidding.) Story Reports
...............
...............
...............
IBM and the Holocaust is the stunning story of IBM' s strategic alliance with Nazi Germany
Probing IBM's Nazi connection
IBM and the Holocaust Read the entire book online here. 565 pages
NY Times
The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
Civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.
.............................
.............................
.............................
(This is similar to what hitler did before and during WW2. Hitler used IBM and their punch card system to inventory everything especially information on jews or any other information the nazi's wanted to catalog for current and future use.
Hitler used the "social medium" of the day,IBM puch cards, to locate an murder jews and millions of others.
Obama and his regime are and have been doing the same thing as hilter did. Gathering information about the enemy, Americans, for evil purposes. The enemy is ANYONE who disagrees with obama or is a "threat" to his regime.
Hitler used IBM, obama is using google and other data mines. Your cell phone is a direct link to obama's data base via google and the other apps on your cellphone tablet etc. The apps have the ability to listen in to you call, liten in to you just talking, turning you camera on and off and it goes on and on. Check out the details of most apps and you will see you MUST agress to let them take over your phone!!!!
The enemy as I have said all along is "within". He looks and speaks like a man that is possessed and in fact is doing satan's bidding.) Story Reports
...............
...............
...............
IBM and the Holocaust is the stunning story of IBM' s strategic alliance with Nazi Germany
Probing IBM's Nazi connection
IBM and the Holocaust Read the entire book online here. 565 pages
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Blue Bell Ice Cream Kills ("There's more than just ice cream in a carton of blue bell."
"There's more than just ice cream in a carton of blue bell."
Aaron Barker sang and wrote the song telling you there was more in blue bell ice cream. He was not kidding!
...........................
............................
............................
Blue Bell Ice Cream knew about listeria contamination in 2013 - FDA
Federal documents show that one of Blue Bell’s ice cream factories tested positive for listeria back in 2013 but failed to properly clean the facility and stop the contamination. Two other plants were also tagged for problems.
Blue Bell’s plant in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma had the most issues, according to documents published online by the US Food and Drug Administration on Thursday. Not only was listeria detected over the course of the last two years, but the documents state that the Texas-based ice cream maker repeatedly failed to adequately address the problem before and after the bacteria made it into its food products.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 10 cases of the potentially deadly listeriosis have been confirmed in four states as a result – Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Kansas experienced the most cases with five, three of which were fatal. Blue Bell recalled its entire product line in April.
The first strong signs of listeria were uncovered at the Broken Arrow plant back in 2013, when “presumptive positive” tests for the bacteria were found on non-food contact surfaces, such as the floors in front of two freezers, a pallet jack in the kitchen and behind a flavor tank. More positive tests continued to be filed throughout 2014 and the first few months of 2015.
In at least one case, the coliform bacteria level was more than six times higher than legally allowed.
When you look at coliform and listeria for the Broken Arrow plant you have a systemic cleaning problem that goes on for years,” Marler said to the Chronicle. “You know you have a problem.”
At the plant in Brenham, Texas, the FDA found listeria in two different ice cream products, as well as on non-food contact surfaces.
Employee violations were also noted, as were problems with condensation. On at least two occasions, condensation was observed dripping directly into ice cream products. In another instance, condensation was seen dripping into ice cream molds that were later filled with ice cream mix.
.........................................
.........................................
Yes there is "More than just icecream in a carton of bluebell".
(1) Lysteria (Which has killed at least 3 people)
(2) Coliform
(3) Condensation (Dripping into ice cream products and ice cream molds)
Blue bell ice cream was sold for YEARS with the above deadly extra indegredients because the FDA allowed bluebell to keep making their deadly ice cream when the FDA should has required Bluebell to shut down their plants and clean the lysteria from their manufacturing machines etc.
Bottom line: The FDA is also responsible for at least 3 deaths from blue bell ice cream!
"There's more than just ice cream in a carton of blue bell."
Aaron Barker sang and wrote the song telling you there was more in blue bell ice cream. He was not kidding!
...........................
............................
............................
Blue Bell Ice Cream knew about listeria contamination in 2013 - FDA
Federal documents show that one of Blue Bell’s ice cream factories tested positive for listeria back in 2013 but failed to properly clean the facility and stop the contamination. Two other plants were also tagged for problems.
Blue Bell’s plant in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma had the most issues, according to documents published online by the US Food and Drug Administration on Thursday. Not only was listeria detected over the course of the last two years, but the documents state that the Texas-based ice cream maker repeatedly failed to adequately address the problem before and after the bacteria made it into its food products.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 10 cases of the potentially deadly listeriosis have been confirmed in four states as a result – Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Kansas experienced the most cases with five, three of which were fatal. Blue Bell recalled its entire product line in April.
The first strong signs of listeria were uncovered at the Broken Arrow plant back in 2013, when “presumptive positive” tests for the bacteria were found on non-food contact surfaces, such as the floors in front of two freezers, a pallet jack in the kitchen and behind a flavor tank. More positive tests continued to be filed throughout 2014 and the first few months of 2015.
In at least one case, the coliform bacteria level was more than six times higher than legally allowed.
When you look at coliform and listeria for the Broken Arrow plant you have a systemic cleaning problem that goes on for years,” Marler said to the Chronicle. “You know you have a problem.”
At the plant in Brenham, Texas, the FDA found listeria in two different ice cream products, as well as on non-food contact surfaces.
Employee violations were also noted, as were problems with condensation. On at least two occasions, condensation was observed dripping directly into ice cream products. In another instance, condensation was seen dripping into ice cream molds that were later filled with ice cream mix.
.........................................
.........................................
Yes there is "More than just icecream in a carton of bluebell".
(1) Lysteria (Which has killed at least 3 people)
(2) Coliform
(3) Condensation (Dripping into ice cream products and ice cream molds)
Blue bell ice cream was sold for YEARS with the above deadly extra indegredients because the FDA allowed bluebell to keep making their deadly ice cream when the FDA should has required Bluebell to shut down their plants and clean the lysteria from their manufacturing machines etc.
Bottom line: The FDA is also responsible for at least 3 deaths from blue bell ice cream!
"There's more than just ice cream in a carton of blue bell."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
