FLASH BACK - 1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor!
FROM THE BBC:
"The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.
An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
The army command said all the Israeli planes returned safely.
The 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor was near completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak, according to sources in the French atomic industry.
Mortal danger
The Israeli Government explained its reasons for the attack in a statement saying: "The atomic bombs which that reactor was capable of producing whether from enriched uranium or from plutonium, would be of the Hiroshima size. Thus a mortal danger to the people of Israel progressively arose."
It acted now because it believed the reactor would be completed shortly - either at the beginning of July or the beginning of September 1981.
The Israelis criticised the French and Italians for supplying Iraq with nuclear materials and plegded to defend their territory at all costs.
The statement said: "We again call upon them to desist from this horrifying, inhuman deed. Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people."
The attack took place on a Sunday, they said, to prevent harming the French workers at the site who would have taken the day off.
There have been no reported casualties.
The Osirak reactor is part of a complex that includes a second, smaller reactor - also French-built - and a Soviet-made test reactor already in use.
Iraq denies the reactor was destined to produce nuclear weapons."
In 1981 Israel bombed the nuclear facilities in Iraq... with no casualties. The anti-war crowd in Ron Paul's camp are against striking Iran's facilities preemptively because of the babies and women and loss of life. Yet that is not at all what anyone is suggesting. Simply put, the US and Israel are not taking off the table the option to take out Iran's nuclear facilities militarily. That is all. Using the women and children, when they are not even in the equation, is called a "red herring". In debate, a "red herring" is anything that diverts attention from a topic or line of inquiry. So whenever the idea of taking out an Iranian nuke site is proposed they say "what about the women and children"?
Neither the Israelis nor the US are proposing war with Iran. Their response could lead to that but it would be their choosing. Israel simply wishes to eliminate the threat from Iran, even recently in fact, that they have Israel`s annihilation as a primary objective. See this post for more on that.
The battle rages on in the email sphere between the Obama campaign and the Koch brothers. In the latest email from Jim Messina, Campaign Manager - Obama for America, he notified those of us on the official Obama campaign email list that the emails are flying between the representative for the Koch brothers and himself.
Messina is `demanding`that the Koch brothers disclose who the donors are who have contributed the a PAC, AFP, which is backed by the Koch brothers and is promoting a republican challenge to Obama`s re-election.
The Koch representative responded with "... it has tens of thousands of members and contributors from across the country and from all walks of life." Messina wants them to "prove" it. He writes:
"I'd like them to prove it. So I wrote back, challenging the Koch brothers -- the same guys who recently called the 2012 election "the mother of all wars" -- to disclose for the public exactly who's behind the millions of dollars they're spending on attack ads."
Messina then goes on to provide a link to a petition which demands the following:
"Americans for Prosperity, the special-interest front group run by the oil billionaire Koch brothers, is claiming that its donors are "tens of thousands" of folks "from all walks of life."
We're asking them to prove it by disclosing their donors to the public.
Demand the truth by adding your name."
Well, Mr. Messina, we`ve got a few demands of our own. We demand to see the President`s REAL birth certificate. We demand to know why Barack Obama has a Connecticut Social Security Number. We demand an apology for his recent racist remarks asking all blacks to vote for him specifically. Let`s talk about those demands, Mr. Messina. Until then we suspect you have no right demanding anything from anyone else.
Please see our first blog entry on this topic for the back story... and stay tuned!
I shall never forget the scene. There she was, my daughter, graduating from college on the Dean's Honor List. The commencement speaker? It was none other that renowned biologist David Suzuki.
Suzuki came to be known in popular culture back in the 70's for his inflammatory description of human beings as "maggots". Here is the unwashed teacher in his own words.
That was David Suzuki in 1972. When my daughter graduated college several years ago, Suzuki took his sideshow one step further. He stood at the podium and told the people in the auditorium they were animals and that was all they were. He proceeded to explain that when he was 14 he was "horny". He fell in love with nature because he used to go out into the forests and swamps of British Columbia to "relieve" himself. Suzuki's charge to these college graduates was to protect the swamps in their spheres of influence so that future generations of 14 year old "horny" teenagers would have someplace to go to "relieve" themselves.
Modern naturalism is embodied in the belief that nature is all there is and we are all part of an evolving line of animals with no transcendental value. Darwinian evolution is our creation story and there is no grand design or purpose for us. That is the presupposition which drives modern atheism. In fact, it was Richard Dawkins who said he would not be an atheist were it not for the theory of evolution.
Dawkins also said that Christians who believe in evolution, often called theistic evolutionists, are deluded. Here is Dawkins in his own words...
So there we have Dawkins actually defending those who understand the crux of the battle. Evolution is the engine which drives modern atheism. And it is a deeply entrenched theory even in the subconscious minds of most people. Naturalism has invaded the planet like a disease and made men into wimps and women into sex objects without any real connection to their divine purpose and assignment.
How many people, given the choice between keeping their earthly body alive and starving to death, would eat another human being? Remember that God created people in a distinct event and in his own image. We are not animals according to scripture and contrary to David Suzuki. We are not food. Yet in a survey conducted for Mike Shoesmith's book "The Atheists are Wrong" one hundred percent of the atheists said they would eat another person to stay alive. This 1 - is not surprising and 2 - makes them cannibals by their own admission.
The great travesty is that about half of the "Christian" respondents said that they would also eat human flesh to keep the body alive. In essence, these people have decided to borrow from atheists in this case. Could it be that these people only falsely believe themselves to be Christian? Could it be that they call themselves "Christian" because they want the fire insurance? Just in case there really is a heaven and hell?
Christians are to maintain the long view; to set our eyes on Jesus and to always be heavenly minded. We are to walk in a spirit-led obedience perpetually. We know, or ought to, that this body will die some day and we will inherit new bodies, not defiled by sin. Yet the vast majority of people would do almost anything to keep that from happening. Christians, who are so concerned about the affairs of this world and their own bodies, are borrowing from atheists.
By blindly believing the theory of evolution in spite of the plethora of researchers who have discovered mountains of evidence opposing it you have decided to borrow from the atheists.
We are commanded to glorify God with our bodies. Yet our bodies are not much, really. They lead people around with various lusts and temptations. Yet humanity worships the human body. This should not be the case for the true believer. We are to see past death. We are to take and cherish the long view. This body will perish one way or the other. But we will live on. We all will. And our earthly tent will die and return to the ground - whether we want it to or not. So get Mike Shoesmith's book today and learn the truth about modern atheism. Do it now.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
Luke 9:24
"The Atheists are Wrong" is a treatise on the effects of modern atheism in the world. It is the mission of the PPSIMMONS Ministry to DO the Daniel 11:32 "Exploits". This includes exposing the harm done in the name of the philosophy of naturalism disguised as intellectual atheism. Learn the truth about the "falling away" and be encouraged to move forward in your calling as sons and daughters of the most high. This is the second expanded edition of "The Atheists are Wrong" by the PPSIMMONS Ministry.
REVERSE the situation...can you imagine Mitt Romney saying "I have started a website called caucasiansforromney - I am calling on all white people to vote for me. By sticking together we can change this country the way WE want it to be - so get your churches involved and all you white people get out there and vote for me." Would THAT be racist? It is EXACTLY what Obama did with this video - EXACTLY.
In a fiery lecture to thousands of followers of the Nation of Islam on Sunday in Chicago, Minister Louis Farrakhan warned that racial hatred could lead to attempts to assassinate President Barack Obama.
He once again attacked the Jewish people, accused the US of blowing up it's own World Trade Center (an act which would have required them to convince an entire terrorist organization and national government to admit guilt afterward), and stoked the embers of Islamic hatred for America with: "I believe they want a Muslim to kill President Obama," he said.
Of course he again condemned the killing of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. Farrakhan was friends with the slain dictator, and the Nation of Islam's headquarters was purchased 40 years ago with a $3 million loan from Gadhafi.
Farrakhan is current leader of The Nation of Islam - a black supremacist new religious movement founded in Detroit, Michigan by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in July 1930, stating their goals to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans in the United States. The movement teaches black pride and principles of Islam, while at the same time advocating for anti-Semitism. They teach that their founder Wallace Fard Muhammad is a Mahdi and Christian Messiah.
Recently a Canadian military convoy was filmed hauling snowmobiles near Barrie Ontario. The newsworthy aspect of the video was the footage of the mudflaps which clearly indicated the machines were made by Yamaha; a Japanese company.
Some people reading this may suppose it's not that big a deal or this article is a mountain being made out of a molehill but please understand - if Canada is known for anything - it's WINTER!
Bombardier is a truly Canadian Company specializing in equipment tailor made for Canadian climates and produce the finest snowmobiles on the planet - the SKI-DOO!
In 1994 the company produced the first snowmobile equipped specifically for mountain riding, the Ski-Doo Summit. Ski-Doo snowmobiles have consistently been extremely competitive for performance and in the marketplace up to the current day, taking a number of national titles in racing events from Sno-X to hill-climbing. In 1999 Ski-doo introduced the ZX aluminum chassis which was lighter weight with better suspension and thus very successful in Sno-cross competition. In 2003 Ski-doo introduced rider-forward REV chassis, which changed the sport and was followed by other manufacturers. In 2008 Ski-doo introduced the XP chassis, which moved the rider further forward with major weight reduction. The XP was the lightest machine available, with power-to-weight ratios in the Summit models for the first time under 3 lb per HP.
This article is not an ad for Bombardier but rather a lament that the Canadian government had neither the pride nor dignity to use it's snowmobile budget for Canadian-made Snowmobiles. Surely Bombardier could have closely matched any offer from the Japanese. Local sourcing has taken a back seat to globalism. In this regard - shame on Canada. What will it be next? Poutine?
In Ontario, Canada - a province run by liberals - gasoline and diesel are hovering close to the $5 per gallon mark and is expected to continue rising on worries of conflict in the Middle East.
Arthur Neville Chamberlain FRS (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940) was a British Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 1937 to May 1940. Chamberlain is best known for his appeasement foreign policy, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany. When Adolf Hitler continued his aggression by invading Poland, Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, and Chamberlain led Britain through the first eight months of the Second World War.
Even though Chamberlain did see Hitler as dangerous, his policy assumed that Hitler was able to be contained and his aggression appeased by offerings of land owned by others. Is any of this sounding familiar? No? It will.
In spite of the Munich Agreement, the deal offered by Chamberlain to halt Hitler's aggression, the result simply empowered Hitler with the assumption that no one had the strength of character to stop him. In fact, when Hitler instructed his generals to prepare for an invasion of Poland, he told them, "Our enemies are small worms. I saw them at Munich." Any of this sounding familiar yet?
Ron Paul is dangerously close to this platform on Iran. Recently the Iranian government has made it perfectly clear that Israel is targeted for destruction. Yet Ron Paul is not concerned about this as far as American interests are related. Just as Neville Chamberlain was willing to hand entire regions of land to a tyrant, it seems Ron Paul is also willing to hand Israel over to the Persian thugs and ignore the fact that she is surrounded by her enemies. Add to this the cozy relationship Paul has with Russia, a friend of Iran in both trade and security council votes, and we see very similar attitudes toward dictatorships and threats from a afar. In fact, in this video, Ron Paul seemingly blames Israel for all of the problems in the Middle East.
Finally it should also be noted that Neville Chamberlain was a Christian. He invoked the safety and power of almighty God in many of his speeches. When war was finally declared on Germany after Hitler had already made considerable advances, taken much of Europe, and secured Sweden's Iron for weapons, Chamberlain said the following:
"Now may God bless you all. May He defend the right. It is the evil things we shall be fighting against—brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression, and persecution—and against them I am certain that the right will prevail"
Making the argument that Ron Paul is a "Christian" is meaningless in this debate. He's an isolationist; an appeaser. Like Chamberlain, Ron Paul would turn a blind eye to the evils in the world. He fails to see the transcendental reason God has given the eagle such strength. He would clip her wings and create a vacuum that would suck in all manner of depravity and tyranny. He would see the bulwark against a world-wide Islamic caliphate crumble and sanction the rise of a new Hitler. Ron Paul lacks the vision required to lead America. May God bless America by keeping him out of office.
FLASHBACK: "All the blame is on Israel" - Ron Paul
This interview with Iran's state-run PressTV ran on January 5, 2009. Ron Paul says that the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, defends Hamas, excuses suicide bombing, and calls Gaza a concentration camp: "To me, I look at it like it's a concentration camp, and people are making bombs, like, they're the aggressors?"
The Declaration of Independence makes a very bold claim. It says, among many other things:
`We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.`
Among these are "life". The declaration of independence is a federal document. It speaks of "all men". Not men in one state and not men in another. All men. And it specifically says "life" is a right. A right given by our creator. Life.
Yet Ron Paul doesn`t agree with this. He believes that some states should be allowed to take life by way of abortions. He thinks this should be a state issue and not a federal one. Watch in this video how Rick Santorum gives Ron Paul a lesson in American heritage.
Notice that Paul never refuted Santorum`s stats on his dismal voting record regarding abortion. Also notice that Paul never defended ignoring the Declaration`s bold statement that life is a right. This is clearly a federal issue. Paul`s position would allow abortion (murder) at the state level without federal protection. So if a state wanted to bring back lynching of blacks (or any other group) Paul would simply turn a blind eye saying "well, it`s a state issue". This is the ultimate result in Ron Paulŝ America!
The Bill of Rights is also not a friend of Ron Paul in this debate. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail. Since an unborn child is life, and pictures have shown there is no greater cruelty than what happens in the womb during an abortion, Ron Paul is on the wrong side of this from many angles.
Paul has also ignored federal election laws by taking money from a Russian entity, Russian government funded RT - a Moscow based television enterprise. The sum was 1 million dollars according to WND. It is also interesting to note that Ron Paul has seemingly been promoting Russian foreign policy on Iran and Israel. Russia denies any nefarious intent on the part of the Iranians which is convenient for them since they have benefited from the sale and assistance to Iran in acquiring nuclear material and intelligence.
Ron Paul is shady. Even his biggest supporter, Alex Jones, is a solid ally of RT and a consistent guest on the Russian television shows. The ties to Russian interests are too close for these two. Is it a mere coincidence that evidence shows Paul took money from the Russian government only to then back Russian foreign policy! Hardly. He should be asked to explain this. At the very least the fact that his foreign policy is in lock step with the Russians and his number one supporter openly attacks America on Russian television should be a red flag for even the most die-hard Paul supporter.
FLASHBACK: "All the blame is on Israel" - Ron Paul This interview with Iran's state-run PressTV ran on January 5, 2009. Ron Paul says that the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, defends Hamas, excuses suicide bombing, and calls Gaza a concentration camp: "To me, I look at it like it's a concentration camp, and people are making bombs, like, they're the aggressors?"
In today's email from the official campaign to re-elect Barack Obama, Julianna Smoot - Deputy Campaign Manager for Obama for America attacked one of the largest tax payers and philanthropists in the country, namely, the Koch Brothers.
The Koch family of industrialists and businessmen is most notable for their control of Koch Industries, the second largest privately owned company in the United States. The family business was started by Fred C. Koch, who developed a new cracking method for the refinement of heavy oil into gasoline. Fred's four sons became involved in litigation against each other in the 1980s and 1990s. According to the Koch Family Foundations and Philanthropy website, "the foundations and the individual giving of Koch family members" have financially supported organizations "fostering entrepreneurship, education, human services, at-risk youth, arts and culture, and medical research."
And these guys are the target in today's email from Obama's campaign HQ. Here is the pertinent text from the email:
Tomorrow Mitt Romney is hanging out with the billionaire Koch brothers at a Tea Party forum. I imagine they'll get along. When Romney set up his "One-Term Fund," he reminded his supporters "what this election is really about: defeating Barack Obama." One week earlier, at a private retreat, the Koch brothers and 300 of their allies pledged to pitch in at least 100 million dollars toward that same goal. A source present at the Koch brothers' retreat last month told a journalist that the Kochs' annual secret meeting "used to be about 'conservative strategy' and building a movement, but now it was mostly an 'alpha male' spectacle focused on fundraising to beat Obama." After previously calling the election the "mother of all wars," they've now pledged to spend $200 million.
I imagine they'll get along? What's that supposed to mean? Let' face it: while the Koch Brothers may be gunning for Obama it is only because Obama has been gunning for them since the beginning. The Koch family knows how to be successful in life. They know what what invention, effort, and reward look like as a package also known as capitalism; a strategy which works every time it is implemented. Want to eradicate poverty, lift a culture out of depravity, or see the prosperity index rise in any situation? Implement capitalism mixed with conservatism and you've got yourself a wining combination.
Yet the Obama group hates it when private enterprise has the answers instead of big government. He wants to be the savior, the messiah people turn to for the answers. He hates self determination and he despises the great examples which America has produced over the centuries.
The attack is not limited to the Koch family but included Romney as well. That is to be expected. But attacking private firms the government is supposed to be safeguarding for jobs and financial security is a line no president should cross. Yet another one of many lines this president is happy to ignore.
Well it really is amazing the level to which certain people will insert their heads into the sand. Like ostriches they carry around a view of the world which looks like everyone wants the same thing and if the war mongers would simply put their weapons away everything would be just dandy.
And the Paul-bots are the worst offenders; lashing out at the notion that Iran could possibly desire to do harm to Israel or the US. Lashing out at the notion that America somehow has a role to play in the world as a bulwark against tyranny and oppression from powers that would slit all of our throats given the slightest opportunity.
Yet that is the very reality we face every day. Protected we are from the harsh realities that exist outside our western walls. Protected by a mighty military force too powerful to be breached by Islamic fundies hell-bent on killing for Allah. And those who choose to ignore this existential threat do so resulting in the peril of us all. And when the evidence is presented they lash out saying "no, it cannot be. The military industrial complex is protecting big corporations and it's all made up hype".
It is a false accusation; a red herring designed to take one's attention away from the man having his head severed from his body in the name of Allah. It is ignoring the women having their clitoris removed or the daughters slaughtered in the name of honor. It is ignoring the stoning of the amorous caught in embrace. It is burying one's talent and an affront to almighty God.
America does have an assignment from heaven. It is her duty to be the wall against worldwide religious disease and hateful dogma. It is her God-given strength which causes pirates to tremble and fascist regimes to crumble. It is her influence which has caused prosperity to flourish and opened doors for the Gospel to go out into the whole world. It is her inventiveness and rugged individualism which has caused knowledge to increase and the ability to travel, both physically and virtually, which has done this. Without America there would be a new Hitler at our door steps with the passing of each generation.
And now we are faced with a new terror. Iran, or ancient Persia, is at a place of achievement. Iran is on the verge of having the most destructive weapon ever conceived. One bomb dropped on Japan killed 80,000 people instantly. That is one third of the population of that city - dead - in an instant. America did it to end a war. Iran wishes to start one.
The wife of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was assassinated in Tehran in January, said Tuesday that her husband "sought the annihilation of the Zionist regime wholeheartedly," according to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency.
"Mostafa's ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel," the agency quoted Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani as saying Tuesday.
And now a website with close ties to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has outlined why it would be acceptable to kill all Jews and annihilate Israel.
Conservative site Alef has published a doctrine detailing why the destruction of the nation and the slaughter of all its people would be legally and morally justified.
The doctrine, first reported by WND.com, warned that the chance to remove the 'corrupting material' of Israel must not be lost - and that it would only take nine minutes to wipe it out.
And it said it was a 'jurisprudential justification' for Iran's Islamic government to then take the helm.
The article, written by Khamenei's strategy specialist Alireza Forghani, is now being run on most state-owned conservative sites, indicating it has the regime's support.
So the rumors really are true. Iran really is trying to gain the advantage so that it can wipe Israel off the map. It is receiving assistance from Russia, China, and North Korea. Let us reject the obtuse thought patterns which would reject the reality on the ground. Let us also reject any candidate which would applaud the objectives outlined by the Iranians themselves. Let us continue to fulfill our assignment from the Lord.Because, as Ronald Reagan once said, if America fails, the world has nowhere else to turn.
It has been effectively argued by many that if John F. Kennedy were alive today he would be utterly disgusted by the rancid stench of liberalism which has infected the Democrat Party. He would either have switched sides or done his best to keep the liberal disease at bay.
Like Santorum, Kennedy was a Roman Catholic. It´s widely believed that he was pro-life, even if that question wasn´t so much at stake in American politics, like nowadays. He nominated a pro-life judge, Byron White, for the U.S. Supreme Court. That means, being a pro-life Democrat, that it would be almost impossible for him to win the Democrat Party nomination today, since all their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates have been pro-choice, since 1976. His sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver is still active in the pro-life movement, and his brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver, was the most recent pro-life supporter to have been in a Democrat Party Presidential ticket, in 1972.
Kennedy called his domestic program the "New Frontier". It ambitiously promised federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, economic aid to rural regions, and government intervention to halt the recession. Kennedy also promised an end to racial discrimination. In his 1963 State of the Union address, he proposed substantial tax reform and a reduction in income tax rates from the current range of 20–90% to a range of 14–65%; he proposed a reduction in the corporate tax rates from 52 to 47%. Kennedy added that the top rate should be set at 70 percent if certain deductions were not eliminated for high income earners. Congress did not act until 1964, after his death, when the top rate was raised to 70%. To the Economic Club of New York, he spoke in 1963 of "... the paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and revenues too low; and the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now." Congress passed few of Kennedy's major programs during his lifetime, but did vote them through in 1964–65 under his successor Johnson.
So let us add it all up. Kennedy was pro-life and pro-tax cuts. He favored American exceptional-ism policies overseas and even into space saying:
"No nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space."..."We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Santorum is so similar on these issues that his candidacy is a stark reminder and indictment against the Democrat Party and the virus which has infiltrated it.
Finally when we take a good look at Kennedy we see a man who understood the evils of Communism. We see a man dedicated to keeping it as far away from American interests as possible. Can the same be said for the Democrats today. No. Communism has become the Democrat strategy with universal rationed healthcare and government intrusion in all areas of life. The current battle is not so much between Republicans and Democrats but between free people and dictators. Between those who wish to preserve life and prosperity and those who wish to kill off millions and rob the population of it`s right to self determination.
And we believe that Jack would agree with Rick Santorum who reportedly stated that Satan is gunning for America. In fact it could very well be argued that Kennedy himself could have given that exact same speech... as his resignation declaration from the failed Democrat Party.
The first thing we're going to do is admit that this is a touchy subject. We know that people will not be happy with us about this information. Nevertheless we hope this information will explain why Ron Paul is a shady choice for President. These are the facts. This is the truth about Ron Paul.
But first, in order to understand Ron Paul we have to take a good hard look at his primary supporters. We begin with Alex Jones.
He's a popular figure this Alex Jones. Quarter million subs on his youtube channel alone. And how about that prison planet website? Lots of advertisers over there. But there's one thing you won't see or hear at any of Jones' web material. You won't see anything positive said or written about the United States of America.
The fact is on all of the Alex Jones web properties there is an enormous amount of support for America's enemies and none for America herself. Iran plays heavily in the headlines and always in a positive light. Iran has the right to peaceful pursuit of nuclear power, according to Jones' material. And then there's Israel. Many of the stories featured, and often written by the Jones staff, accuse Israel of atrocities around the world including the recent bombings around the world which have been solidly linked to Iran.
Jones mocks the evidence in support of the existential threat from Iran against Israel. In a recent post Jones linked to a site which lists 10 reasons to attack Iran. All of these are sarcastic attacks against the US and her attempts to suppress the world-wide Islamic attempt to establish a caliphate; an Islam-dominated world government of sharia law. Where is all of this coming from? Consider this: Iran is also a friend to the Russians.
Russia has supplied Iran with the technology and material to actually establish a nuclear program. The former communist nation has profited tremendously from the exploits of the Persians. And now Iran is close to fulfilling her goal: destroying Israel.
Alex Jones seems bent on ignoring the stated goals of Iran and it's ruling class to get rid of Israel. He consistently implies that this threat is conjured; not real. Yet the President of Iran, along with the spiritual dictators, have boldly and openly declared that Israel is in the way of the Islamic tenets. In fact very recently a website with close ties to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei outlined why it would be acceptable to kill all Jews and annihilate Israel.
Conservative site Alef has published a doctrine detailing why the destruction of the nation and the slaughter of all its people would be legally and morally justified.
The doctrine, first reported by WND.com, warned that the chance to remove the 'corrupting material' of Israel must not be lost - and that it would only take nine minutes to wipe it out.
And it said it was a 'jurisprudential justification' for Iran's Islamic government to then take the helm.
The article, written by Khamenei's strategy specialist Alireza Forghani, is now being run on most state-owned conservative sites, indicating it has the regime's support. The crux of dossier said Iran would be justified in launching a pre-emptive strike against Israel because of the threat the Jewish state's leaders are posing against its own nuclear facilities.
Alex Jones himself has featured prominently on Russian television. RT, previously known as Russia Today, is a government-funded global multilingual television news network based in the Russian Federation. It was founded in 2005 as Russia Today by the government-owned RIA Novosti.
If McCarthyism was still an active American doctrine Alex Jones would be locked up. Yet as we examine this evidence we have to wonder: what about Ron Paul - the one Alex Jones is so fervently supporting? Is he in any way related to this? In fact he is in total lock-step with Jones on every issue. Perhaps even more deeply.
Ron Paul actually raised one million dollars from the Russian government-funded group at RT (Russian Television). A commentator on the Russian government-funded television news network RT boasted of a $1 million “money bomb” on behalf of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
The donation raised legal questions, because while the commentator happens to be an American, allowing him to donate to Paul’s presidential campaign, foreign entities such as RT are prohibited. (see here)
This poses a loyalty problem for Paul who seems to hold the Russian view on issues. In fact, in a recent GOP debate, Ron Paul seemed to be making the case for Russian foreign policy.
So, the evidence seems to be clear on this issue. Paul has taken $1 million from the Russians - the primary suppliers of nuclear technology to Iran. His biggest supporter is a prominent figure on Russian government television. And he poses as the poster-boy for Americana. How entirely ironic and tragic at the same time.
America is not interested in retracting her exceptional-ism. Americans, in spite of a few die-hard libertarians, know that there exists an existential threat from the evils that exist in the world. Ron Paul and Alex Jones have open friendships with the government of Russia which votes against the US on matters of security. The time has come to lift the veil off of Paul. What's really going on with this guy? Why is he taking campaign money from the Russian Government. Why is Alex Jones so angry toward America? And why is this not mentioned in the main stream media? Following is a video interview by Russia Television where the Russian government is interviewing Alex Jones and he is actually attacking a US - based company... on Russian Government television. What is he thinking?
Wait... what? He's actually comparing himself to black and Jewish tribulation? Alex Jones has sold out his own country. He's upset that Youtube won't give him a partnership which would be very lucrative for him financially. And he's whining about it like a child throwing a temper tantrum on Russian television.
Ron Paul, through donations from Russian entities, has shown a tie to foreign, and some might argue hostile, governments and Alex Jones is entirely too cozy with Russian interests. There is some very distasteful activity going on here; activity which seeks to undermine the unique position America has in the world. Paul and Jones are openly backing Russian interests, both politically and in the media and it's time to call them out on it.
The Financial Times is reporting a wirelessly controlled implant, which delivers precise drug doses into the patient’s body, has had a successful first clinical trial, bringing the possibility of the “pharmacy on a chip” that could transform drug delivery closer.
The device could transform drug delivery and help usher in a new era of telemedicine – delivering healthcare over a distance – said Robert Langer, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where the project started 15 years ago. “You could literally have a pharmacy on a chip,” he said. “You can do remote control delivery, you can do pulsatile drug delivery, and you can deliver multiple drugs.”
Remote drug delivery? There's something very creepy about this whole technology; especially in light of what we know is coming prophetically speaking. The Bible has many "end time" scenarios playing out in the last days; many of which we have seen happen in only the last 100 years. There is enormous evidence showing that we are, in fact, smack dab in the middle of the trumpet days of the seventh seal of Revelation.
According to Bible prophecy, when the seventh trumpet blows, triggering the long-awaited "rapture" of the church, the so-called Antichrist will totally take over, set himself up as a god, and demand to be worshiped. People who refuse to worship him, he will "cause" to be killed.
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
Revelation 13:15
The technology for all of this; the mark and the killing, is all coming into place. People can be tracked using RFID technology and now, using the latest invasive chip technology, can be killed. Unlike most drug delivery devices, which release medicine gradually, the new microchip releases doses at specified times. These can be preprogrammed into the device or triggered by a doctor using the wireless communications facility... and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
A shirtless unwashed Alex Jones calls youtube "scum" and "bastards" and "maggot suckers" because youtube won't give him a partnership.
Jones began his assault by whining about losing 15000 youtube subscribers the other night; an event which happened to many account holders. If Alex could manage to cool his never-ending temper tantrum for just a moment he might see the enormous value in youtube's decision to vaporize thousands of dead or duplicate accounts.
Jones went on to launch into a tirade againstgoogle/youtube for refusing to give him a partnership; something Alex Jones would benefit from financially to the tune of multiplied thousands of dollars through partner ads.
Watch his credibility melt like ice under a July sun in this video...
It really is time to stop playing games with this slimy, disease infested, gut-rot called liberalism. We at the PPSIMMONS enterprise have learned to not take things personally. If we did, the comments and personal emails sent to us by liberals and atheists would drive us insane. Yet this topic is very personal to us. Liberalism is a direct threat to our future and the future of our families and our friends. It is a direct threat to the future of liberty; a foundation on which the greatest of societies is built.
We are ashamed that so many of the people in the western world have lost the ability to discern the difference between liberty and liberalism; the difference between "anything goes" and freedom from bondage. The difference is stark and deal breaking. It will decide the future of modern civilization as we know it.
Liberalism. The word implies freedom, yes, but it is anything but. The dictionary defines it as an "unrestricted lifestyle. Specifically it says "unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor". Unrestricted. Now there's a loaded word. Yet essentially liberalism must be unrestricted. As soon as one implements any amount of restriction the person is invoking conservative values to the situation. Keep in mind that none of this is political alone. The dictionary says:
"a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor"
Therefore there is no limit to the application. Of course one can be liberal in any area of choosing and conservative or blase' in any other area but make no mistake, liberalism is a universally damnable application. It is a life lived without limits, without filters, and without any moral fiber. Remember that as soon as restriction of any kind is in place it is no longer liberalism since by restricting the behavior one is implementing conservative principles. Let's look at a couple of recent examples of the atrocity of liberalism.
In that interview with Oprah Winfrey, Whitney Houston mourns the death of Michael Jackson, in 2009. Houston, whose own substance abuse issues have long been documented, revealed to Winfrey that she had been doing drugs at the time of taping Michael Jackson's 30th Anniversary Celebration . She said she "was worried" for him -- and for herself. "Mike and I were very close," Houston said. "No one have I ever met [was] quite like that young man," she later added. "And to have it in like that saddens me."
"Was he a mirror for you," Winfrey asked Houston. "In some ways, yes," the diva replied. "I didn't want to go down that road.". Yet she did go down that road. The road of jettisoning the filters of conservatism and embracing the tenet of liberalism which always demands more from people than that they can afford to pay. It is a slow, agonizing suicide and the current climate of enablers is fanning the flames claiming one life after another.
In Houston's case it was partying and drugs which caused her to [likely] overdose yet society as a whole is committing suicide by liberalism en mass. A news story this week reveals the heinous results of liberalism which will devastate generations to come. Many news sources are reporting a disturbing public announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and other medical groups raising concerns about the spread of drug-resistant gonorrhea in in the world. Gonorrhea is primarily a sexually transmitted disease affects more than 700,000 Americans each year, according to estimates, and historically it has developed resistance to treatments. It built up immunity to sulfanilamide in the 1940s before evolving to resist penicillins and tetracyclines in the 1980s and fluoroquinolones by 2007.
For the past five years, the treatment options recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been limited to third-generation cephalosporins.
But a study published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine warns that those drugs are becoming rapidly less effective in combating gonorrhea.
From 2006 to the first six months of 2011, the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) -- a measure of how much of an antibiotic is needed to stifle bacteria growth -- for an oral cephalosporin made a drastic jump from 0.1 percent in 2006 to 1.7 percent, the study said.
A lower MIC is an indication of a better antibiotic and CDC recommendations were changed in the past when that number exceeded five percent for previous gonorrhea antidotes. But the study said that as of now there are no alternative treatments to fight gonorrhea on the horizon.
Liberalism, when applied to sexuality, has given us this plague. Along with this there is CDC information available showing that AIDS is also primarily spread through men having sex with men, or liberalism cleverly disguised as love.
Liberty, on the other hand, is true freedom. It embraces the restrictions and filters which enable us to remain free from addiction, gonorrhea, and AIDS. The celibacy until marriage and faithfulness during marriage message is liberty, it is freedom, and it promises many things; one of which that it dramatically reduces the risk of all groups of sexually transmitted disease. This is the message to be taken seriously folks. One man, one woman, dress respectfully, be of sound mind, all that old-fashioned stuff that keeps people alive util a ripe old age.
One thing is for certain, this whole liberalism thing ain`t workin`. And it`s time to get ugly about this. It`s time to take the gloves off and realize this is not a game. This is not a topic of discussion anymore. Liberalism is a flat-out acceptance that the Bible is a lie and the Devil knows better than God. It`s not like we were without warning. We`ve known all along what sin is and what the consequences are. Yet the full-on embrace of unrestricted sinfulness we now call liberalism has been allowed to run rampant through the streets of America, Canada, and Europe. Now it`s time to pay the piper. And his fee will cost you your life.
Get Mike Shoesmith`s book `Fast Track to Freedom` NOW to learn the truth about addiction and how to break free. Do it today.
This is the latest offering from the official Obama campaign website email.
Well speculate no more, and let's face it - there has been a great deal of speculation on whether or not Joe Biden would be on the 2012 ticket with Barack Obama. Many thought her highness Hillary would get the nod from the "anointed one" but it looks like Mr. Biden gets the approval for another four years of media blunders, cursing off camera, falling asleep during speeches, and the rest of the Vice-Presidential stuff we've seen from him the last three years.
And yet this really is no big surprise since it does give credence to a theory floating around out there - that Biden was chosen because no matter how bad Barack looks, people will think of Joe Biden as President every time the word "impeachment" comes up and honestly, folks, it really is a compelling incentive to keep giving Obama another chance. Vote the bums out!
What do Whitney Houston, Christopher Hitchens, Heath Ledger, Michael Jackson and Rock Hudson all have in common? They all committed suicide by Liberalism. Of course that list is extremely long, isn't it?
Liberalism, as defined by the dictionary, is an "unrestricted lifestyle".
Many experts have boldly gone so far as to say liberalism is a mental disorder. A careful examination seems to confirm this diagnosis.
So here we have yet another case of liberalism claiming another victim. Whitney Houston jettisoned the restrictions we all need to live a healthy life. The more she embraced the unrestricted life embodied in liberalism, the deeper she fell into the depths of addiction and lack of control.
Like Rock Hudson who dabbled with the strange affections of other men or Christopher Hitchens who gambled his life away, in his own words, with too many cigarettes, adult beverages, and what have you, Whitney Houston fell victim to the unrestricted lifestyle which has claimed the lives of so many of her fellow closeted patients.
And so we bid a sad farewell to another victim of the cruel disease called liberalism. With this we also call out those who remain that they finally embrace the sound judgement found in conservative values. Because the facts of life are conservative and the price for shedding the restrictions found therein is too high to pay, even for the wealthiest among us.
Note: This is not a personal attack against Whitney Houston but rather an indictment against those who indoctrinated her into the culture of degenerate liberal lifestyle choices.
The Bible tells us we all have a choice between life and death... and then suggests that we choose life. What will you choose?
We know we're a small group, but we're right, we're passionate about conservatism, and we're growing. And now we've decided to make an endorsement for the American primary GOP elections being held in the US.
Why? Because in spite of the arrogant snobbery of many Canadians large numbers of us realize that the US has been the bulwark which holds much of the world's evil in check and in many cases, check mate. Pay close attention to the drama unfolding in the Middle East, especially when comparing the American battle ships to the Iranian ones and you soon realize the scope of contrast between the two. Why, the mere lowering of an American anchor would be enough, I dare say, to crush the largest of the Persian fleet.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a proud "Canuck"; proud of our culture and history of rugged individualism. Proud of our landscape as I drive the Trans Canada Hi way. Proud of our inventiveness and proud of our diversity. But I am also proud of our intelligence, insight, and ability to foster healthy and respectful as well as respected relationships with other nations.
There is no shame in admitting that, for the sake of embracing the reality of global tension and conflict, we have had an outstanding relationship with a protector; almost a kind of body guard if you will. There are many who could not say this. Israel, for example, is literally surrounded on all sides by enemies who have tried to wipe her out and will likely do so again. South Korea would be over run by the North if they dropped their guard by only a little.
Yet being the neighbor to the world's only super power has afforded Canadians a luxurious lifestyle. Eighty percent of the population lives withing one hundred miles of the border because Americans buy our stuff. If the USA folds up Canadians do as well. As a small business man I have known the intimate relationship we have with the US economy. Sure, attempts are being made to decouple from it but honestly, even if Canada does broker a deal with China or anyone else, where do the Asians get their prosperity from if not from the US? If Americans aren't buying Chinese-made goods then they fold up as well.
So with that brief opining on the reasons for a Canadian endorsement interest in American elections let's take a look at the candidates; four of them at least. Ron Paul has no shortage of passionate supporters. Yet he has expressed certain isolationist leanings. Is this the best scenario for Canada? If N. Korea decides to launch an offensive against Canadian shores via long-range missiles (or whatever) could we count on Ron Paul's administration to help out? According to him we ought to be self-sufficient. We, along with Israel, should be able to defend ourselves. In fact there is video documentation of Ron Paul defending Iran's right to possess nuclear weapons. Israel could not count on the US under Ron Paul to defend her and it is in the world's interest to keep Israel protected, folks. Even if you don't adhere to the biblical significance of Israel being in the land, the Islamists have a world-wide edict to establish a caliphate, a planet on which sharia law is in place and there needs to be powers in place to prevent that from happening. If you don't see the significance of this then, for the sake of the rest of us who do, stay home on voting day.
Newt Gingrich: the man with too much baggage. Sure, he gets it on many levels. Yet considering the extreme negative polling coming from the ladies, his alleged unethical financial dealings, and his grandiose arrogance, we have ruled him out. Again: too much baggage.
The Front runner, Mitt Romney. He's got style, good looks, lots of money, and great oratory ability. Yet the attacks against him now are nothing compared with the deluge that awaits him. Once it is revealed that Romney could actually run as Vice President under Obama according to his record, which is going to get a lot more scrutiny to say the least, he may not seem so appealing. Add to that the personal beliefs he holds like the anti-Christian Mormon tenet which teaches that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers and you've got yourself a recipe for keeping Bible-believing Christians home in November thereby handing Obama four more years.
So, though not a perfect choice, Santorum has been consistently conservative. Yes, he's had a cozy relationship with Washington yet that's where it all happens anyway, folks. Let's face it, Obama has done a great job demonizing lobby groups and yet - is every lobbyist cause evil? Of course not. American politics requires someone familiar with the system and who can navigate it. Being conservative doesn't mean being anti-Washington. That mentality has to be taken off the table. At least until they move the White House.
So even though this is no ordinary press release it is our endorsement. God bless you Rick Santorum... and God speed. To join us please visit our facebook page today.
From the PPSIMMONS Youtube channel! Breaking news you have to watch... and even then it will be hard to believe what the President is doing with American tax dollars. Obama administration aiding terrorists overseas. Please watch and share with everyone you can.
In today's email from the official campaign headquarters Barack Obama himself addressed the sheeple in a plea for money. He reminisced about the past remarking specifically on an experiment which, according to him began 5 years ago.
"Five years ago today, a few thousand of us gathered in Springfield, Illinois, to launch an improbable campaign for president"
The president goes on to plead with the readers to help him in "making the kind of change we believe in". And in this plea he admits what many of us have known for a long time. Obama is not happy with America and the goal all along has been to change it, to mold it into the liberal image with him at the top as messiah. Obama actually admits:
"From the very start this has been an experiment in our political process, testing whether ordinary people really can still come together to change this country"
For the first time in Michelle Obama's life she is proud of her country, in her own words. Prior to her baby's daddy becoming ruler of the free world she, according to her, had nothing to be proud of regarding the USA. And now the experiment is well under way. To change America into a country Michelle and her liberal friends can be proud of.
America has much to be proud of. She doesn't need experimental change. She needs revitalized constitutional conservatism. She needs the vision of the founders taken out of the oval office garbage can and it begins with the removal of the one who threw it in there.
Late last night an email went out from Barackobama.com - the official website for the campaign to re-elect Barack Obama. It's been known for some time that Obama and his team have been indirectly taking money from the political action committees he has so vehemently opposed in public. But now the pretense is all but gone.
Jim Messsina, Obama's campaign director, is now openly admitting that they are in full support of "Priorities USA", the Super PAC they hope can help neutralize the avalanche of special-interest spending to defeat President Obama.
The justification:
We decided to do this because we can't afford for the work you're doing in your communities, and the grassroots donations you give to support it, to be destroyed by hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads.
So, Obama and his team are now openly reversing their stance on big money donor groups because of the needs of the people. How nice to have the sheep to blame for the hypocrisy. Messina goes on to write in last night's email that:
The stakes are too important to play by two different sets of rules. If we fail to act, we concede this election to a small group of powerful people intent on removing the President at any cost.
So let's see if we have this right. Obama was morally repulsed by the "super pacs" and their ability to raise large amounts of money for a candidate and even went so far as to say he wouldn't do it himself and now, because of the needs of the people, it has become morally acceptable to directly support them? Sounds an awful lot like his stance on "gay" marriage - first he was in favor of the man-woman only position and now, only a short three years later, he has totally changed his mind. Can Barack Obama be trusted on anything? It's a rhetorical question.
Two HUGE Stories out of Baylor University this week have exposed a disturbing trend in the academic world.
Associated Press is reporting that colleges have spent billions on financial aid for high-scoring students who don't actually need the money, motivated at least partly by the quest for rankings glory.
It was a college, Baylor University, that paid students it had already accepted to retake the SAT exam in a transparent ploy to boost the average scores it could report. It's colleges that have awarded bonuses to presidents who lift their school a few slots.
And it's colleges that occasionally get caught in the kind of cheating you might expect in sports or on Wall Street, but which seems especially ignominious coming from professional educators.
The latest example came last week at Claremont McKenna, a highly regarded California liberal arts college where a senior administrator resigned after acknowledging he falsified college entrance exam scores for years to rankings publications such as US News.
Even though Baylor has been caught up in this there are glimmers of truth coming out of that particular University, perhaps not coincidentally. This week The Institute for Creation Research is reporting that in a recent paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism," Baylor University Medical Center surgeon Joseph Kuhn described serious problems with Darwinian evolution. He first described how life could not possibly have come from chemicals alone, since the information residing in DNA required an input from outside of nature.
He then addressed Darwinism's inability to account for the all-or-nothing structure of cellular systems, including the human body. As a medical doctor, Kuhn not only knows the general arrangement of the human body's visible parts, he also understands the interrelated biochemical systems that sustain and regulate all of those parts. He recognized that the human body contains an all-or-nothing system in which its core parts and biochemicals must exist all at once for the body to function.
Biochemist Michael Behe named these all-or-nothing systems "irreducibly complex." Removing a single core part from one of these systems keeps the entire system from working, and this implies that the system was initially built with all of its parts intact.
This is exactly what researchers expect to see if God purposely created living systems, rather than if natural processes accidentally built living systems bit-by-bit—as Darwinian philosophy maintains.
Kuhn cited the work of another medical doctor, Geoffrey Simmons, who described 17 "all or nothing" human body systems. These combine with many others to form the entire human body—a system of systems—that is irreducible at many levels, from gross anatomy to biochemistry. For example, just as a woman would die without her heart, she would also die without the vital blood biochemical hemoglobin.
But even an intact heart and hemoglobin need regulation. A heart that beats too fast or too slow can be just as lethal as having no heart, and a body that produces too much or too little hemoglobin can be equally unhealthy. Thus, the systems that regulate heartbeats and hemoglobin must also have been present from the beginning.
Kuhn wrote that "virtually every aspect of human physiology has regulatory elements, feedback loops, and developmental components that require thousands of interacting genes leading to specified protein expression." Thus, "the human body represents an irreducibly complex system on a cellular and an organ/system basis."
Evolution has no proven explanations for the origin of just one irreducibly complex system, let alone the interdependent web of irreducible systems that comprise the human body.
Could the human body have evolved? According to Kuhn, to change another creature into a human "would require far more than could be expected from random mutation and natural selection." However, a wonderfully constructed human body is exactly what an all-wise Creator would make, and He promised that those who trust in Him will one day inherit new bodies "that fadeth not away." See here for full article with references.
In the grand scheme of things, refuting any one particular transcendental belief system like Christianity over Islam is irrelevant unless one deals first with the foundations of modern materialistic atheism. In Mike Shoesmith's recent debate against four atheists it was evident that a great gulf of ignorance exists as to the very understanding of what atheism is on the part of the atheists themselves. A surprising amount of time was spent coaxing the four into finally admitting that modern naturalistic atheism is nothing more than the philosophy of naturalism - the positive assertion that nothing exists apart from nature. Once that definition is established, corralling the atheists into a very small cage, their position is easily refuted.
Logically speaking, atheism once intellectually defined is indefensible. It forces the adherent to eliminate even the remotest possibility that the supernatural exists. Such a fallacy, the converse fallacy of accident, makes such a leaping claim based solely on either the desire to be in control through intellectual means (nature can be carnally understood therefore nothing supernatural exists) or by virtue of a lack of experience extrapolated to the entirety of that which can be experienced - as though after dipping a cup into the ocean one declares that the contents of the cup are all that could ever exist, purposely ignoring the ocean directly in front of them.
The evidence, as pointed out by Richard Dawkins, is based almost entirely on biological evolution - atheism's 800 pound straw man. Because species within a kind are shown to change, adapt, or speciate over time this observation (predicted by the Bible coincidentally) has been co-opted into the atheist mindset to be proof that no gods are needed for life to exist. Essentially this is what we have going on here. As Dawkins has repeatedly said - "Evolution is the engine which drives modern atheism".
Yet if speciation, adaptation, or whatever one chooses to call it is the real topic of conversation then even the most hard-line creationist is an evolutionist. We as creationists do not deny the science - we embrace it. We know that speciation is real science because it has been and continues to be observed scientifically. Yet when we observe the reality of different species of equine or canine we simply look to the Bible and say "ah yes, just as Noah brought 2 of every kind onto the ark we can safely predict that all the species we see today would come from that event". All dogs, for example, come from a mating pair of wolves and when we examine the equine kind we see it hitting the reproductive barrier when horses mate with donkeys and produce the mule - a universally sterile creature.
Likewise for the hero of modern atheism - bacteria. When bacteria are observed to speciate over many generations because of natural influence it is heralded as proof of atheistic evolution yet what we are really observing is one form of bacteria becoming another form of bacteria without offering any reason at all to suggest a prediction that microbe-to-man evolution is even remotely possible. Not only is this postulation not science it is an insult to those who actually take science seriously.
Please watch this short video from chess-master and scientist Johnathan Sarfati explain in greater detail the connection between atheism and evolution.
FLASH BACK - 1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor!
