All Islam is Radical

The terrorists who attack and kill innocent people, who skin people alive, attack innocent people in nightclubs, are not acting out of being a “terrorist”. They are acting out of being Muslim. It’s not an anomaly, an aberration; it’s the religion itself and its teachings that make the actions normal within the religion. Some actions of the people of that faith are considered “unusual” but not terrorism.

For instance, when men in their early twenties marry nine-year-old girls that’s not terrorism, it’s following in the footsteps of Muhammed. Consider, though, that if someone who is not Muslim would do so we call that pedophilia. Pedophilia is terrifying to its victims. When a child is used for the sexual gratification of an adult it is painful, confusing, scary and physically harmful to the child and for the future of that child. It’s not terrorism because it’s not categorized as such. It’s normal for that religion and it’s okay.

When they force their older daughter to marry someone the daughter is not interested in marrying, they are not bad parents, they just want their daughter to be married to this particular person, right? After all, it’s not about love. It’s about obedience. And if the girl decides to not marry the man her parents want her to marry, well, that girl is to be killed in an honor killing. They douse her in gasoline and set her ablaze. That will teach her and others who disobey their parents to be very careful to obey. That’s not radical. Not radical at all. Toasting your daughter to a crackly crisp is normal. Right?

Throwing gay men off the roof of a tall building or skinning him alive is normal, for Islam. They teach that homosexuality is wrong and that it’s punishable by death. So, they kill the man that they disagree with and they congratulate themselves for doing the thing that their religion tells them to do. The problem is that they turn a blind eye to the fact that their own religious adherents practice what they call “bacha bazi”, which is young boys – boys too young to even have facial hair -- for sexual gratification. So if men are having sex with boys (male to male sex), they aren’t practicing homosexuality, they’re practicing “bacha bazi”, according to their own teachings and the way they execute their beliefs. The men in power get to have young men as sex slaves but the average Joe on the street can’t be homosexual or he’ll be bound and thrown off a building. That’s not terrorism. It’s not extreme. It’s normal. It’s Islam.

Let’s not forget female genital mutilation (FGM; which is now being illegally done in America) :

“[I]nvolves cutting the external female genitalia for non-medical reasons. Depending on local customs, it could also include additional modifications ranging from cutting away part of the clitoris to removing the inner and outer vaginal lips before sewing the remaining skin together, leaving a small hole for urination and menstrual blood.”

(NOTE: The article claims that it is also done in some Christian sects, but it is generally done under pressure from the majority Muslim community.) If this were done by the Westwood Baptists or Warren Jeff’s cult of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints it would be considered a horrible thing and those practicing and promoting it would probably be arrested. Can you imagine doing this to your daughter? They sew the vaginal opening closed so that sexual intercourse will be as painful as possible and the clitoris being gone or almost gone will prevent any sexual pleasure for the girl. The whole thing is barbaric, but to consider the kind of pain the woman who has undergone this sort of thing – especially after being married off at age nine and raped then (too young to have achieved the age of consent, so it is always rape) with whatever resulting damage from that -- must experience every time she is involved in the “act of love” is inconceivable. The procedure “is carried out in girls aged between birth (7 days) up to pre-adolescence, always before the first menstruation and marriage” although it is sometimes left to later. How radical is it to ensure that every time a married woman has sexual intercourse it is extremely painful instead of pleasurable? There can also be complications during or immediately following the procedure as well as lifelong medical complications, no matter to what degree they harm the woman. These include:

“[I]mmediate health complications include shock, haemorrhage, infections and psychological consequences [11, 12, 13]. The long term health risks consist of chronic pain, infections, cheloids formation, primary infertility, birth complications, danger to the new born and psychological consequences [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Even FGM/C types I and II, sometimes considered as more innocuous, may involve severe health complications. For example, they have been reported to provoke unequivocal complications like shock, haemorrhage, urogenital complications [12], obstetric complications [18] and sexual dysfunction [15].”

That’s not just radical, it’s unimaginable. Yet this is the usual practice of even those who are not considered to be extremists.

In NYC during prayer time for Muslims, they fill the streets and stop traffic (even ambulances, police and fire) and they do it via actually praying in the streets as well as by parking their vehicles (often taxi cabs because they’re the drivers of) near mosques. They have the right to pray, but they don’t have the right to disrupt the safety and security of the neighborhood they are supposed to be a part of. As a member of the community one should try to ensure that the last thing they do is prevent someone from getting help if needed. When we drive down the road and an emergency vehicle comes up behind us, sirens blaring, lights flashing what do we do? We pull over because it’s the law and it’s the right thing to do to let those emergency personnel get to those needing help as quickly as possible. It’s just the right thing to do and we would want someone to do the same for us if that emergency vehicle were on the way to our house, accident, fire. When Islamists are in the roads and stopping traffic – including for emergency vehicles – that’s not being part of the neighborhood, it’s impeding the neighborhood, controlling it and demanding that the neighborhood accommodate it and give it special treatment. It is not trying to accommodate the neighborhood; it is commanding the neighborhood. It is demanding special treatment, special permissions, special routes for those emergency vehicles and special delays for those needing the help when it takes over the streets. It is not something that Catholics would be allowed to do without getting the right permits and it being a one or two day event, at most. Praying is a normal part of many (if not most) of the world’s daily religious expressions. However, how many religions of the world take over streets and block traffic and demand they be allowed to do so without a permit and don’t move for emergency vehicles? Would Presbyterians be allowed to do so? Is that not radical?

Hijabs are another part of the “normal”, “non-radical” Islamist’s life. Covering a woman head to toe in a drab color (usually black) so that she will be considered “modestly dressed” is only the norm for nuns in convents, and that is a choice for them. The fact that there are mandates in Muslim countries for women to wear hijabs makes it not a choice. It’s something the male dictates and women either adhere to or get beaten or worse if they do not accept, dress in a hijab and obey. That’s not “radicalism”, it’s misogyny; or at the very least, a slave/master relationship. Some Catholic nuns wear habits, but Catholicism does not demand that all females who are past a certain age wear a habit. When slaves were owned in America the master got to beat the slave for disobedience. If Muslim women disobey anything their husband wishes to tell them to do or not do, they can be beaten – it’s commanded in the Koran/Qur’an to do so. Would that be accepted in America if a Christian were doing it? What is not radical about being commanded to beat your wife?

In Islam, rape is blamed on the woman and she can be thrown in prison, or worse, if a woman reports being raped. That’s why the number of rapes reported may be infinitesimally smaller than the actual number. Even if the rape victim is a baby it is the baby that is punished – even by the family itself – instead of the male perpetrator! In prison, a rape victim may even have a child because of the rape and that child is born in prison and the child is incarcerated for as long as the mother remains in prison. The mother and child are punished for the sins of the father while the father goes free and easy. There is no condemnation for rape in Islam because men have the right to choose to rape and they have the right to choose to punish their own victim. If a man does not confess to raping her, or there are not four male eyewitnesses to the rape who will turn the guilty man in, then the perpetrator can turn his own victim in to the authorities and even though she tells them that it was he who raped her, she will still wind up being imprisoned. She has no recourse. He can smirk at her, turn on his heal and walk away from his rape victim as she is incarcerated for however long the judge decides after her rapist has delivered her to authorities. That’s radical.

Divorce for a man in Islam is “I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you.” The man gets all of the property and the children, the woman gets nothing and is sent packing back to her family where her family is allowed to do an honor killing because she has brought shame on the family name (although the divorce may have nothing to do with her actions or words). If she’s not sent back to her family the ex-husband’s family may take her as a slave and do whatever they wish to her, forcing her to work as the cook, maid or whatever they deem needed in the household.

How many women in America would tolerate being restricted from driving a vehicle? In Islam women can be ordered to not drive, even not go out of the house, and if she is caught driving by herself she can be dragged by the car and stoned or worse. Imagine living in a country where you are not allowed to drive wherever you wish to drive, even if it meant driving your child to the hospital. What do you do? How do you get your child to the hospital? How do you get your child anywhere?

How many religions would be the cause of a 9/11 attack, or a bombing of the WTC parking garage, or the Fort Hood massacre (he did yell "Allahu Akbar!"), or the San Bernardino slaughter? On 9/11/2001 there were Muslims dancing in the streets of Muslim countries. Children as well as adult were dancing, drinking, celebrating, shooting bullets into the air because of the attacks on innocent unsuspecting, unprepared people. Children died in the attacks and the Muslim children followed their elders' lead and danced as well, having no compassion for the dead who were younger than they. What other religion teaches that? ISIS is another example of Islam's mainstream beliefs. Beheading Christians, burning people alive, drowning them in a cage, blowing them up, etc., etc., etc. There is no end to their cruel barbarity. Yet, the left/progressives/liberals tell us that we have to accept Islam because it's not radical. I beg to differ. Where do we see Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists doing this? Nowhere. It doesn't happen and if it did it would not be tolerated! But with Islam, it is. It is even excused.

Islam doing all of this is “acceptable” to those who think along the lines of “As long as they don’t bother me-ism”. They are allowed to do whatever they wish, to treat their adherents as they wish, as long as they don’t bother “us”. It’s okay to do whatever they want to their own – FGM to blaming rape on the victim – and we don’t want to make waves or say that Islam is radical in any way, shape, or form.

All of these instances and more are proof that Islam IS a radical organization and that they have broken societal norms for Americans and for most of the rest of the civilized world. Given their history in the overall scheme of things, I believe it is safe to say that Islam as a whole is RADICAL. That’s all there is to it. To have the beliefs Islam has and try to mingle those Islamic beliefs with what America and the rest of the world have been doing is not just a recipe for disaster it’s a guarantee for it! It’s time to admit that Islam is the problem and to perhaps do something that most of the western world would scream against: limiting Islam for the safety of the whole world.

© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Donald Trump is a Duck

Hey, Trump supporters, wake up!

UPDATE Oct. 22, 2018: I have changed my mind about Pres. Donald J. Trump since he was elected. He has done great things for America and I am so VERY GLAD he won! I say this because I believe it’s time for those who support Trump because “He’s an outsider!” to wake up and smell the coffee, feel the cool breeze on your faces and to let your brain think about more than the “outsider” you think you’re supporting.

I use quotes around “outsider” because you’re asleep at the wheel if you think he’s an “outsider”. Which outsider do you know whose wedding included hillary clinton (bill joined her later at the reception) as guests? In fact, their daughters are often seen together in NYC. How many “outsiders” do you know of who have supported both democrats and republicans? Which “outsider” are you familiar with who has worked within the system for the last fifty years and knows half of the U.S. House and Senate well enough to invite them to his parties? He goes to the insider events, for goodness’ sake! “Outsiders” don’t have the kinds of supporters Trump has nor do they have the kinds of Hollywood friends Trump has.

“Outsider”? Right. If Trump is an “outsider” I’m the sun, moon and the stars!

“Outsiders” are – by definition – outsiders. Thus they have no knowledge of the “inside” workings of the Washington elite and the elite’s supporters. If you consider yourself an “outsider” – as I’m sure most of you do – do you have the kinds of friends, party invites and knowledge as does Trump? If not, then that’s the definition of an “outsider”.

For those who are supporting Trump because he will turn things in D.C. upside down with his “outsider” status, you’re asleep, too. He has done so many deals with D.C., with the wheelers and dealers, that he has some of the D.C. insiders on auto-dial, I’m sure.

Why is it that you have the whole idea that Trump is an “outsider” when he has all of this going on?

How many “outsiders” can get the things done worldwide that Trump has gotten done? You don’t get things done in NYC without rubbing elbows with the high-muckety-mucks and slapping their backs. “Outsiders” don’t do that.

Trump Towers is a magnificent building, obviously. However, the people who have graced its corridors and dirtied its bed sheets are not the Mom and Pop people of mid-America, of course. Which Mom and Pop who isn’t an “insider” can afford those kinds of prices?

Trump spews a lot of rhetoric about being an “outsider” and that’s all fine, but is it TRUE?

Let’s face the hard cold facts here. There is a perfect example of what is actually going on with Trump and his supporters. He’s playing them like fool’s fiddles. Remember when he said that he could go out and shoot someone in the street and people would still vote for him? Does that not tell you how much he is taking your belief in his “outsider” status – and thus those who support him as such – for granted? He thinks that because you don’t know that he’s been partying with these folks and rubbing elbows with them for the last fifty years that you automatically assume that he’s an “outsider”. Well, donating to both sides of the aisle to get things done is not being an “outsider”, it’s being a player. In this instance he’s playing a large portion of the American people for fools.

Trump supporters, you may hope to have someone who isn’t a D.C.-ite in the White House, but which candidate currently running is not an insider? Trump has no “outsider” credentials except for the fact that he has never been elected nor appointed to any political office. That doesn’t mean he’s an “outsider” it means he’s an insider who is too busy making money to donate to elected officials to run for public office. Period.

Insiders don’t have to be elected officials to be insiders. Anyone who has influence inside of D.C. is an insider. Trump’s given enough money, done enough for elected officials – or appointed officials – to be an insider, agree? So what is there that is “outsider” about him?

Remember, he hasn’t been undesirous to be an insider. He has done the “run for president” bit before. He covets being an elected official. He wants it so badly he can taste the Kobe Beef right from the current White House resident’s mouths. (Okay, that’s gross, but you get the idea.) Don’t you think it’s time for you to make his “outsider” status a reality?

Falling prey to the “outsider” appeal of the Trump “legend” of “outsider-ism” is not something most people realized they were doing, I suspect. They want fresh blood, new faces, new words: words they can believe. The problem Trump-ists have is that there is no proof they can believe Trump! He has said this, that and the other, but in several cases has already had to take back his words. Sounds like a Washington insider to me! If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck…

His flip-flops on his own “principles” should tell you something about his “outsider” status as well. “Outsiders” have a core of principles upon which they base their lives, behavior, words and political stances. Core values/principles hold you fast and steady to who you are and what you will (or will not) do to get what you want. If you believe that stealing is wrong and that’s a core value, you don’t steal. If you believe that lying is wrong and it’s a core value, you don’t lie. If you believe that being elected takes whatever it takes is a core value, then you do whatever it takes.

Is that not what Trump is doing: whatever it takes? He has always done so. Give to the democrats and to the republicans (no respect, no caps) and that’s how you play the game: it’s “the art of the deal”. We’ve known about his giving to both sides of the political spectrum in order to get deals done for ages. But how about when he’s president? What will that look like when he’s in the White House? Will that “outsider” who plays both sides of the fence do the same to get his own way while he’s “representing” us? We’ve seen what that looks like with the clintons and obama do we really want it again, even from someone you thought of as an “outsider”? Hillary with her family’s foundation and the money she raked in as Secretary of State was playing both sides of the fence. The current occupier of the White House is playing both sides of the fence when he refuses to build a fence at our border and when he brings in thousands of Muslims while saying he’s bringing in Christians from Syria. That’s playing both sides of the fence. We’ve been there, doing that. Why should we play the same song over with a different title: this time “Outsider For Hire”?

It’s not just Trump’s lies, his double-mindedness, his donating to both sides, his lack of principles (how many times has he flip-flopped on abortion?), but most of all, for me, it’s his taking the support of so many faithful, principled, desperate for freedom and relief Americans for granted that chafes the most. How dare he yank your chain and pull you around the way he has and do so while bragging about it and all the while being an insider, par excellence! He isn’t just an insider, he is one of the most inside of the insiders. After all, you don’t get a former president and the presumed next democrat nominee at your wedding if you aren’t an insider, n’est-ce pas?

Think about it, America. Then move on away from Donald J. Trump. Insiders are as insiders do and we’ve already been there, done that, got the tax increases, failed healthcare, failed V.A. care, failed foreign policies and failures at telling the truth enough to know better.

I do not support give 100% support to any candidate for the 2016 presidential race. The most I can muster for any candidate is 60% and that’s for Sen. Ted Cruz, but I don’t really like him that much. At least with him, we have a record of his actions as Texas Attorney General and U.S. Senator to know his history. (Full disclosure: Cruz – 60% support; Kasich – 15%; Trump – 10%; Socialist sanders and Clinton – 0%.) We don’t have that record of actions as an elected official, held accountable to the people who elected him with Trump; all we have are words. Considering his words have been lies, walking things back and bragging, I don’t think that’s good enough. His actions speak louder. His actions are not “outsider” actions, but they do influence “insider” results. Remember, he likes to inflict pain on the little guy. In fact, he is quoted as having said this:

“‘I’ll do what I have to do,’ he continued. ‘Even if I’m not going to win. I do it because at least you can inflict pain that way on somebody, in terms of legal fees and other things.’”

He’s yanking your chain. Ducks are ducks. Don’t continue calling him an “outsider” when in fact he’s a duck.


(Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927, Independent of any candidate, campaign, committee, or duck.) It's also known as FREE SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED!

____________________

© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved.

Watch Out, America! He's mocking and denying something again!

Have you ever noticed that whenever themuslimvileone starts mocking and/or denying anything that it’s exactly what he is going to do?

For instance:

Remember when he said that if you “like your doctor you can keep your doctor” and “If you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare”? Remember that? He was denying the Republican assertions that you’d lose your doctor. What actually happened?

Remember when he denied the idea of releasing our strategic oil reserves? Yep. He lied about that, too. He sold 5 MILLION barrels of our strategic oil reserve in 2014.

Also last year, he denied planning to sidestep Congress in order to do the Iranian nuclear deal. Of course, as we all know, he sidestepped Congress to get the deal done.

In 2014, he threatened to have our planes shoot down Israeli jets if they tried to destroy Iranian nuclear plants, but this year he denied saying it. He later went so far as to claim to be the “the close[s]t thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this [Oval] office.” He then had the audacity to preach to Jews about being Jewish. (Chutzpah!) He may not have shot down Israel’s planes, but he did not support them in at least seven different ways that may have put them in danger. In fact, it’s a lot more than seven times that he has harmed Israel.

In 2011, he mocked the idea of a secure border, claiming that it was something he’d already accomplished. Yet, as we’ve all seen in the last year or so our borders are as leaky as a former Secretary of State’s e-mail security.

In his Senatorial campaign he liked the idea of “homosexual marriage”, during his presidential campaign, he was against it. Recently he’s been for it again.

Before he was elected prezidunce, he was against using Executive Orders to circumvent Congress. Now we see that his actions speak MUCH louder than his previous words!

He denied going soft on the Middle East, but his later actions prove that he was soft.

He denied that the individual mandate in his healthcare TAX was a tax, but the SCOTUS ruled that it was.

As a candidate, he denies supporting abortion on demand, but as prezidunce he, of course, supports it wholeheartedly and fights to make sure that his healthcare TAX is used to pay for them. Even going so far as to SUE NUNS!

So we see that he has a pattern: Denial/Mocking then doing exactly what he was denying or mocking. That’s a real problem for America because now he’s denying something that will affect all of us, and perhaps create a Constitutional crisis. You see, he’s mocking and denying the idea of a third term for him. Which, if he sticks to his pattern means that he will run! That’s what I’ve been saying for quite a while now, is it not?

Random Creation? Look at the Numbers!

By Linda McKinney


The “BIG Question” in a lot of people’s minds is the question, “Is GOD for real?” Personally, I believe in Him, but you may not. I don’t understand how anyone cannot. If you look at the numbers, there is proof of Him. How’s that? Let me explain.

Think of the universe and how many stars are in the universe. It’s been estimated that there are 120 to 300 sextillion (that’s 1.2 x 10²³ to 3.0 x 10²³) stars in the observable universe. All of those stars and they’re all exactly where they need to be, doing what they should do.

Look at the number of atoms within the observable universe and it’s estimated that (same link as above):

“[10 to the 78th power] to [10 to the 82nd power] atoms [are] in the known, observable universe. In layman’s terms, that works out to between ten quadrillion vigintillion and one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion atoms." [superscript not working, thus the written out exponents]

Remember, that is in the observable universe: the universe that we can actually observe with anything from the naked eye to the most advanced telescopes.

When was the last time you heard of a disaster involving the universe (besides a Norwegian psychedelic-pop/rock band)? Unless you consider the alleged “Big Bang” a disaster (which allegedly created you; are you a disaster?), there hasn’t been one. In fact, there are a few questions as to how the Big Bang could have produced a few of the results that we live in today. For instance, the question of temperature equilibrium: science says there hasn’t been “enough time” for uniformity of the temperature of the universe. So where’s the disaster in that? It should have been a big disaster if the universe’s temperatures weren’t uniform as it is considering that an unbalanced temperature could have resulted in us never having happened in the first place because the Earth would have baked, or frozen before we had the chance to even climb out of the mythical primordial ooze. Frozen ooze does not humanity make.

So we have many vigintillions of atoms, making up many sextillions of stars without a single disaster that was created by a “Big Bang” that “just happened” and that exhibits scientifically unexplainable phenomena. We’ll come back to that later.

The second set of numbers I want you to look at is the human body and DNA. I include DNA because if we were created out of random acts after the “Big Bang” and that we are just happenstance as well, then that must be taken into account.

Did you know that the average adult human body has enough DNA in it to make nearly 70 trips from the Earth to the sun and back again? On average, there are 4,600 trillion DNA strands in the adult human body. So this DNA just happened out of the blue? It all happened out of chance. It was a long time coming, but it all came to be. That’s what those who do not believe in a Creator want us to believe.

Okay, now I’m going to throw a little game into the mix. Do you remember the maze game toy? You know, the one that is usually a wooden box with a lid that moves on two axes (ak-seez; plural of axis), has many holes and barriers and you have to get a single ball through the maze to the correct exit in order to “win” the game? Consider how many times you’d have to play that game and get that marble from one end of the game to the other, dropping the ball into the correct “winning” hole – with your eyes closed while you play. You’d never know when to turn the knob for tilting the board one way or the other so you’d be randomly tilting the board and the ball would fall where it may. Correct?

Now, I want you to think of those numbers; the 4,600 trillion DNA strands in the human body and of the ten quadrillion vigintillion atoms in the observable universe.

In order to understand why “random” events did NOT make the universe, man, or anything else in it, I want you to imagine doing the maze game (pictured in the link) but make the maze game big enough to house all of those DNA strands of a single human body and the atoms of the universe combined, with the appropriate number of holes for each of those atoms and DNA strands to have ten each holes an opportunity to fall through that is not the correct hole, and one each that is the correct hole. Remember, there is only one hole that is correct for each atom and each DNA strand to make the universe we live in and to make us as we are.

Think of that gigantic board with all of those holes and barriers and all of the balls marked “atom” or “DNA” and the fact that they are trying to go around the maze and not fall into the wrong holes. Now, remember, this is a “random act” that made the whole universe and humans, so we cannot have an intelligence behind how the top tilts and when it tilts. So, like you playing the single (simple) game with your eyes closed, you have to have a randomizer; say, a “computer” that is programmed to truly randomly tilt the board left or right (X or Y). Considering how many atoms and DNA strands on the board and that they each have eleven holes they can fall into (ten wrong holes; one correct hole) what are the chances that we would have been created at all? Can anyone do the math on that one? What would that look like?

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 78th power) atoms in the observable universe x 4,600,000,000,000,000 DNA strands x 11 holes each (ten incorrect and one correct) + whatever the possibilities of the balls going into the wrong holes x however many tries it takes to get EACH of the balls into the CORRECT hole at the correct time = A LOT!

Remember, each of those balls MUST go into the correct hole that they would have to go into in order to create us just as we are, to make the universe the way it is and to make everything work the way it does. Add to that the fact that each of those balls must go into the holes at the precise right time in order to have things exactly as they are. If one ball fell into the precisely correct hole too early before the others that had to be there already were there, then whatever was supposed to be created at that time would not have been corrected. So, if the Milky Way galaxy was supposed to be created on Tuesday, July 10th (to pick a date out of a hat) but not all of the atoms had fallen through the correct hole in the maze yet, or had fallen into the wrong holes and were not available to be used at all, then the Milky Way would have been gone, missed its chance, a loser. Oh, well.

And there is no intelligent design behind this?

There are between 100 billion and 400 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone. What if -- on that maze game with all of those balls and holes -- the single set of atoms that didn’t make it into their correct hole at what had to be the correct time in order to complete the galaxy as a whole, were the set that made up the Earth? Then where would we be? The universe may be there, as well the atoms for Earth, but not in order and not on time. The Earth’s atoms would be under the lid, rolling around in the wrong place at the wrong time and unable to do anything about it.

Intelligent design skeptics estimate that the universe is somewhere around 4.54 billion years old, give or take several million years; or 13.7 billion years, depending upon who you listen to. (How very precise.) The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that the Earth is about 6000 years old. If the 4.54 billion years-old number is correct, and there is no intelligence behind the design of the whole shebang, just chance and nothing else, then would 4.54 billion (or 13.7 billion years) be enough time to create – totally by chance – the universe and the capability to sustain creatures like those on Earth: humans as well as the wide variety of animals: fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, insects. Was there enough time to get all of that done before even the 13.7 billion years was used up and time arrived at this moment? Look back at the math of the chances.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, teaches us that there is an infinite GOD who is an intelligent, wise, loving, righteous, holy, caring, imaginative, artistic, joyful, eternal, unchanging, omniscient, omnipresent, merciful, patient, kind, compassionate, great, strong, impartial, consistent, sovereign, self-existent, Father of us all who created the heavens and the Earth for us to enjoy and observe. It teaches us that there was no multiple billion year need for GOD to need to let chance have its way with anything. It teaches that there was a mind behind the universe and the laws that govern it.

The laws that govern the universe: what about those? Would they also not be part of the equation? They didn’t come into being just because Newton, Kepler, or whoever figured them out, so suddenly – Kaboom! -- E=MC2! Consider that the “Big Bang” that is currently taught as the beginning of the Earth and the universe doesn’t teach us where the rules that govern the physical actions of the universe came from. For instance, was gravity there to start with as soon as the “Big Bang” happened? If it was not there, then from whence did it come? Or when did it start and what brought it about after how many years?

Do those who preach the “Big Bang” theory at us day and night want us to disregard the following questions: IF the “Big Bang” theory is true, when did gravity start? Where was it before the “Big Bang”? Did it get stronger or weaker after the “Big Bang”? Did it stop for a while before/during/after the “Big Bang” so that the universe could be “formed” and then start again? If they can’t tell us that the “Big Bang” is no longer a theory then why do they preach it as though it were fact?

Side note: They paraphrase an old saying that if you give enough monkeys typewriters and enough time, that they will type the Bible. Doubters say that. I say that those monkeys, given enough time to get bored with the whole typewriter thing will destroy those typewriters. Those who use that idiotic saying do not take into account the dispositions of monkeys, so it is a totally useless lie. They ignore the “law of disposition” (a law I just created) that governs the actions of monkeys. Monkeys don’t just sit quietly and push the buttons that are supposed to be pushed and use the machine as man would use the machine. They’re monkeys and don’t know that it’s supposed to be used that way. Sooner or later those typewriters will all be destroyed and yes, they may have typed “I” and “a” or maybe even gotten to two letter words “be”, “or”, “it”, etc. The chance of monkeys typing three letter words automatically get smaller and of typing a whole book is infinitesimal. The same holds true with the “Big Bang”. End side note.

So now our numbers look more like this:

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 78th power) atoms in the observable universe + 4,600,000,000,000,000 DNA strands x 11 holes each (ten incorrect and one correct) + whatever the possibilities of the balls going into the wrong holes x however many tries it takes to get EACH of the balls into the CORRECT hole at the correct time + physical laws’ existence (or creation?) = ALMOST INCALCULABLE!

Look at the numbers. Look at how much faith it takes to make the “Big Bang” theory “work”. Look at how many theories are used to help back up the theory of the “Big Bang”.Then look at my illustrative maze game again because that is a true representation of the whole “Big Bang” theory, minus Intelligent Design. Think of the fact that “random” plays such a vital role in the theory and how big a “random act” it actually is. Look at the numbers. It is not just a number that is being sold you in the bill of goods that is the “Big Bang” atheist theory. It is the deepest, darkest lie taught as fact in existence today besides the lie that GOD is not real and does not love you.

The “Big Bang” theory is just that: theory. It is a way to deny you the truth.

The Birthday Party -- Net "Neutrality" Analogized

© 2015 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
_________________________

This is the tale of a twin brother and sister and their birthday party. They were turning fifteen and their parents promised them a birthday party – one that was going to be grand and held at a nice venue. The sister and brother were told that they could each invite twenty friends that only they knew and that they could each bring one parent as a safety precaution, plus they could each invite five friends (and one parent) that they both knew. So a total of 100 people could be invited to the party. All invitees had to RSVP no later than five days prior to the party.

The daughter, who was very popular, invited her eighteen BFFs and their mothers, plus two BFs and their mothers. She was thrilled about being able to invite so many and just knew that she was going to have a very fun birthday! She was so excited she could barely stop texting about the party for the next three weeks.

The son -- whose idea of a good time was reading Plato, Aristotle, Homer, etc. – thought of only three people to invite, but with his parents’ help, he got the number up to seven (including parents). He didn’t want anyone there for him since he disdained the company of people who were not as intelligent as he (which disqualified most people alive in his estimation), but he cooperated just to please his parents. He’d rather not have a party and spend his birthday reading in his bedroom instead.

Two days after the invitations went out, the word about the birthday party had gotten out and some of the daughter’s other friends wanted to come, too. Unfortunately, she had to tell them that it was a limited party. She was rather upset that she couldn’t invite more people, and when she told her parents about that, she was surprised to find out that she could invite several more: eighteen more, to be exact; plus their parents. Happy day!

Ten days prior to the party the parents sat the twins down and told them the way it was going to be. Since the daughter had been so popular and had so many respondents RSVP in the positive and the son had only two, the parents had decided that, to keep it fair, the extras that the daughter had invited would now be considered friends of the son and they would be relegated to doing things with the son.

“But that’s not fair!” pouted the daughter, “They’re my friends, not his!”

Their parents said they understood, but they had to be fair. After all, they were both their children and they loved them equally and wanted this party to be fun for them both. The daughter stormed out.

A week prior to the party, the parents called another meeting. It was explained that because the daughter had more friends and because they had to assign some of her friends to the son’s portion of the festivities, those people would be buying gifts for the son and the parents were going to assign dollar amounts to the guests and tell them how much each guest should spend on the gifts.

“But that’s no fair!” the daughter loudly proclaimed, “They’re my friends who should be buying gifts for me!

The parents explained that they understood but that because they were both their children and they loved them equally, they decided that it would only be fair to make sure both of their beloved children had the same amounts spent on them.

The daughter stormed off.

Three days before the party, as the family finalized the arrangements at the venue for the party, the parents mentioned that the daughter would have the veggie platters in her area while the son would have the soda, chips, candies and cake in his area, and that would increase the amount of time and attention his area got since he didn’t have as many friends coming to the party.

“But that’s not fair!” screamed the daughter. “They’re my friends and they want to spend time with me! They’re coming for me!”

Her parents explained that they knew that her friends were coming for her and that they appreciated her friends coming to acknowledge and celebrate their children. But they had to make sure that their wonderful son got the same amount of attention at the party so they were going to put the fun stuff on the table for the son.

The daughter slammed the door on her way out.

The day of the party, the parents and their twins set out for the party venue well ahead of party time. The twins looked at their respective decorations and both were unimpressed. The son just didn’t care and the daughter was jealous that her brother had the better decorations – to “make it fair and so that more people would spend time in his area”. By now she’d heard it all before and was just tired of it.

The party guests started arriving and as they entered, the parents grilled each guest as to which twin they were there for, how much they had spent on the gift and then they assigned each guest to whichever twin was “in need of more”. The guests, definitely surprised by the system, nevertheless obeyed and went to their assigned areas, greeted their assigned twin and proceeded to try to have a good time.

The daughter started enjoying her part of the festivities until the parents came over and said, “I’m sorry, daughter, but we must take from you some of your guests because your brother is not having as good a time as you. We hear much more laughter and happiness from this part of the room than from his side.” The parents started herding her guests to the other side of the room where people were basically sitting quietly, munching on fruit, chips, candies, cookies, foreign goodies and every kind of non-alcoholic drink you could want.

This made the daughter reach her breaking point and she started to cry. When her parents heard her crying they came back to her and asked her what the matter was. She sobbed out, “In your efforts to be fair to both of us you have always taken from me and given to my brother. What is fair about that? Why is it fair to take my friends and put them with my twin for my birthday party? Why is that fair?”

The father replied, “But, Daughter, you know that we love you both. You know that we love you equally. You know that we only do this with the best intentions. You know that we want what’s best for you and for your twin brother. What is wrong with that? Is that not fair?”

“It’s fair to want both of us to have the best,” she sobbed, “but it’s not fair to take from me my friends and put them with my brother for my birthday. They don’t even know him, have anything in common with him, nor do they want to be with him because they came for me! How is that fair?”

“It is fair because we love you both and that is fairness. Fairness makes sure of equal outcome without regard to how it came about.” Her father stuck out his chin, “If you are ungrateful and cannot see the fairness in that, then you are ungrateful.”

***********

What do you think? Was the daughter treated fairly? How about the guests: were they treated fairly? Or even the boy: was he treated fairly having the party hoisted upon him instead of not participating at all?

This, my friends, is what Net “Neutrality” does. Liberal/progressive/leftie (LPL) websites and the big businesses pushing for Net “Neutrality” (a lie within the name is still a lie) is the twin brother. LPL websites don’t get as many visitors as they want, so they will be making sure that the Conservative websites are either taken down, or that traffic is routed to the LPL websites instead of to the Conservative site they wished to visit.

Replace the parents in this story with the government. Does it make a difference? Replace the daughter with the decisions that the consumers in a free market, capitalist system get to make. Replace the brother with the largesse of the welfare/equal results. Yes, he was a hapless “victim” of the largesse, but it’s the illustration of the upcoming largesse of the government’s involvement in the internet that shall happen if Net “Neutrality” happens.

Now, consider this: The parents’ (government’s) decision to decide how much was spent on each child is unfair to the children because they may have received much nicer gifts if the parents hadn’t decided to set a dollar amount for each guest to spend. However, in Net “Neutrality” it won’t be the consumers (the “gift givers”, i.e. guests) deciding how much to spend. That will be up to the government, the parental equivalent.

The parents’ choice to make the guests spend time with the son instead of the daughter they actually came to see (in most instances) is the government deciding where we can go on the internet. This, too, shall happen in Net “Neutrality” because we all have to be equal and we all have to have the same outcomes. That’s what the government wants. If it can have that, it will have control.

The whole thing would have been better for everyone concerned – yes, even the parent (government) -- if they had let things play out as they would have without parental interference. However, the government (parents) had to try to show that they loved their children equally. That love, in reality, was not love but controlling outcomes. They wanted to prove that the world loved their children equally, too. Their interference only led to misery all the way around. The daughter was miserable, as was the son. The guests were miserable and uncomfortable, confused and frustrated; those guests are “We, The People”. The only people at the party not miserable were the parents (government) who were in total control of everything and everyone. That’s just how the government likes it.

Obama: America's Lucifer

By Linda McKinney

When GOD made the heavens and the earth He had already made the angels and the angels shouted for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid. Thus, we know that the angels were happy that GOD was creating our earth and preparing a place for us (as He does now for when we leave our corporeal bodies and enter into His presence for eternity). We also know that heaven, when first created and before the rebellion of Satan, was a wonderful place full of love, light and cooperation and praise of the Lord GOD Almighty.

Within that band of angels was a special angel, a beautiful angel assigned the task of covering GOD’s glory and containing His beautiful light. This angel’s name, it is taught, is Lucifer: a “bright star”. According to the teachings of Christianity (that’s the perspective I write from because I am one), Lucifer was so beautiful and considered himself so very powerful (after all, he contained the glory of GOD, so he had to be more powerful than GOD) that he got puffed up, conceited, egotistical and decided he was going to lead a rebellion within heaven against GOD. Lucifer was going to take over. He was going to oust GOD and be the one in control. In other words, he was going to make us Lucifer worshippers.

GOD, on the other hand, didn’t agree with any of that. GOD decided that it was bad enough that Lucifer considered himself so “wunnerful, wunnerful” that GOD cast Lucifer out of heaven along with all of the angels who supported Lucifer’s attempt to take over and oust GOD. Good move on GOD’s part, I’m sure.

When I remember this story it reminds me of the “Hope” and “Change” thing that the president used to get into office --- along with the other lies and deceptions – and of the fact that he hasn’t kept any of his promises and he’s done all he can to destroy us and our great country. Let me illustrate if you will.

When the president campaigned, he gave folks the promise of “Hope” and “Change”; and many people believed him and followed him. Some followed him so blindly that they cheated for him so that they could ensure his election. He got elected, they got the shaft.

When Lucifer campaigned, he got angels to follow him (about one third of the angels followed him) did he promise them “Hope” to be like GOD as he did with Adam and Eve? Did he promise them “Change” in the same way, or that with him as head angel, the big Winger, whatever, did he promise them “Change” in that they’d get their turn on the throne because he’d give up the throne after a while and one of them could have their turn? After all, it’s only fair. Right? They got the shaft, too.

When the president won the Nobel Peace Prize without earning it, others were placing their belief in him without any real evidence of anything remotely close to success.

When Lucifer got other angels to follow him, had he had any successes besides big talk and bragging? He was going to rule heaven, and they put their trust in him although he never actually did that, got there, whatever. Because of his lack of success he – and all those who followed him – were cast out of heaven. Wow. Success!

Before even becoming president, he walked into some really sweet circumstances and parlayed them to his own advantage in 1996 using betrayal and dirty tricks to get what he wanted and betraying a woman to do so in his effort to win IL State Senator; and using the messy divorces of both his primary and general election opponents to his advantage in his 2004 U.S. Senate bid.

Lucifer, after being thrown out of heaven, and became ruler of this world. After all, if he can’t be in charge up there why not be in charge down here? His ego demanded he be in charge. So to get what he wanted he used betrayal and dirty tricks to get what he wanted. He lied to Eve and told her that she would be “like unto GOD” (verse 4) but that’s what he actually wanted for himself. In getting her to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, she was set up by him and he betrayed her trust in order to get what he wanted.

While running for president in 2008, he and his campaign used a lot of dirty tricks and lies to get what he wanted: control over as many people as possible, something he’d wanted for a very long time.

Lucifer, after being thrown out of the garden and told to crawl on his belly (verse 14), decided that he would start lying to all of the people of the earth to try to get control over more people. He is now called “the father of all lies” and he deserves to be so called. Controlling people – even through lies – was something Lucifer had wanted for a very long time.

After getting elected president, he started lying even more. His healthcare scam has been a lie all along, and he is daily lying to more and more people and is doing its utmost to destroy the economy of the greatest nation on earth. His policies have been disastrous. He has put our troops into greater danger because of his own policies than any president since…. When?

Lucifer couldn’t have done better himself, but he does try. He lied to Eve to get her to disobey GOD and he wants us to continue doing so today. In order to get you to disobey GOD, Lucifer will lie to you and accuse you and tell you that you are beyond redemption, a failure that GOD cannot use, someone who will just keep sinning and you’re going to bring dishonor to GOD because of your sin. Lucifer wants to keep you down and out and keep you feeling unloved, unqualified and unfaithful. Those -- and more -- are some of the lies Lucifer will tell you.

The president is known for looking down his nose at everyone. That’s one of the ways he shows his conceit and disdain for the rest of us. Arrogance is a sin, but that doesn’t prevent the president from practicing it. He’s also known for his disdain of the rest of us. He lays false accusations at our feet while he is the guilty one.

It was Lucifer’s conceit that made him think he could overthrow GOD and made him lead a rebellion against GOD. His conceit brought about his downfall and his ruin and the future for him is very dark because of it. Lucifer’s attitude is begotten into those of us who are not willing to humble ourselves and serve a loving, forgiving GOD. But even Lucifer will bow down at the mention of Jesus Christ’s name and he will someday have to humble himself. Unlike the president, it is written in blood that this shall happen, and he shall spend the eternity of eternities in torment and pain.

Finding new ways to destroy America is the president’s favorite past time. Whether it be with new EPA regulations that will hurt the poor, or with preparing for a non-existent “national emergency” in which he can declare martial law, he likes to destroy as much of America – and our children’s futures – as he can. He likes to gain control of things the government has no right to control, take away our rights and do everything he can to make America a weak, socialized nation in chaos.

Like the president, Lucifer likes chaos also: something GOD neither likes nor creates. He uses those who are willing to do his bidding and takes advantage of situations as he sees fit. Lucifer blinds people to his true intentions as the president did with “Hope and Change”.

Religion is something the president talks about, but apparently doesn’t participate in church services often. The problem is, he’s also quick to try to take away our religious freedom. It doesn’t matter to him and that’s proven by his actions. He’ll lie to you about religion, but he won’t support Christians’ right to practice their religion as they see fit.

As with the president, Lucifer will also target and persecute Christians. Lucifer will destroy as much of the Christian religion as he can: he looks for those he can destroy . Will he get you? If not, don’t worry the president will.


The president echoes Lucifer so minutely that it’s difficult to see any difference in them. The fact that Lucifer uses people to do his bidding is evidenced daily by the inhuman things we see done to our fellow man. The fact that the president of the United States of America is so in line with Lucifer tells me that it is quite possible – I’d go so far as to say probable – that Lucifer is using the president to try to destroy the only Christian-founded nation on earth. The sad part of it is that the president seems an oh-so-willing tool.

Thus, the question becomes when shall we prevent the president from being further used to destroy our nation? Or shall we just allow it and succumb to Lucifer and his demon servant? Where is your “far enough”? Or is it a red line drawn in sand as the president is infamous for using?

Tranferred: Already A LOSER

I wrote this and posted it to my previous blog way back in March of 2009 and read it today and realized how prescient I was. It's time to re-read it. It's sad that folks didn't listen.

Space Coat Conservative


____________________

Posted by Space Coast Conservative at 3/24/2009 12:50 AM

Categories: Politics

Tags: Future B. Hussein O. President





B. Hussein O.'s first sixty days in office have been nothing if not historical. And, no, I do not mean historical in that he is the first fraudulently, Acorn-elected "African-American" President. I mean something totally different.

Why his presidency is historical within the first sixty days is that no previous White House occupant so quickly, agressively and totally went socialist on us as this one. None other; no matter the skin color, political party affiliation, or the size of his shoes or bank account prior to being elected. No previous POTUS has ever accomplished the total sacking and trashing, the thrashing and bashing of the American economy as this POTUS. Within his first sixty days, B. Hussein O. has proposed (in his official budget: Budget), a budget that, "The Congressional Budget Office on Friday estimated that the budget proposal would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade — or $2.3 trillion more than the White House had estimated." (Quoted from FoxNews.com) That's historic.

The problem B. Hussein O. is not seeing is that — at the pace he's going — not only will America be broke and desparate fast and easy with his "bodget" proposals, but his actions are having an unforeseen consequence. That consequence? When will America, after this B. Hussein O. fiasco, be willing to elect an "African-American" person to the Oval Office again? B. Hussein O.'s lack of leadership in the right direction, his party-harty attitude (even laughing at the budget deficit he is proposing) and his idiocy when it comes to any ideas as to foreign policy or foreign diplomacy (twenty-five DVDs for the British Prime Minister that won't even play in British DVD players? Get real!), his lack of connectivity to the American people (when was the last time you saw him with anyone besides D.C. elitists?) and you add it all up to a failure as President already. Failure because he is already dooming anyone who may wish to run as an "African-American" candidate. Because he's allowing them to be painted with the same broad brush as he is painting himself with: IDIOT, MORON, COMPLETE LOSER. He may look like a GQ candidate for the front cover, but in his head, he's got nothing but game (probably Atari's"Pong"®).

I seem to remember another candidate who was a similar loser; Bill Clinton. Anyone remember him? Anyone remember his attitudes and disconnectedness when it came to the American people? Remember his attitude toward the little people in "fly over country"? Remember how his disdain was shown for those of us who pay our taxes and live free in America and love our country? Remember how his wife displayed her hatred for Americans voicing their opposition to the two Arkansans who didn't know right from wrong (and still don't). Look at their legacy. When will anyone from Arkansas ever hold high elected office again? I'd bet it's going to be a long time.

Has B. Hussein O. thought of this? Has he even stopped to consider his legacy for those who may wish to follow in his footsteps? Nope. He's too busy following his teleprompter down the road to perdition and his recklessness down the road to political Hades. He's messing up big time and too stupid to realize it. (Either he's too stupid, or he just doesn't care. My guess is both.) He doesn't care about those who may wish to come after him and try to follow in his (illegal, Acorn-aided) footsteps. Nope. He's too busy schmoozing with the hoity-toity to care about those who may wish to emulate him. He doesn't care if he's messing things up for them: as long as he gets his now, that all that matters. Ask Michelle, she'll tell you. She's on the same road, the same page and the same note as her hubby-bubby. Neither of them care that they are totally screwing it up for the rest of the "African-American" dreamers.

When great men make a path for others to follow, it is a lasting path. One of those great men was Martin Luther King, Jr. His speech, "I Have A Dream" was a great speech. It inspired millions and is still inspiring millions. It was and is a powerful dream-maker. When we look at how Mr. King led people, we see that he had a real impact on people's lives and that he was a man of character, courage, conviction and leadership by example. His legacy is that, because of his life, others will be and are better off. He taught us and continues to teach us to judge a man, "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

When I think of those "African-American" men who have been great leaders, I do not think of B. Hussein O. (although as the first of his race to be elected POTUS, shouldn't that be the first person who comes to mind?). I think of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas (first "African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice), Bill Cosby (NOTE: before the sex scandal was known about), and others like them who, after their tenures are up in their current or former positions, their legacies will lead to more "African-American" men and women being able to pursue their dreams and have their futures be brighter because of those who came before them. The men listed in this paragraph have done something legitimate and worthwhile that will have a positive impact on the lives of current and future people of "African-American" descent. A positive impact, not a negative impact; that's the standard.

I judge B. Hussein O. not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. He does not care about those who come after as long as he gets his. He does not meet the standard of leaving the world a better place (how can a financially devastated America be part of a better world?). He does not meet the standard of leaving a goal for others to attain except and unless they aspire to defraud the American electoral system as B. Hussein O. did with Acorn.

I judge B. Hussein O. as a negative influence because he laughs as others are suffering (calling it "gallows humor"), he plans more hard times for everyone in America — not just the rich as he promised during his campaign — making even those who wish to emulate him to have a more difficult time in the process. B. Hussein O. has totally messed up in his first sixty days with the worst budget in the history of the whole of America's existence. And for this I condemn him to being already the worst POTUS ever. Let me repeat that: B. Hussein O. is already the WORST POTUS EVER.

He is not a great man. He is a loser, a gamer and a fraud. He could have been — and SHOULD have been — so much more. He chose otherwise. That makes him a sorry excuse.