Thursday, December 20, 2007
1. In October, on Way of the Master radio, he said that Michael Medved was pro-choice and supports abortion rights (was pretty sure but not 100%), actually Medved said he doesn't support abortion (and isn't pro-choice). "Abortion's shades of gray"
2. He said on Hannity and Colmes that Mike Huckabee is good on social issues but practically a liberal on everything else. I know Huckabee is a conservative on other issues as I used to be a supporter of his more so... but maybe his record raises questions and Huckabee's justification don't satisfy him, but it's wrong to paint him as a liberal like that. You compare his policies on guns, the borders, Iraq war, and so on, Keyes is wrong, Huckabee is conservatively positioned. Huckabee may be more able to communicate to liberals better than most and may be more embraced by liberals because he is willing to look at compassionate solutions that may violate the conservative hard line (raising taxes in his state and giving benefits for some illegal immigrant children). He may be too weak as a conservative in some ways based on his long executive record perhaps but is he practically a liberal? I don't know, unless you take a snap shot of him that is not fair, in my opinion (see issues on mikehuckabee.com).
3. On Hannity and Colmes he said he is matching Ron Paul in the polls. I heard that Paul was 5% and Keye's was 3% recently. Actually I confirmed that in one poll he does match Paul but the poll data same is small and the margin of error eats into this number probably. On other polls Paul has more but those don't include Keyes in them. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
4. Said in the debate against Obama about 3 years ago for the IL US Senate race, I thought he said that the black population was actually decreasing because of abortion. I looked it up and this wasn't true but maybe I heard him wrong. Compared to other races, they are not keeping pace, because of high abortion rates. Their birth rates are lower than whites and hispanics, so it's true that they will have less influence in the future because of abortion. This is a huge African American issue, which I agree with Alan about. Don't have a link to this yet.
A links to abortion statistics by race: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/10332
Quotes from a web site about the position in the debate: "Keyes was also adamant in his characterization of abortion as a "genocide" of black Americans, citing statistics alluding to a decline in the black population of the United States across generations as a result of abortion." from a unflatering Web site
5. Is a Roman Catholic but appeals to evangelical ideals. This is difficult for many evangelicals to accept perhaps as there are difference in the understanding of Salvation.
6. Also he is not popular in even conservative circles because of his approach and the focus he has. However he is respected by some important people (Levin and Hannity). For example, his behaviour in the last debate, he spoke our of turn and spoke out of anger and he claimed there was a conspiracy against him or the issues. I don't disagree with these claims and he got my attention but it has turned off others who otherwise would agree with him perhaps. Perhaps that's okay given his lack of ability to be on TV and has no funding for commercials. His unbridled passion, intellectual arguments, and many words may He also comes across as being extremely boastful or proud but I know his speech is backed by conviction, good understanding, and passion.
7. He can't possibly win any states and he's got in so late in the game, why waste a vote. Alternatively, I could start a prayer group to pray for revival and do other things like aggressive and effective forms of evangelism.
OK, so Alan isn't perfect but perhaps is the best by far. As Alan put it, if you vote for a winner you may be deceived by Satan to compromise for the sake of position or power. Voting on conscience is key (no pun intended).
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
I have known about Alan Keyes for years. Saw him speak in Washington DC on the mall for the May Day for Marriage rally about 3 years ago. Voted for him against Barrack Obama for the Senate Race about 3 years ago as well. Why would I do this, considering he is not a front runner, an obscure candidate to most, and even sounded like a mad man in the last debate?
1. As I shared on the AlanKeyes.com: "Alan is solidly right on with the issues. I was impressed by Alan Keyes on Hannity & Colmes tonight, learned about his stances on issues on Alankeyes.com and reviewed his recent Des Moines debate statements on You Tube. I am convinced that he has the knowledge, wisdom, passion, and faith to lead the country to renewal and revival."
2. Alan is better for the country than the others, as I see it, because he is more likely to lead us towards national revival and restoration, from a God fearing, moral perspective (that would have been respected in the history of this great nation). Previously I supported Mike Huckabee, even gave to his campaign. I believed that he was a decent choice, perhaps the best, among the remaining others but I seen him as weak and bending on some key things (worth of a blog entry itself, but on his few weaknesses I see in his character and policy). So I believe he may not be the right man for the race for the Republican nomination (I am in Iowa BTW). For Mike's sake, I am glad he's great he is surging in the polls and getting recognition and I do pray for the guy as a Christian brother.
3. Now I know that a vote for Alan Keys is like a vote for Mitt Romney, which is not ideal because I don't fully trust the guy based on what I've seen so far, but it he's at least better than Guiliani or McCain, in my mind, and hope in reality. Going with my conscious has a price to pay, but that price I'm willing to pay. BTW: Romney has really done poorly in my mind when he has been attacking Huckabee, because I don't think it's unnecessary, fair or wise to put down such an experienced, moral/good-guy, and respected former governor.
To learn more about Alan Keyes:
Friday, June 29, 2007
My other thought for this blog entry: I wanted to comment on a grave and significant threat to our livelihood and the future generations' livelihood. Ultimately this threat could cripple and threaten the existence of our civilization as we know it. Islamic Jihadism. Former Sen. of Pennsylvania , Rick Sentorum, was interviewed by the Pittsburg Tribune-Review about this threat and what we can do about it now, to save many lives.
- "This is a threat that is based on what I would argue is a corruption of a religion, for religious purposes and worldly purposes. ... In modern times we have never faced this kind of threat."
- "But I am not a Paul Revere. I am not just running around screaming, "The Islamafacists are coming!" What I am trying to do is put forth ideas and policy solutions on how we can stop this before it becomes an even more grave threat. ... Acting now could potentially save thousands of lives later."
- "... If we don't have this debate and we simply ignore the religious implications of this war, then we are destined to lose this war. And not just lose it from the standpoint of confronting it in the Middle East, but we are destined to lose it in our own public discourse and all around the world, particularly in Europe right now."
- "And the intangible sacrifice is not to be terrorized. It is not to allow the terrorist tactic to work. We are failing at that right now."
- Our energy situation is making things worse: "These folks use oil as a weapon. Chavez, Ahmadinejad -- both have been very clear that oil is a weapon. And the fact is that we are sending over 60 percent of our money out to foreign nations, many of whom -- although not most -- are hostile to the United States."
- Is congress helping to make us more energy independent? "mentioned during the campaign, just in Western Pennsylvania alone we drilled over 3,500 gas and oil wells last year. Thirty-five hundred! We go through floor debates to stop us from drilling less than 1,000 wells in all of Alaska for the next 25 years."
- Can we count on the media in this war? Look at Iraq: "I have always said that if World War II was covered like this war, I really, very seriously doubt that we would have ever won that war. Certainly, we might have been willing, when the losses got so high, to negotiate a compromise or negotiate some sort of surrender. The death that went on -- I always remind people that we lost more people in a couple of hours on D-Day that we have in the entire war (in Iraq)."
An Liberal who seems to be a Secular Athesis seems to get this threat right and cricizes other Liberals (Sam Harris talking to Tucker Carlson): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBOGQckaF0U
- Liberals instinctively make excuses for Muslim extremists
- Liberals must realize there are 10's of millions of Muslim extremists that are scarier than Dick Chaney
- While he does argue against dogmatism, which I don't support fully, he said liberals have dogma, if the poor people of the world were treated well and given enough economic opportunity they would be garenteed to be reasonable and tolerant. Clearly not true with Islam. Islam is kind of death cult.
- Studies say that support for suicide bombing goes up when you correct for literacy, and economic opportunity.
- We are not at war with all Muslims but we are at war with the idea that cartoonist should be beheaded for drawing Mohamed, women should be stoned for adultry, and converting away from the faith is a capital offense.
- Liberals on the side of those that don't support free speech (violence against the Pope for example and defending the violence against the cartoonists)
- "Liberals almost by definition do not know what it's like to really believe in God. They don't know what it's like to be sure that the book they keep by there bedside is the literal word of the creator of the universe and that death is mearly a passage to an eternity of happiness.... so they find it difficult to believe that anyone believes this stuff and so are motivated by the content of there religious beliefs. ". They are thinking it's just propaganda that no really why he blow himself up. While putting down our own religious, calling them loonitics, he says that they are in a better position to understand the people actually believe in this.
- Tucker said "The first people to be rounded up in this country would be the gay, the secular... almost like masochism or self hatred... "this idea that Western power is at it's roots is malevolent, this idea isn't serving us"
- While I don't agree with where Sam Harris may be taking the discussion to getting rid of religious dogma into a more secular society. I do agree that it's a war of ideas.
- Terrifying # of Muslims are sympathetic to acts of terrorism, not 1% or 0.5%. 1% is 14 million people but he's sure it's an order of magnitude or more larger
- Human beings first not Christians against Muslim against Jews... he argues... I think there is something to that, we are in a global community
Monday, April 30, 2007
- My source(s) were questioned because I listed one with a link to You Tube, however, I think this source is valid and compelling (The Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by Martin Durkin of Channel 4 BBC but made from an independent house, Wagtv). Recommendation came from CBN previously and it was mentioned on Glenn Beck's radio show. I have other sources on my spaces live blog from a Canadian PHD Climatologist and a Climate Change organization, and a Christian physicist and a rational faith based minstry called Reasons to Believe. See my other blog postings.
- "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by Martin Durkin was presented as a polemic in the debate vs. the other side according to Wikipedia and Channel 4 according to Carl Wunsch of MIT in the film. This makes sense to me from observing it but that doesn't mean it's not have validity but it perhaps presents it in a way that will polarize and bother some. I recently heard the director refute criticism of this. The points of criticism: 1. he used an older IPCC CO2 chart and 2. Carl Wunsch was saying he was misrepresented in it. Carl Wunsch has a very interesting response about the program (click here). Maybe a misunderstanding, possibly the film went too far, or Carl buckling under professional pressure put on him (or a combination).
- Carl Wunsch said that we shouldn't go to either extreme necessarily and backs up that a debate should be ongoing. He said about Al Gore: "I am often asked about Al Gore and his film. I don't know Gore, but he strikes me as a very intelligent man who is seriously concerned about what global change will mean for the world. He is a lawyer/politician, not a scientist, who has clearly worked hard to master a very complicated subject and to convey his worries to the public. Some of the details in the film make me cringe, but I think the overall thrust is appropriate. To the extent that he has gotten some things wrong, I mainly fault his scientific advisers, who should know better, but not Al Gore. "
- "Thousands of Scientists world-wide have recognized that the cause of Global warming is greenhouse gases." said my friend. I don't deny that many scientists are in agreement of the theory of man made global warming but I know of many scientists that would say otherwise too. Let the debate ensue without what I see from one side trying to close it, I say.
- "There is also a movie called the Inconvenient truth thats theme is global warming; I have not seen it yet" said my friend. I said: " I have seen it and it was referenced in my
message. Al Gore's movie I found one sided and condescending to any skeptics. It's good to have an alternate view in a debate, that's why I referenced it and the Glenn Beck TV special next Wed. I encourage you to see the special and the Channel 4 special I referenced and watch Al Gore's video if you want to do more research on this."
- "Al Gore is trying to draw attention to the issue because it is important. Don't necessarily knock him cause he is a Democrat. : )" was said, my reply: "Believe me, this is not about Al Gore, the Democrat, it's about the truth, and the debate, he's using science I refute and disagree with the forceful political and social pressure he is applying. He may have good intentions, I can't know his heart on this, but I believe he's wrong in his ways and scientific conclusions. He's preaching this like it's a moral obligation and there is no room for debate. In fact he personally won't debate it I understand. I believe that he is immoral in this because because there is a strong alternate view that I believe is more credible and it's not right to the truth and to science to politicize it too soon."
- "What do you mean by "natural explanations"?" was said, my reply: "Natural variations in climate that happen over the Earth life. The sun affects the earth temperature more than anything else: When the sun is hotter the Earth is hotter for example. The Channel 4 video talks about this. "
- "What do you mean by having a Biblical World-view? I believe God wants us to protect our environment and that would be to try to reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.... no matter what the cause!!!!" was said, my reply: "I also believe that a Biblical world view includes environmental protection (as we need to be good stewards of it) but this issue I don't feel is yet an environmental issue it's being made out to be by one side. Greenhouse gases are good and important part of our environment. The complexity of this isn't fully understood (especially the man made component of this). Note: Water vapor is the largest and CO2 is created by every living thing, mostly by the oceans (and including volcanoes). The man made component understand is very small part of a small part of our green house gases. I'm glad someones looking at this but I don't think we have the understanding to implicate man and enact draconian regulation. If it's natural we can't do anything to change things. Let's seek the truth... that's what I'm referring to with the Biblical view. The worldwide, social, political and economic consequences of acting out of order could be very damaging to people."
- "God wants us to be good stewards of what he has given us. There is also tons of anecdotal evidence (from people) who are reporting that temperatures are going up!" was said, my reply: "not only do I agree in being good stewards, I believe in climate change.... as one who knows more than the average about science and loves the truth and I speak to you. I'm still learning more so I can update you and everyone else as I learn more..."
I admit that I may be biased on the side that says man doesn't factor into the Global Warming cause because of the economics and social implication of draconian political action (as I think that all of us should be). Economically I want to be strong and my country strong, and I want to see others coming up in the world economically. If we are wrong we could be hurting us all. Sen. Inhofe was a man-made global warming proponent until he looked at the economics of it. Then he discovered that the science backed up the other side well. Now he's coming at it from the other side which I appreciate very much. My other blog entry address this more. To be presented with a campaign based on false science is wrong but that's what I think we may see soon as Al Gore said it was coming. The truth should be all of our goals and when it's not conclusive we should be open to debate.
Friday, April 6, 2007
While I have a lot of information to share that isn't going to be published, I felt it was time to update the blog. Here's some of what I know for certain:
1. The Earth Climate is changing and we in are warming cycle since the 70's according to scientific consensus. I have heard that speaking heads on shows we haven't had any warming for 10 years and hear it said that it's expected we'll have global cooling in 5 years.
2. Al Gore declared the debate to be over he also said "Our world faces a true planetary emergency"and "The planet has a fever" and talks about the planet like it's our child. He claims that the the leading scientist of Popular Science backs this up. His belief that our behavior is the problem, man-made CO2 from the industrialized nations. He has presented extraordinary doomsday claims about this with his movie, no doubt will motivate people by fear. For example we have 10 years before we are doomed. 20 foot rising sea levels?! I'm sorry the computer simulations are very disputed. I've heard one talking head said that it's only 2 feet (as one who agree with man made CO2 global warming obviously).
3. Al Gore lacks the credibility to ask people to make a change in there lifestyles as he is a hypocrite, as I have heard on Conservative talk radio and on Hannity and Colmnes and CSPAN. Sean Hannity and others have said he uses 20 times the CO2 as the average American. He flies around the country frequently in private jets, has a mansion in TN and 4 large homes total. On his grounds was a Zinc mine that he had made money on which now is a superfund site with mercury and cadmium contamination. Do a search on WSJ Gore Zinc or click on this
3.5. Sen. Barbra Boxer is charge of the committee that Sen. Inhofe was leading (Environment and Public Works Committee) and she said that the nay sayers are like the those that said the Earth is flat and said she's not going to debate anymore as she knows it happening. Then claimed that the science is behind it says, 11 national academy of scientists, and scientists at USA today, and wants to move on to legislative action, no doubt what Gore suggests.
4. Gore suggests eliminating CO2 production, taxing for CO2 usage, and global initiatives. The UN Kyoto Accord comes to mind which is global socialism (USA would loose) which I'm against.
5. The effect of following through with the legislation will be a tax on the average American, increase in energy costs, taxation and increased cost good and services, Inhofe said $2750 / average family of 4. 10 times the biggest American tax increase. The poor will be most affected obviously. Many can profit from this, like Al Gore who has a company he pays to maintain a "carbon neutral lifestyle". The cost of lost jobs and national (and worldwide) economic recession related to these changes could be much worse than anything I've mentioned.
6. We would keep developing nations without cost effective electricity, keeping them from increasing there lifespans and becoming healthier (smoke from heating/cooking by burning dung or wood is much worse than the effect of electricity for there health).
7. I don't agree about the scientific consensus on CO2 as man made because of all the trusted people speaking against it, most importantly the scientists, quoted research, polls. I don't trust the mainstream media, however, I'm open to truth. I don't see the consensus. Sources to come in the future perhaps.
8. It makes complete sense, I agree that the sun is the main contributor to global warming (see the video). One day the planet will be scorched according to Revelations as one of the "Left Behind" authors mentioned recently on Glenn Beck. This is perhaps from solar flares in the tribulation. There is nothing we can do about that with regulation other than perhaps laws protecting morality and actions against the anti-Christ to to delay this event perhaps.
9. What I'm saying that the media, politicians, businesses, lobbyists, some scientists, are involved in a conspiracy of fear based on junk science. Some have to know it but I think most people believe in it like a religion. Like Barbra Boxer "she knows it". People are labeled heretics in the scientific community if they come out against the man-made CO2 idea. Politicians can get votes and funds and get there way using this cause (both parties), businesses can make money for their shareholders (media, alt. energy companies, or companies that want to gain by legislative), all can gain by latching on to the bandwagon. Also worldwide the US can be taxed and share the wealth via a treaty like the Kyoto Accord. There is a lot of momentum and money to be made or lost. The video does a great job of explaining how scientists can get funding if they mention Global Warming and are rewarded for being alarmist.
10. The UN, who formed the IPCC, has been pushing this and they came out with a political policy report before the scientific reports but I don't trust them to come up with anything that is out of line with the assumption of man-made global warming. I've heard that those out of line with that assumption are asked to leave the organization. One of the scientists on the IPCC was in the video. Sounds like someone is pulling the cart before the horse without care for the truth.
To learn more about the dangers of mixing politics with science check out this: Michael Creighton from his book “State of Fear” shows how bad science was politicised and it lead to millions of deaths. http://crichton-official.com/fear/ Eugenics is the science of killing people based on protecting the gene pool, based on evolution and thus immoral discrimination. It was practiced in Germany and help lead to the death camps. “Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.”
The science is the key, another blog is needed for that. Let the truth be known before we do anything drastic but I fear it's going to be getting more uncomfortable to be living in these times. I am all for the scientific process as an honest Engineer and science minded individual.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Even Al Gore said that there was no connection, said that it was a lie, but never backed up his statement. In the past Gore had used the Al Qaeda connection to attack the terrorists camps in Sudan. Hillary, Lieberman, Bye, George Tenent, backed up the connection in the past. New prime minister and new deputy minister disagree with Gore.
Listen to Stephen F. Hayes talking about the connections author "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America": http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev061004a.cfm
The book: http://www.parable.com/cbn/item.asp?sku=0060746734
"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org)."
Why wouldn't the Bush Administration tell the world about this vs. take the heat for not finding significant WMD as they have had since the start of the war? Apparently the stakes are higher than we realize. Goes back to Iran, to stop a nuclear Iran we need Russia and China on our side. By the way Russia, China and France were the suppliers of WMD according to this article.
By the way: I know a friend of mine that has said that the US has provided WMD in the past. This to fight Iran during the previous year during the Iran-Iraq war. I don't need to get into this here but by all accounts Iraq should have disarmed according to UN and worldwide mandate.
While this information is based largely on a single official reported from a single source, the case for it may not be able to convict on, however it may be true, and it enlightening I believe.
Update: The source seems to be isolated and not supported. According to this artical he's been released from his job: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041229-113041-1647r.htm. Wikipedidia has other claims about him, however, I don't know what's true.
Monday, February 12, 2007
The article goes on: "
The experts, who spoke to a large gathering of reporters on condition that they not be further identified, said the supply trail began with Iran's Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which also is accused of
The officials said the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds force report directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The briefing on Iran was revised heavily after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month.
Senior U.S. officials in Washington _ cautious after the drubbing the administration took for the faulty intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion _ had held back because they were unhappy with the original presentation."President Bush still says he is not planning to attack Iran. He has the authority to do this but congress will make it difficult unless a good case is compiled and even then it will be difficult. Pre-emption may not be popular but it must be done if we are going to stop the terrorists after they strike us again on the US soil. The nations that support terrorists must be coerced to participate however the battle is again more than nations, the ideological war is going to be a long war.
Talks with the President of Iran seem to be fruitless and a stall tactic. Once they get Nuclear weapons we we will have more problems. Don't you think they will make it possible to deliver nuclear weapons to be delivered by terrorists!?
Please support our president and our military in our war on terror.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
- I didn't realize how much Saddam and Iraq were a threat.... They had quite a WMD program, chemical and biological, and had pursued nuclear (see http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/index.html). They had missiles and developed a super gun that could shoot 600 miles (that's Israel right?)
- Ties to terrorists... I found something: they had there Jihadist Terror Training Camps prior to 2002 training 2000 or so (probably the current insurgents) the article claims: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
- Saddam was a major supporter of Terrorism: http://www.husseinandterror.com/ and a threat to us, Israel, and the West according to this...
- I found the interview with Gen. Tommy Franks that his ground forces found the precursors elements of WMD that could be assembled in days, weeks, and maybe a few months: http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/040812a.aspx
- We know that Saddam had extensive WMD and had made efforts to develop WMD. The question is did he destroy them and stop production and R&D like he was supposed to according to UN mandates. What I knew was that there was evidence of significant unaccounted WMD before the war (and that is why I supported the war with Iraq before we went to war).
- "No Weapon of Mass Destruction" found simply is not true
- Turns out Iraq didn't destroy them all:
- Recently from declassified documents this year (June 22, 2006 article): ~500 munitions found with degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent (plus more likely exist)
- There was infrastructure to conduct R & D and the ability to ramp up production mentioned
- Note: even though these are likely weapons from before 1991 it does prove WMD did exist
- Recently from declassified documents this year (June 22, 2006 article): ~500 munitions found with degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent (plus more likely exist)
- We should know that Saddam would have been able to restart production of chemical weapons easily so he was a threat if he didn't have active production currently (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/cw-isg.htm)
- A theory that I believe is possible as well: Weapons moved out of Iraq before the War (off the official Iraqi records so we can't prove it). Syria is the probable local for this. I saw an article says that sources within Syria claim that it was moved to locations controlled by Hezbollah such as the Becka Valley.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Some of the gist:
Lots of firsts... first woman to run that hasn't wore a skirt...
Is she qualified? She is a complete phony says Levin.... a phony smile, a phony message, a phony marriage, a phony resume, he can't think of a single reason why a country like ours should have her as our president ... she ran in a blue state, New York not in Arkansas and not in Illinois. She has been running for president for 6 years... one of the greatest lawyers ever!?!... she didn't accomplish anything... she voted for the war and now claims that it was a mistake... she's into surrender.... undermining the war effort... for socialized medicine... bad idea... her policies would be harmful to all Americans.... liberalism kills opportunity by stealing your income and giving it to government chosen programs... like government funded partial birth abortions. Capitalism is not what she wants.... left wind ideologue... pursue there agenda in the name of the people when in fact they use the people... they abuse the people! She despises the military if you look at her husbands treatment of the military... For the children!?
Rush yesterday seemed to hit a nail on the head when he call Obama the God for the Godless. Wow, that's a great way to describe who is in the public eye. These are my thoughts: Watch out for Obama, he's a potential idol for the masses if he isn't already. You know what a man can become if he has power and is truly an idol to the masses. Not sure what this guy stands for or what he believes. Seems like he's all things to all people except he's a liberal I understand. Watch and pray.