This is a little long but well worth the read.
——-

‘Let me explain the problem science has with religion.’

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?’

‘Yes sir,’ the student says.

‘So you believe in God?’

‘Absolutely. ‘

‘Is God good?’

‘Sure! God’s good.’

‘Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?’

‘Yes’

‘Are you good or evil?’

‘The Bible says I’m evil.’

The professor grins knowingly.. ‘Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. ‘Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?’

‘Yes sir, I would.’

‘So you’re good…!’

‘I wouldn’t say that.’

‘But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.’

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. ‘He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?’

The student remains silent. ‘No, you can’t, can you?’ the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. ‘Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?’

‘Er..yes,’ the student says.

‘Is Satan good?’

The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. ‘No.’

‘Then where does Satan come from?’

The student falters. ‘From God’

‘That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?’

‘Yes, sir..’

‘Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?’

‘Yes’

‘So who created evil?’ The professor continued, ‘If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.’

Again, the student has no answer. ‘Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?’

The student squirms on his feet. ‘Yes.’

‘So who created them?’

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. ‘Who created them?’ There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. ‘Tell me,’ he continues onto another student. ‘Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?’

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. ‘Yes, professor, I do.’

The old man stops pacing. ‘Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?’

‘No sir.. I’ve never seen Him..’

‘Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?’

‘No, sir, I have not..’

‘Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?’

‘No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.’

‘Yet you still believe in him?’

‘Yes’

‘According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist… What do you say to that, son?’

‘Nothing,’ the student replies.. ‘I only have my faith.’

‘Yes, faith,’ the professor repeats. ‘And that is the problem science has with God.. There is no evidence, only faith.’

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. ‘Professor, is there such thing as heat? ‘

‘ Yes.’

‘And is there such a thing as cold?’

‘Yes, son, there’s cold too.’

‘No sir, there isn’t.’

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. ‘You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.’

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

‘What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?’

‘Yes,’ the professor replies without hesitation.. ‘What is night if it isn’t darkness?’

‘You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?’

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. ‘So what point are you making, young man?’

‘Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.’

The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. ‘Flawed? Can you explain how?’

‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains.. ‘You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.’ ‘It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.’ ‘Now tell me, professor….. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?’

‘If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.’

‘Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?’

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed..

‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. ‘To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.’ The student looks around the room. ‘Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?’ The class breaks out into laughter. ‘Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.’ ‘So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. ‘I Guess you’ll have to take them on faith.’

‘Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,’ the student continues. ‘Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?’ Now uncertain, the professor responds, ‘Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.’

To this the student replied, ‘Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’

The professor sat down.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-John_Adams.

How To WIN- even if the other side wont admit it!
By, John_Adams.
January 15, 2010

I’ve been doing a lot of talking, listening and debating lately…and, as we all know, there are certain people that are impervious to reason, logic, stats, facts, quotes and plain ol’ common-sense…these people are LIBERALS.

Now, they may claim some other appellation, like, “Moderate”, Centrist, Populist, “Maverick”, Independent, Libertarian…but when I listened to their views, their arguments and asked them questions, well, it turns out that they are nothing but Libs who’ve gone deep undercover. Bogus alternative titles notwithstanding, they ARE LIBERALS.

I’ve decided to share some “Pointers-From-Uncle-Larry” with you all. These, hopefully, will help you to have some understanding of the “mind” of a Lib, HOW to debate one and WIN- even if they wont admit it, AND HOW to NOT get suckered into a lose-lose argument with a LOSER/LIBERAL.

First, let me set forth some “Conservative Maxims”:

1. Be TRUE to WHAT is Right.
Don’t get side-tracked into rabbit-chasing and majoring-on-minor details. Don’t get into a battle over dueling personalities where they say their “quotes are better than your quotes”.

2. It more important to KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT than to argue WHO is right.
Stick with facts, quotes, stats from reliable sources.

3. Don’t argue “bias”. EVERYONE and EVERY SOURCE has a bias. So DON’T argue that.
Again, stick to WHAT IS Right- the facts, details, science, research, quotes…stick with Facts.

4. Don’t let a Leftist sucker into looking for a “neutral” source- THERE AINT ANY.
See “Maxim #3″, every source will have a bias- some are more subtle than others- so don’t fall for the “neutral site/source” trick. INSIST, RATHER, ON SEEKING AND FINDING WHAT IS RIGHT. Stick to FACTS.

Now, having said that let me lay out a current example of just how sources ARE BIASED AND NOT “neutral”.

I’m not any kind of fan of the Rev. Pat Robertson, but when the current flak over the “Haitian pact with the Devil” came up 2-3 days ago my curiosity was piqued…I HAD to investigate.

So I frist did a Google search of “Haitian pact with the Devil”…WHOOOO-WEe! Boy, was The Left ever savaging Pat Robertson! Yikes! Several thousand articles- and growing- each calling him “stupid”, “demented”, “wacko”…and NOT once dealing with whether or not there WAS an ACTUAL pact made. Hmmm, how suspicously predictable of the M.arxist S.talinist M.edia (MSM). :

So I then did a Google search of “Dutty Boukman and the 1791 Haitian Slave Revolt”…WOW! It was like I was researching a completely DIFFERENT topic! I FOUND some 10,000 articles that told and supported the “Hatiian pact with the Devil” as ACCURATE HISTORY, i.e. IT HAPPENED. Here are some of the links that go into detail on the Haitian pact with the Devil:
www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/revolution/revolution.htm
www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Dutty_Boukman
www.americandaily.com/article/95
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Haitian_Revolution

Crikey! Even Wikipedia reccounted the same historical facts!!

So, how would I engage a Liberal on this subject?
ONE, I’d STAY AWAY FROM discussing Rev. Pat Roberson, “Maxim #2″.
TWO, I’d reccount the plethora of Historical evidence that says It’s so, “Maxim #1″.
THREE, when they blather non-sensically about “That’s a biased site…I want a neutral site”- that’s when I’d drop “Maxim’s #’s 3 & 4″ on them. BOOM! goes the dynamite!

Now, they can, AND WILL ARGUE ANYWAY…that’s when you stop, look at them and ask “What color is the sky where you live?!!” …and then walk away!

YOU’VE WON! Oh, the LibNut will argue til he drops dead…but WHO CARES? Right is Right. You WON. Walk away whistling…

-John_Adams.

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand .

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

Note: The Congressional Record back this far has not be digitized and posted on the Internet.

It will probably be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them. Your college library is probably a repository. This is an excellent source of government records. Another source are your Congress Critters. They should be more than happy to help you in this matter. You will find the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto interesting at this point.

Sound familiar?

-TerryCSA

The Conservative Activist

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” – Barack Obama, election eve, 2008

Barack Obama is an enigma. He won the 2008 presidential election claiming to be a moderate and wanting to bring Americans together and govern from the center. But since he took office, his actions have been far from moderate. He has apologized to foreign dictators abroad for sins he alleges his own country committed and appointed a self-described communist (Van Jones) and an admirer of Mao Zedong to top White House posts. He has used the economic crisis to take over whole industries and has attempted to nationalize the health care system. In his first nine months in office, these actions had already made his presidency one of the most polarizing in history.

http://theconservativeactivist.com/info/obamas-rules-for-revolution.html

This is a rather long article. I took it from pdf and posted it online. This is a must read if you haven’t already.

I read the Communist Manifesto awhile back and shook my head. I wondered how could these people think so illogically.

After reading this article I am angry. And I bet you will be, too.

These radicals aren’t about changing anything for the better, for a utopian society. Their intent, as Saul Alinsky taught them, including Obozo and Hillary Clinton (who wrote her college thesis on Alinsky and personally knew him), is to destroy. Destroy everything. They have no plans to make things better. That is not the issue for them. It is to destroy.

I can understand a warped ideology that wants a utopian society. They read too many fantasies as children. But at least they want something.

These radicals want nothing, other than to destroy. These are elected officials who have been at this so called “revolution” of theirs all their lives.

After reading this, those that have been hesitant in the course that faces us, will have no doubt as to what we are facing. We ARE in the fight of our lives folks.

This guy knows whereof he speaks.

www.humanevents.com
Minimum-Wage Hike Would Hurt Low-Wage Workers
by Mike Franc
07/28/2006

Thanks to a determined coalition of liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans, it is all but guaranteed that, shortly after its August recess, Congress will vote on Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D.-Mass.) proposal to boost the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour, an increase of 40%.

An enduring urban legend about minimum-wage workers is that they are married adults struggling to raise children in Dickensian-style poverty. As Kennedy said in a recent Senate floor speech, “Minimum-wage workers are forced to make impossible choices between paying the rent and buying groceries, paying the heating bills or buying clothes.” Their families, he said, lack health care and adequate housing. Their “daily fear” is “poverty, hunger and homelessness.”

The data, however, tell a very different story. While some minimum-wage workers are primary breadwinners raising young children, the overwhelming majority are either younger workers honing their skills in entry-level positions or part-time, mostly female workers from middle-class homes supplementing their spouse’s income.

Only 1.9 million American workers (out of a total workforce of 127.4 million) earn the minimum wage. Most (63%) are women. More than half (53%) are between the ages of 16 and 24, and an even larger percentage (58%) work part-time.

Upward mobility is the happy norm. Two out of three of today’s minimum-wage workers will earn 10% more within a year.

Many are teenagers who live with their parents in middle-class homes. This explains why the average household income for minimum-wage earners is more than $40,000 a year and why only 19% (about 400,000 nationwide) fall below the poverty line.
Hobson’s Choice

But what about those families that do fit Kennedy’s description? Shouldn’t Congress do something to help them? The short answer: It already is. Our welfare state provides the working poor generous subsidies to pay rent, buy groceries, pay heating bills, obtain health care and babysit children. All that assistance, however, brings with it a truly terrible Hobson’s choice.

Studies have looked at the interaction between low-wage workers and welfare programs. Researchers have sketched out different income levels at which a hypothetical family of four qualifies for widely used welfare programs that offer cash subsidies, nutrition assistance, housing vouchers, childcare and health coverage. What happens, they wondered, when that family’s income rises?

The researchers uncovered the dirty little secret of the welfare state. For example, a family of four in Kennedy’s Massachusetts earning $13,000 is eligible for a theoretical maximum package of benefits totaling an additional—hold on to your hats—$31,500, bringing its total income to $44,500.

Specifically, that Massachusetts family could receive $6,500 in cash assistance from TANF, an earned income tax credit worth $4,400, $2,172 in Food Stamps, $275 worth of school lunches, $5,700 in housing vouchers, $6,000 in child-care subsidies and $6,460 in Medicaid. The unintended consequence: As a family increases its earned income, it actually falls further because of the way welfare benefits decline as incomes rise. For example, for each additional $1,000 it earns, the family could lose up to 30% of its Food Stamps and housing voucher.

Worse Off

So what about that minimum-wage earner that Kennedy and his allies want to elevate above poverty?

A family of four with an annual household income of $11,000 (equivalent to what a full-time minimum-wage job yields) could qualify for $33,000 in supplemental welfare benefits. Kennedy’s plan would, assuming no loss of employment, boost that family’s yearly paycheck to $15,000. But, due to the way benefits phase out as incomes rise, that family’s benefit package would decline by $7,000. Thus, total annual income—earned income plus welfare benefits—would actually fall by $3,000. Surely, reducing welfare assistance to half a million working poor families isn’t what the senator from Massachusetts had in mind.

The real problem, of course, resides in the destructive incentives that, a decade after the historic welfare reform of 1996, remain in place. “Indeed, in some cases,” concludes Prof. Dan Shaviro of New York Law School, “the effective marginal tax rate exceeds 100%, and the price of earning extra income may be to leave one’s family worse off … The effects on work incentives and the ability to escape poverty are potentially devastating.”

We shouldn’t be surprised that well-intentioned schemes to improve the quality of life of low-wage workers such as raising the minimum wage run aground on the shoals of our unforgiving welfare system.
——–

-John_Adams.