The Silly-Assed Consensus of the Loopy Fringe

Watch all their little heads just bobble in unison.

Vic Biorseth, http://www.CatholicAmericanThinker.com

How is it that, in all socio-political contentious issues and in all material science contentious issues and even in all religious contentious issues, the seemingly "popular", i.e., the most public and publicized views, always seem to support the silly-assed consensus of the loopiest fringe minorities in America? From sheer quantity of published and broadcast words, an objective observer might assume, on topic after topic, a clear majority national consensus, which in truth exists only among the smallest of minorities.

Yet, the consensus of the minority fringe always seems to be driving the national bus.

First, you got your basic fundamental rock-solid consensus among the Democrats and Leftist Republicans, Global-Villagers all, that the Constitution of the United States of America was intentionally drafted, argued, written, debated and ratified by the Founding Fathers for the intention of covering, not the United States of America, but the whole World.

Therefore, a Saudi or Egyptian terrorist caught killing people in Afghanistan or in Iraq has a legal right to file a writ of habeas corpus in a court of his choosing in the United States of America, see? It’s his Constitutional right, they’ll have you know. The fact that he never in his life even set foot in America, and indeed was active in trying to defeat American forces elsewhere in the world, is irrelevant; he’s fully covered by our Constitution, and by our Bill Of Rights, just like everyone else on Earth.

And, you might ask, just what the Hell do they base this ridiculous premise on? Two things:

  1. Consensus. Just ask Hillary, Billary, Dean, Reed, Pelosi, Olbermann, Couric, ACLU, Moyers, Lauer, Cafferty, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Times, Time, and on, and on, and on. You don't need anything solid; all you need is a bunch of big-shot bobbing heads.
  2. The fact that the Democratic Party owns the Supreme Court, and the Court is no longer a co-equal branch with the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, but has become a tyrannical power unto itself, with the ability to make our Constitution “say” whatever the Hell they want it to say.

I’m not fooling around here. That’s the way they see it. And it's quite easy to prove everything I'm saying here, even for us hoi polloi; you don't need any law degree. Just look at the actual Constitution, a simple task that is not beyond your ability to do. It's not that big a document. In fact, I have a copy in my shirt pocket right now.

The founders intended our Constitution with its Bill of Rights to be a fixed legal document that says very specific legal things.

Look up our Constitutional right to abort a baby for me. I'll bet you can't do it. Yet it exists, right? Everybody knows that, right? And we have a Constitutional right to privacy, right? And we have a Constitutional principle of Separation of Church and State, right?

These things are not and never were in the Constitution.

Call them whatever you want, but you cannot correctly call them Constitutional rights if they are not even in the Constitution. In point of fact, in the act of inventing and creating, out of thin air, the Constitutional right to abort babies, the Supreme Court, on its own, and without any opposition from the Legislative branch or the Executive branch, undid and set aside legislated, representative law in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and made new law, of the un-representative variety. (I guess our Congressmen were just taking a nap or something.)

Every time something like that happens we become a little less represented by our own government, a little more controlled by our own government, the average citizen becomes a little less sovereign in his own country, and we all come a little closer to being ordered, by some petty bureaucrat, to just shut up and get on the cattle car.

This facet of our Democratic Party-driven Global Village Leftist-utopian mentality started out with the premise that the Geneva Convention covered non-signers.

Right.

Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda, The Moslem Brotherhood, etc., none of whom signed that or any international agreement, are nevertheless covered by it. They never saw it; they weren’t party to it; they aren’t bound by it; they have no intention of honoring it; yet, they are to be protected by it. In point of fact, these un-uniformed, un-nationalized pure terrorists are less akin to soldiers than they are to Nazi Gestapo, or Russian NKVD, or spies, or agent-saboteurs. They who disguise themselves to sneak about among the innocent, they who love to terrorize girls on TV and make them cry, they who joyfully behead people before the cameras, they who torture, kill and mutilate honorable soldiers taken as prisoners of war, need to be recognized under conventions signed by nations who swore not to do those sorts of things. When captured, they need to be treated the same as if they were actual civilized people, like the real signers.

And that basic premise, I have no real problem with. We are not like them, after all. But I do have a problem with extending the rights under our Constitution and Bill of Rights to these people. And I have an even worse problem with high ranking American idiots, of either Party, who promote such lunacy.

Our Constitution was not written for any Global Village, or any Communist Utopia, or any Borderless Community, or for the Whole World. It was written for the citizens of the United States of America. For this one sovereign nation, and no other.

That’s just crystal clear. There’s nothing difficult about it. What’s the problem?

But, that's just the first subject that lit my fire today.

Second, you got your basic fundamental rock-solid consensus among all of TTRSTF4 who play-act at being real scientists, the SLIMC1 and just about all of academia, which says that atheism is the only true and acceptable religious belief system, and that all those members of the overwhelming majority of Theists are poor, ignorant, unenlightened mental cripples, desperately in need of being taken care of by the vastly superior atheistic elite.

And, from where does this bit of wisdom from on high come to us? Why, from the ranking clerics of church of Darwinian Evolution, no less.

One of the greatest thinkers of our era, Frederich August von Hayek, wrote, in The Counter-Revolution Of Science; Studies On The Abuse Of Reason, about the advance of a purely subjective, un-empirical, elitist, collectivist, "popular-composite" approach, introduced into science by a collectivist mentality. He was talking in the main about the Social sciences, and the clear historical trail of how they became infected with non-scientific, collective thinking. The connection between Socialist political thinking and modern social-science thinking was (and is) striking.

I submit that this empirically flawed "popular-composite" approach and its collectivist thinking have not just crept, but leapt, into the Natural Sciences. And that the leap took place even before Hayek's attention was drawn to the Social Sciences.

You can easily prove the un-scientific commandeering of the Natural Sciences by demanding, of any of TTRSTF4 , any absolutely empirical evidence supporting atheism's central dogma, Darwinian Macro-Evolution. Then you will learn that there is none, and there never was any.

Here, in the responses to a quite simple question asked of our so-called "scientific community" you will see the collective intellectual equivalent of a massive arrangement of bobble-head dolls, with all heads bobbling, bobbing and nodding in unison with each other, while strictly avoiding empiricism and any actual scientific basis in their responses. In the complete absence of any empirical evidence, they have all elevated it and they all support it as an actual proven Scientific Theory. And it is, therefore, to be simply accepted and built upon, as an axiom; a given. Because they collectively said so, see?

The question regards the existence of any empirical evidence whatsoever supporting Darwin's universally recognized scientific theory of macro-evolution, meaning, evolution between species.

The first response to the question, invariably, will involve scientific consensus. The statement will be made, quite correctly, that

all credible scientists today agree that theory of the evolution of species is the correct scientific theory addressing how creatures came to be.

And all scientific heads will immediately bobble, bob and nod in strictly unified, collective agreement. Of course, that wasn't the question.

Nevertheless, the first response will be stressed, and quite strenuously, with even ad-hominem attacks entering the discussion. All of TTRSTF4 will declare, in bobble-headed unison, that SNRTACBT7 that evolutionary theory is in any way in question. And the entire SLIMC1 will declare, in bobble-headed unison, that STNSEACPB8 that Darwin's theory is in any doubt. Do not look at the object of the original question; look instead at the new questions raised about the original questioners. Why, they might be Bible-thumping flat earthers.

The second response to the question, invariably, will involve micro-evolution, meaning minor evolutionary variation in color or other attributes that occur strictly within species. The statement will be made, quite correctly, that Darwin observed

environmental variation in finch beaks, and in woollier and less woolly breeds of sheep

and that

others had caused and observed wild variation in fruit flies and other short-lived species, and observations had been made about environmental color changes in speckled moths.

And all scientific heads will immediately bobble, bob and nod in strictly unified, collective agreement. Of course, that wasn't the question.

Nevertheless, the second response will be stressed, and quite strenuously, with lots and lots of similar observations thrown into the mix, as an overwhelming quantity of evidence of the wrong thing, to take your eyes and attention off of the right thing. Note that the original question remains before us, unanswered.

The title of Darwinism's central work of Holy Scripture is titled The Origin Of Species, and not The Origin of Variations in Finch Beaks, or Woollier Breeds of Sheep, or Funny Looking Fruit Flies, or Variations in Speckled Moth Color, etc., etc., etc.

All of Darwin's finches remained finches. None of them became Crows, or Magpies, or Bats. Where's the speciation?

All of Darwin’s sheep remained sheep. None of them became Antelopes, or Cattle, or Pigs. Where's the speciation?

All the experimental fruit flies remained fruit flies. None of them became Horse Flies, or Tsetse Flies, or Crickets. Where's the speciation?

The famously observed speckled moths all remained speckled moths. None of them became Butterflies, or Katydids, or Ants. Where's the speciation?

A new evolved species is defined as one that can successfully reproduce itself, but can no longer successfully interbreed with the parent species from which it evolved. No such new evolved species has ever been observed by anyone. There exists no evidence of any such event ever occurring anywhere in the massive, massive existing fossil record.

Yet, all the bobble-heads among all of TTRSTF4 will madly bobble in agreement that, GESGOEAEOT2 , everything evolved from something. Or, another denomination will declare, under PEWAG3 's central doctrine, there was, periodically and repeatedly, one of them there geological moments, see, from which you got your basic fundamental massive mutations of fortuitous monsters which came in perfectly complimentary sexual pairs, and, voila, a new species popped out. Poof. And, miraculously, all that brand new DNA in all those individuals showed multiple direct familial relationships among them, just as if they didn't appear all at once, and all that DNA pointed back to one and only one original species parent set. And all of this happened by statistical accident, see? (Bobble, bobble, bobble.) Now, since Darwin's original theory that species evolved GESGOEAEOT2 , new discoveries in astro-physics pointing to the Big Bang establish the age of the entire universe as no greater than 15 billion years old. Which is not enough time, by many, many orders of magnitude, for even the simplest of living structures or organs or functions, let alone beings to gradually evolve, by statistical accident. Even with all of Carl Sagan's famous Billions And Billions, you're talking the tiniest drop in the huge bucket of evolutionary time absolutely required by the laws of statistical probability. But we'll leave that alone for the moment, as all the scientistic heads continue to bobble furiously at each other and at all observers. Consensus trumps serious science among today's disciples of Scientism.

The third response to the question, invariably, will involve demonizing unacceptable alternative theories. As a response to the question, another question will be asked, implying, quite correctly, the universal bobble-headed opposition to all other possibilities. The challenge will be issued,

What's your alternative theory?

which originated way back when with Thomas Henry Huxley, famously known as "Darwin's Bulldog" because of his fierce defense of Darwin's GESGOEAEOT2 theory, even though Huxley disagreed with it. (What Huxley was really supporting was the advance of pure materialism, and atheism.)

No devout disciple of Evolutionism and the higher church of Scientism would ever admit to any non-material or super-natural possibility involved with how living creatures came to be as they are, under pain of excommunication. Any big-shot contemporary material scientists today will, in public, on hearing the words "What's your alternative theory?" shout "There is none! Let there be no theory before us but Darwin's!" and their heads will immediately and furiously bobble, bob and nod with all the others so violently that they threaten to fall over, or vibrate off their Darwinian table. Of course, that wasn't the question.

I don't particularly give a damn about any alternative theory.

What I want to see is evidence for Darwin's universally embraced "scientific" theory regarding the evolution of species. Let's go back to it.

The question regards the existence of any empirical evidence whatsoever supporting Darwin's universally recognized scientific theory of macro-evolution, meaning, evolution between species.

There is none. None has ever been produced. None can be produced. The theory has no scientific basis. The theory is false.

The so-called scientists who rigidly adhere to the dogmas of Evolution are nothing but a bunch of bobble-headed consensus-seeking simple minded idiots, completely incapable of doing good critical thinking for themselves. Their bobble-headedness has infected all of science; examples are all around. Ask a contemporary scientist about the HIV to AIDS relationship, and odds are that you'll encounter the exact same unified bobbling and nodding, despite the exact same scenario, in that the HIV = AIDS = DEATH MYTH is another "scientific" theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up, but near total scientific community bobble-headed support.

What can I say?

What got me thinking about all of this was reading a new book review I encountered somewhere on-line. The book is by none other than Richard Dawkins, the high priest, perhaps even the pope, of the church of scientism. This is a guy who can't provide any material evidence for any of his dogmas or doctrines and so spends all of his time and energy attacking all the visible alternatives. It's a tactic that gets other people's eyes off the ball long enough for him to put on a fairly good and totally deceptive show. A toast of academia, enjoying near worship among his disciples, he goes about his apparent goal of dismantling Theistic belief wherever he can.

His previous titles were The Blind Watchmaker; Climbing Mount Improbable; Unweaving the Rainbow; The Selfish Gene. Now, he's written The God Delusion. Right. (This is, supposedly, a scientist, remember.) Because he cannot possibly scientifically defend his own strictly faith-based foundational dogmas and doctrines, he openly attacks Theistic belief. Of course, that wasn't the question.

Ho hum, heavy sigh, and here we go again. There is nothing new under the sun. Dawkins and his fellow bobble-heads are too dim to even pursue truth in their own scientific domain, yet they feel quite comfortable diving head first into theology, hoping to lay about themselves with sword and battle-axe, so all that will eventually remain, after they defeat everyone else’s theory, is their theory. That's how Richard Dawkins and all the rest of of TTRSTF4 does science today. To him and his devotees, the term thinking Catholic is an oxymoron. The evolutionist bulb is far to dim for them to be able to discern any intellect or cognitive abilities comparable to their own among the overwhelming majority population of the entire planet. Which is to say, among Theists.

Dawkins is such a dumb-ass he doesn't even know he's doing exactly what he accuses his assumed opposition of doing. He has no material proof of the non-existence of God, or gods, or of anything immaterial, like a human mind, yet he absolutely insists on the purely "scientific" non-existence of God. The majority, here and everywhere, is just supposed to roll over and say, hey, OK, if you say so, we'll all just stop believing in God, because you're obviously so absolutely brilliant. And you've got all those similarly brilliant scientifical types with all their little heads bobbling in exact unison with yours, right behind you.

If you want to learn about the evolution of species, go to Dawkins' Ding Dong School of Darwinian Dingbatism. But don't look to this turkey, or any of his bobble-headed devotees, to be able to teach you anything whatsoever about God. That way is the beginning of the path of devolution of your own guiding ethos away from the decency of the moral norms of Western Civilization, and toward the ethos of BMDFP10 , Democrats, the SLIMC1 , Freudianists, Marxists, Darwinists, Richard Dawkins, and all of TTRSTF4 with their undeviating consensus and their unified bobbling heads.

All of Dawkins' output is nothing but an expansion on Huxley's old What's your alternative theory? because that's all he has, and because that's all there is. Dawkins' religion has nothing to back it up. At least our religion has Revelation behind it. Even granting variable interpretation of the historical evidence of our claimed Revelation, what, exactly, does Evolution have behind it?

Nothing. No Revelation. No material evidence. Nothing.

So, if Dawkins and all the other bobble-heads are not even doing real science, then what's driving them to so persistently attack Theism?

You and I know that there are such things as angels - the good kind, and the bad kind. TTRSTF4 aren't collectively smart enough to even consider that possibility. Indeed, by their own pre-established doctrine, they do not believe in angels or demons or anything immaterial. Which, I'm sure, pleases the demons to no end. All they have to do is bump the table a little, and all the silly heads bobble and bob and nod in unison and in cadence, without thinking, and visually encouraging others to join in their mindless bobbling and nodding.

Whether in a book, or on TV, or on the radio, or in a classroom, whenever you encounter someone declaring the absolutism of Darwinian evolutionary theory, you will be witnessing the testimony of a FLORMPORIF13 .

The more laid-back and less contentious among them will be content to just quietly and mindlessly bobble, bob and nod; but, as with all religions, some will be "moved by the spirit" more than others. A few will, while still bobbling, loudly proclaim that It's a scientific fact! Fewer will, while still bobbling, raise their voices an octave and shout It's downright scientifical! And fewer still will, while still bobbling, shriek It's scientificalophorus!

But that won't make it so, and you are called to a higher dignity than this. Your human nature calls you to reason. Remember, all of these loud, bobble-headed people, collectively, still represent a tiny minority, here and everywhere. The only valid poll you can depend on involves the ballot box. A newspaper-poll, or call-in-radio-poll, or a magazine-poll, or a website poll, or a TV-channel-poll, all mean nothing. A spot-poll, just like a loud public voice, does not equate to a real majority. There is no popular reason, there is no spiritual reason, and there is no material reason, for you to grant these bobble-headed fools any credence at all.

Consensus is not science. 

Be nice to them; give them a cookie and a glass of milk, but don't stake your eternal life on their advice. They're only here for this life, or so they faithfully believe.

Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life.



=====

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (BLOG) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Hover-Link Footnotes:  For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links.  (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" over a link.)

SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
GESGOEAEOT2 Gradually, Ever So Gradually, Over Eons And Eons Of Time
PEWAG3 Punctuated Equilibrium's Wild Assed Guess
TTRSTF4 Them There Real Scientifical Type Fellers
TTRSPTF5 Them There Real Smart Perfesser Type Fellers
TTRSJTF6 Them There Real Smart Journalistical Type Fellers
SNRTACBT7 Surely No Right Thinking Adult Could Believe Today
STNSEACPB8 Surely Today No Serious, Educated Adult Could Possibly Believe
WDN9 We Don't Know
BMDFP10 Baboons, Mongrel Dogs, Filthy Pigs
HBAACOTE11 Human Beings Are A Cancer On The Earth
ACLU12 Anti-Christian Litigation Union
FLORMPORIF13 Flagrant Liar, Or, Mindless Parrot, Or, Innocent Fool
MEJTML14 Marxist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
IEJTML15 Islamic Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
MPAV16 Marxist Principles And Values
WBESSWG17 Wise, Benign, Elite, Super-Scientific World Governance
TRMITM18 The Reason Man's In This Mess

=

Web-Page Comments, Dialogues, Latest Updates


Date: Mon Feb 09 20:55:02 2009
From: Vickie
Email:
Subject: Troy, MI
Comment:

Great article!

The writing style is hilarious and still very well pointed. I would like to see you do one like this on abortion.

Thank you, and keep it up,

Victoria


Date: Tue Feb 10 08:14:33 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Subject: To Victoria
Comment:

Victoria:

Thank you very much.

When my hand is back to normal, and I finish the Byzantine 4th Crusade page, a new Arguments section is planned, and one of the new argument pages will be one refuting the notion of Choice, the term pro-abortion people prefer to use rather than the term pro-abortion, which is really what they are.

Honesty demands clarity; dishonesty demands obfuscation. I’m not sure exactly how I’ll do that page yet, except that it will include some actual pictures of abortion “choices” so that people can see very graphically exactly what it is that the pro-choice position loves, sponsors, defends and champions.

Right at this moment, I don’t see how I can address that topic with any humor. Sarcasm, insulting language, yeah; but humor – well, we’ll see.

Regards,

Vic


Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0. 


Date:  Thu Aug 29 11:14:33 2013
From:  Maurice
Email:   
Location:  
Comment: 

This piece crossed the line from humorous to insulting.  Others may find it "hilarious" but any rational thinker should find it rather revolting.  The author produces no evidence for god and so attacks science and scientists for not measuring up to some - what? - theological standard of his, and so he turns to insolent and insulting humor aimed at his betters. 

Where is your evidence for god? 

"Faith is the great cop-out, the geat excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.  Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."  Richard Dawkins.


Date:  Thu Aug 29 20:03:23 2013
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Maurice:

Here we go again, with the pseudo-scientific demand for material evidence of the ephemeral.  It is Darwinism that claims to be a matter of material science, not religion or theology.  God is immaterial and  cannot be observed.  Living critters, as creatures, are the opposite

Look at the Faith Vs. Atheism page for arguments supporting the existence of God. 

Where is your evidence for Darwinism?

"Darwinism is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.  Darwinism is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." --Vic Biorseth.

Regards,

Vic


Date:   Mon Sep 22 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL and name from 
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages.  . 

Regards,

Vic


Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders.  While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our standards of logical rigor and civil discourse.  We will not participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely trading insults.  Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged.  If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, immoral or merely insulting submissions will not be published here.  If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, back it up,  keep it clean and keep it civil.  We humbly apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things, but the New Liberals are what they are, and the internet is what it is. 

If you fear Leftist repercussions, do not use your real name and
do not include email or any identifying information. 
Leftists cannot tolerate freedom of speech.


ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Please enter the word that you see below.

  


Copyrighted Material

Looking for Limited Constitutional Government?  Fiscal Responsibility? Free Markets? Welcome Home!

Get in there! Get connected! For God's sake, DO SOMETHING!

Give me Liberty or give me death, Hell!  Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and take it.  Click here for contemporary American political positions.
About Your Host

Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.

Welcome to my website.

Catholic American Thinker Free E-zine Subscription

Enter Your E-mail Address
Enter Your First Name (optional)
Then

Don't worry — your e-mail address is totally secure.
I promise to use it only to send you Catholic American Thinker.

Catholic American Thinker Back Issues

Keep This Website Going

Do you Know something?
Does it need to be said?

Write It.


Related WebPages

The Purpose of this group of links is to provide a repository for articles pertaining to the open fraud of Darwinian Evolution.

The Darwinism Pages
Natural Evolution of Species theory remains untested and even unobserved today, with no physical evidence supporting it, and must therefore be recognized as little more than an ideology, a silly superstition or a false religion.

Refuting Darwin and Dawinian “science” as bunk and silliness. Refuting Darwin is almost too easy due to his rush-to-publish and his complete lack of empirical evidences.

Refuting the Origin Of Species pseudo-scientific theory of Darwinism. If Darwinism’s Origin Of Species is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.

The definition of Darwinism in a nutshell. In the definition of Darwinism we find the foundational principles upon which the quest for the atheist holy grail: the purely material origin of life itself.

Darwinism: Darwin, Evolution, and the Devolution of the Scientific Method. Scientistic Materialism's cornerstone: Darwinism and the competing sub-theories of Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Radiocarbon dating as an aging method is accurate up to a point. Radiocarbon dating is reliable up to 6,000 years, shaky at best up to 40,000 years, and completely useless beyond 70,000 years.

Silly premises built on crumbling foundations: Global Villageism & Evolutionism. The Dem Global-Villagers insist the US Constitution was written to cover all citizens of Earth; Disciples of Scientism and Evolutionism all genuflect before their high priest, Richard Dawkins.

Faith versus Atheism: Is atheism really just a silly superstition? The Faith versus Atheism argument is at the root of every other important argument.

On Evil and Nonsense: Look closely at Nonsense, and find Evil at its root. Evil and Nonsense: deny evil and you deny right vs. wrong; which is to deny common sense, which is to invoke nonsense.

Charles Darwin, the Monkey Man.  Click here for a refutation of his so-called “scientific theory,” which has never even been subjected to the scientific method.

Refuting the false theology, doctrines and dogmas of Darwinism

Old North Dayton
is looking for
A Few Good Men
who are Catholic Priests, retired, about to retire or available for reasignment.
CLICK HERE
You are a priest forever, of the Order of Melchizedek.
They dedicated their whole lives to the Lord, and to the uplifting of man. Think of where the world would be if not for them. Support them all you can.
Traditional Latin Tridentine Mass, offered at Assumption Grotto Church in  Detroit, Michigan.  Our deepest prayer, our highest form of worship, and the way God should be treated.  Click here for Latin Mass availability nearest to you, and to add your Latin Mass Church to the list.
Note the Military Assault Rifle common to the American Founding Era.
Publish Your Article Here.

Click the image above to
publish your essay or article here,
to be included among those below.

Submitted Articles,
Requested Articles,
Special Articles and
Reprinted Articles

(Note: copyrights on these articles wherever present will supersede the WebSite copyright at the bottom footer of every WebPage)

Faith, from the Easter series on the Three Theological Virtues. The virtue of Faith; One of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Hope, from the Easter series on the Three Theological Virtues. The virtue of Hope; One of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Love, from the Easter series on the Three Theological Virtues. The virtue of Love; One of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Prudence, from the Lenten series on the Four Cardinal Virtues. The virtue of Prudence; One of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Justice, from the Lenten series on the Four Cardinal Virtues. The virtue of Justice; One of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Temperance and Fortitude, from the Lenten series on the Four Cardinal Virtues. The virtues of Temperance and Fortitude; Two of the Seven Heavenly Virtues.

On the word Consubstantial, the Trinity and Infinity. On the Consubstantial (Single Substance) of God, and the mathematically impossible number of Infinity.

The challenge describes Capitalism as illusory and Marxism as solid. The mixture of religion just adds to the confusion of all good realists.

The Obama Ethos: Who is Barack Obama? What is his grounding, his ethos? The Obama Ethos explores Obama's grounds of being; his religious, moral and political guiding principles.

Obama the Moslem: Introducing Comrade Obama (peace be upon him.) Obama the Moslem: anti-Catholic; anti-Chrisitan; anti-Jew; anti-American.

Freedom, yes – but from whom, and to do what? Is freedom from God enslavement to the world? Is freedom from the world enslavement to God? Which is better?

The Room: Born of that still inner voice. A story about a small church pastor who erects a small room to serve as a mediation room for his parishioners.  

Are Catholics Saved, by having been Born Again? The theology of salvation: Catholic vs. Protestant.

Love thy neighbor as thyself: the Law in One Sentence. Can one simple sentence contain the whole of the moral Law of God?

The Catholic call is universal; it goes out to everyone. Although the Catholic call goes out to all, man’s free will means that all will not respond.

God’s Perfect Unconditional Love meets man’s Free Will. Perfect Unconditional Love can be rejected. Liberty and free choice may be a blessing or a curse.

Of Weeds and Wheat growing together, and the eventual separation. - Weeds and wheat in the field differs from in human kind, where either one can become the other.

Why Should I Believe in God? - an article by Eugene Rudder.

On Losing You - a poem by Rosemarie A. Stone.

Our Beautiful Love - a poem by Rosemarie A. Stone.

Catholic Communism: Similarities between Church Hierarchy and Pure Bureaucracy. Mises said that Communism equals Bureaucracy; the Church is a bureaucracy, therefore we have Catholic Communism. True?

The Source of Anxiety: Improper Priorities. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

“I, Pencil … ”; Capitalism in a Nutshell. Leonard E. Read

Endless Concessions to the Palestinians Pamela Levene

The Peace Treaty Sajid Ali Khan

Leftist Politics in Catholic Mass Mark Brumbaugh

The USCCB Flip-Flop Mark Brumbaugh

Open Letter to Daniel Cardinal DiNardo Mark Brumbaugh

Truth Versus Evil

The End Of The Age

Authority Meets Truth

The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world

The Little Red Hen

Of Sheep And Men

The Gift Bearers Michael from Florida

Dear Vic And Others ... John Felland

The Church Is Rotten To The Core Michelle Lobdell

Hatred of Palin Janet Morana

Proper Catechesis Susan Greve

Who is Barack Obama? Pastor Robert Legg Greve

Limited War Doctrine Colonel Thomas Snodgrass

Rabbi Meir Kahane's Letter Rabbi Meir Kahane, OBM

Solzhenitsyn Speaks Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn addresses the AFL/CIO.

Jefferson Speaks (Declaration of Independence)

The American Constitution (American Founding Fathers)

American Democrat Party Platform Karl Marx and Frederick Engles

Marxist Fundamentals Prof. Libor Brom

Re The Sin Of Scandal Phil Lange

Re Sydney Airport Security Ahmed

Marxist Infiltration into Catholic Thought Nancy Libert

New "race and racism" thread begun by Stephen from VT. On race and racism: the ever changing definition and generic usage of the word "racism."

The Bush War Doctrine Revisited: a fresh look at our horrible situation. A reproduction of the "Bush War Doctrine Revisited" article and discussion points by David Yerushalmi; there is much food for thought here.

Resignation of Benedict XVI and the Immediate Media Firestorm. The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and Rev. Marcel Guarnizo's interview with the author that caused the international media frenzy.

The Jewish Shabbat. Description of Jewish Shabbat (Sabbath) from my Holy Land item supplier.

Kerry's Lies: The Old, Vietnam-Era Anti-War Chickens are Comming Home to Roost. POW Lawsuit Could Force Kerry To Come Clean - by George "Bud" Day, Chairman, Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation.

Just Laws for a Godly Nation. Many nations today still lack a core of just laws for a Godly nation.

What does the World Wildlife Fund have to do with World Youth Day? An unholy alliance between the Leftist WWF and the Vatican?

False Flag: Serious-minded fiction creating a better understanding of 9/11. Can serious-minded fiction play a role in creating a better understanding of critical contemporary social/political issues like 9/11?

Bringing the Liturgy Back to the Real Vatican II. Cardinal Burke Comments on Sacra Liturgia Conference

Layman letter to all bishops. Letter to Bishops from Mariann / Mary's Child

Fetal-Microchimerism gives new meaning to the bonding of Motherhood.  How the unborn child blesses the mother and physically changes her, for the rest of her life.

Ars celebrandi et adorandi - Pastoral Letter from Bishop Thomas John Paprocki. With Ars celebrandi et adorandi, all Springfield IL Catholic Parishes move Jesus back to the center of life!  YES!

To be, or not no be lukewarm; that is the question. Whether tis nobler to fight the good fight, or just smile and be nice ...

Technology: a Two Edged Sword. Technology can be used for good, or for evil.

More American Imperial Edicts Issuing Forth out of Obamunism. Archbishop Schnurr joins Rick Santorum in identifying American Imperial Edicts from this administration.

Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum; Apostolic letter on 1962 Rite.
The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum confirms the 1962 Latin Rite as the 'Extraordinary' Roman Liturgical Rite.

The Pope's Letter to Bishops on Summorum Pontificum.  Benedict XVI's Letter to Bishops on Summorum Pontificum issued the same day as the Motu Proprio.

The Explanatory Note on Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.  An 'Explanatory Note on Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum' issued by the Vatican.

A concerned Catholic spotlights Catholic funded Alinsky organizations. The Alinskyite Gamaliel Foundation underpins multiple Catholic funded Alinsky organizations.

From Shane Leslie Mattison, whose father was Elden Mattison Woolliams. Annecdotes from Shane Leslie Mattison.

Atheist Genesis:

In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing.
And then nothing accidentally exploded and created everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally encountered other bits of everything and formed some new kinds of everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into self-replicating bits of everything.
And then some self-replicating bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into dinosaurs.
See?

(See The Darwinism Pages)

Looking for Limited Constitutional Government?  Fiscal Responsibility? Free Markets? Welcome Home!

Get in there! Get connected! For God's sake, DO SOMETHING!

Give me Liberty or give me death, Hell!  Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and take it.  Click here for contemporary American political positions.

If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the
SITE MAP.