God and Nature: on the Nature of Things, established by the Creator of Things.

God and Nature: on man’s Perversion of the Nature of Things, even with the best of intentions.

Vic Biorseth, Saturday, March 03, 2012
http://www.CatholicAmericanThinker.com

I submit that every thing in existence is a creature, i.e., a created thing, and that the creation of a thing demands the pre-existence of its creator. Every created thing has a pre-ordained purpose for being – a function, or a part of a greater function, all wrapped up in a reason for being that we call its nature. Thus it is the nature of a rock to stand still, it is natural for a bird to fly, it is the nature of an electron to spin round the nucleus of an atom.

I submit that when man changes the nature of a thing, it is no longer that thing, for its created-in nature has been changed. If you change the nature of a thing, it is no longer that thing; it has become something else. That may be good, or it may be bad. The question is, what things should be changed, and what things should be left to their original nature. When is change good, and when is change merely a perversion of nature.

It is the nature of an automobile to be used to transport people and things from place to place traveling over the ground. If man changes the nature of the engine to drive a propeller instead of the wheels, and fixes wings on it, and other modifications, he could change the automobile into an airplane. If the changes were successful, it would no longer be an automobile; it would be an airplane, because its very nature would have been changed. You cannot change the designed-in nature of a thing without changing the thing. It will no longer be the thing that it was.

Man is the creator of many things, for many purposes. Because of his natural ability to fashion all sorts of tools and complicated machines, man often becomes overly proud and elevates himself to levels high above his designed-in nature. Occasionally, nature – dare I say man’s Creator – slaps man down and reintroduces him to humility. Always there are some who oppose nature (which is to oppose the Creator) who quietly live through the slap-downs and eventually reintroduce perversion of nature into the larger society through use of the power of suggestion and clever persuasion.

It has always been so, throughout the entire history of Western Civilization. In Genesis we see that the Creator, after an agreement with Abraham regarding the future of Sodom and Gomorrah, failed to find even ten decent men there, and destroyed the place and all in it. But then, when Jonah announced to Nineveh: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” all the people, including the king, repented, and Nineveh was spared. Man recognized his own nature, which is to say, man recognized his own Creator.

That was then, and this is now.

Today, the social elites are far more sophisticated, because they are Enlightened and they are Modern, and they are highly educated, and thus able to throw off all the ancient teachings as mere silly superstitions of the ill-educated masses beneath them. Enlightened, modern educated men know that there is no such thing as a Creator. How do they know this? Well, they ignore all Arguments for God in favor of concentrating on a lack of the solid empirical evidences required of material science. They see no solid, material proof of the existence of God. They will accept only material evidences, even of immaterial things, and only solid empirical evidences, even for the ephemeral and untouchable. Mere existence of things, including man, is not enough for the sophisticated elites.

In Enlightened, Modern, well-educated and sophisticated thought, backed up by an overwhelming world-wide consensus among all of TTRSTF⁴ , all things, including even man, came into being through a long chain of accidental collisions of different kinds of matter; that life itself came into being by some accident of nature, and that since then all things and all life forms have “evolved” into what we see today.

Thus we see the “scientific” drive toward a forced Secularism on society, for the “scientific” good of society. I submit that Secularism is a movement toward forcing society into a theocracy in which the only acceptable religion is atheism. And that atheism is a religion, or a strictly faith-based belief system, with no worldly, empirical or natural evidences to back it up. The atheist cannot prove, by any worldly means, that God does not exist; he believes that God does not exist by faith alone; he is thus a faithful believer in atheism, who believes by faith alone that God does not exist. That is a religion; or if you will, a purely and strictly faith-based belief system.

I submit that government forced or even government encouraged Secularism is a direct violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is the Constitutional duty of American government to directly oppose and prohibit theocracy, including any theocracy involving atheism or secularism.

The Nature of America. America is one of the finer creations of man, created, many would argue, under the inspiration of God. Here is how we described America’s founding principles in the Political Ideologies page:

Thus, the designed-in nature of America is to present to the world a government that serves, rather than rules, a free people. American government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The Constitution is designed to constrain government from exceeding or going beyond the consent of the governed. We do not have an independent Presidency, we do not have an independent Congress, and we do not have an independent Judiciary. We have three co-equal and counter-balancing branches of government, for that very reason. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights – the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution – lay out absolute rights of citizens that may not be infringed by any branch of government.

The Advance of Secularism. Secularism is, at its core, the evangelization or proselytizing of atheism. Although many secularists may deny that, it remains true. The Secularism movement is a movement toward the religious cleansing of society. Secularism seeks to divorce all religious influence from social intercourse. How does that affect the core designed-in nature of America?

Well, since Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated man does not recognize any Creator other than man, he does not recognize the “Creator” identified in the Declaration of Independence, and thus, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness have no particular importance to him. The Declaration itself is not seen as the central American purpose for being, but rather is seen to be merely a quaint, interesting document written by some old guys who were not nearly as Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated and well-educated as themselves. So the Declaration is not America’s foundation, and it is not the very reason that the Constitution was written, argued and ratified. It’s just an interesting old museum piece.

And that brings us to the Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated view of the Constitution itself. Comrade Obama (peace be upon him) has described our Constitution as a hindrance. It is something to be gotten around and ignored, if not formally repealed. He seeks an independent Presidency, just as Justice Ginsburg seeks an independent Judiciary, and Harry Reed seeks an independent Senate, and Nancy Pelosi seeks an independent House. Why, how else can America be properly ruled? A nation cannot be ruled if the rulers do not have sufficient authority to rule. The Constitution is a hindrance to getting things done; it stands in the way of Progress.

What are these “morals” he spoke of? The moral code of Western Civilization came out of the Judeo-Christian religions, as described in the Judeo-Christian Ethos page. The moral code of America’s Founders and Framers was that same Judeo-Christian morality. The moral standard of the American population today is that same Judeo-Christian morality, since 86% of the American population professes to be Christian, however well or poorly they may follow the teachings of Christianity, and our largest religious minority is probably Jewish. That is how we tell right from wrong; that is how Tocqueville determined that the American people were a “good” people.

Thus, he wrote that America was great because America was good, and if America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great. And that Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other. And that liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith. And he predicted our current decline, when he wrote that “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” And that “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

How prescient he was. Today the Democrat Party, which is driven by Marxist ideology, is doing everything in its power to turn our Republic into a Democracy; from Amendment XVII, reducing the Senate to be just another elected House, to ongoing efforts to eliminate the Electoral College. At the same time, the Democrat Party is doing everything in its power to increase public benefits out of the treasury and make as many people as possible completely dependent upon the state. To say that citizens are dependent is to say that they are no longer independent, and that is to say that they are slaves. The ultimate goal of the Democrat Party is, just as Tocqueville predicted, movement of our Republic into a democracy, social collapse, and finally, dictatorship.

How did we get to this point? Not all at once. It was accomplished one, little, unimportant, seemingly inconsequential Compromise at a time, with the best of intentions. Through reaching across the aisle, negotiating, working together to get things done, and to make progress. The problem is this:

In a radically changing world, man needs one, sure, unchanging fixed peg, that does not move, that does not change, upon which he can depend to keep him steady and centered and properly directed. Faith, and faith’s morality, is it. There can be no compromise here. If you compromise a moral, it is no longer a moral, for its nature will have been changed by compromise. Similarly, any faith that is modifiable is not a real faith. If faith is true, it cannot be compromised. If God is One, and if God does not “evolve” or change, then any religion that changes cannot be true.

Look at the Compromise page to see how our national morality has been compromised over time. Look at the American Political Ideologies page to see how Marxist notions from the Communist Manifesto came to be commonplace items, administered, regulated, legislated and even Constitutionally Amended into American law and government. From a centralized banking system, to a graduated income tax, to a public education system, to Separation of Church and State, to Secularizing society, to the “declaration of human rights,” to redistributionism, to social engineering, to national and even international organized labor, to invented class warfare; the list is endless. None of these things came out of our founding or constituting documents; they all came out of Marxism, which is an overarching ideology that is at deadly enmity with Constitutional America.

Part of the process of becoming Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated people involved general acceptance of new “truths” that were never true. I’m not going to go into detail here again on them; look at the Refuting Darwin page, the Refuting Freud page, the Refuting Marx page and the Refuting Mohammed for the four Biggees. There are more like them among the navigation buttons in the left column of this page. The Western mind has to be Enlightened, Modernized, Secularised, sophisticated and well-educated into acceptance of each of these gross frauds.

But those are just for openers. Al Gore has already greatly enriched himself at the expense of the American citizenry with his global warming scam, and he came close to making himself perhaps the richest man in the world by legally forcing, through concocted International Law, every company and every nation on earth to buy phony “carbon credits” exclusively from business entities owned or controlled solely by him. To save the planet, of course. But, where is the empirical evidence that man causes climactic cycles, or that man can do anything at all to change the local weather, let alone the global climate? There isn’t any. It never existed. It’s a flat out fraud. Among the many.

We have open frauds all round us, all supported by elite intellectualism. Do you remember the “Sybil” story, about the girl who had some 16 different identifiable personalities? Best selling book, movie, run in series in print and on TV, made millions. It, too, was a fraud and a hoax, from the beginning. Authored by “therapist” Cornelia Wilbur, in collusion with patient Shirley Mason (who was Sybil) the whole thing was cooked up out of nothing. As further proof that even TTRSTF⁴ don’t need any evidences for any wild theories, publication of this hoax induced a rash of some 40,000 cases of “known” multiple-personality disorder discovered on psycho-therapy couches. All of these patients were convinced they had the disorder; all the “therapists” were convinced they were treating it, and all the time, there was no such thing. All that was required was that all involved be Enlightened, Modernized, Secularised, sophisticated and well-educated before hand. Then, you no longer need real evidence. Your worldly sophistication will always show you the way. We may wonder how much money was paid out by those 40,000 patients, and by all those insurance providers, over an outright fraud.

Turning us into an Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated people took a lot of time and effort. Thundering herds of TTRSTF⁴ , piles of fraudulently-written text books, whole universities and colleges and the whole public school system were dedicated to the cause. Even history has been re-written to support the lies that lead us into dictatorship. The SLIMC¹ has contributed mightily to the cause, as pointed out in the Professional Liars of Journalism page. Big time journalists have been subtly backing Marxism against Constitutional America at least since Castro took power in Cuba and surprised the world by announcing that he was a Marxist-Leninist.

These thoughts were triggered by the ongoing contest for the selection of a Republican Party candidate for the Presidency, and the open Democrat Party – News Media attack on Rick Santorum’s Christian faith and personal moral standards. Interestingly, and quite predictably, he didn’t even bring it up – they did. The whole current “Conservative Social Issues” public debate was invented, magnified and falsely reported by the Left, not by Santorum or any other Republican candidate. It wasn’t even on their radar screens. The topic was raised and amplified by Comrade Obama (peace be upon him,) his mainstream news media propaganda wing and his so-called "Journalist" surrogates acting as “moderators” of Republican candidate debates.

In this election cycle, no social or moral issue was ever raised by any Republican candidate. When they were raised, they were always raised by Marxist / Obamunist debate moderators, or by some other member of the Obamunist media, or by some big Democrat speaking publicly. It's all propaganda, aimed at changing and controlling the Republican political discussion, because Marxism / Obamunism has already lost all other political high ground.

Now they – the Obamunists, and the Obamunists alone – have turned the Republican candidate’s political hot topic du jour to revolve round Artificial Contraception, of all things.

Well, ho hum, heavy sigh and here we go again, with yet another Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated example of supposedly intellectual direct opposition to nature itself, and to nature’s God. A few points to make before we get into the real meat of this phony, fraudulent, politically contrived controversy:

1. Artificial Contraception has never been illegal in American history.
2. Artificial Contraception has never been unavailable in American history.
3. Artificial Contraception has never been particularly expensive in American history.
4. No Republican candidate has ever proposed banning or prohibiting Artificial Contraception in America.
5. The only people who have even raised the topic of Artificial Contraception in this entire election cycle have been Obamunists, Democrats, Journalists and other Marxists, sometimes including “Establishment” Republicans.

They lie. It’s quite the other way round; the shoe is on the other foot. It was Democrats who “administered” and “regulated” how public school teachers were to provide condoms to other people’s children, without parental knowledge let alone consent. And so much more. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

When, and how, did the very idea that Artificial Contraception might be “natural,” and not a perversion of nature, become such a commonplace, unquestioned “fact” among America’s Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated intellectual elites? Well, with the advance of yet another pseudo-sophisticated fraud, called by the elites the Population Problem. It was a hoax from the beginning, but it still retains a solid following among America’s Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated intellectual group-thinkers. I call them group-thinkers because that is all they do; they are incapable of Critical Thinking, and they are incapable of applying the scientific method to any particular topic. Consensus thinking rules among the educated elites.

There is no such thing as a Population Problem.

“Doctor” Paul R. Ehrlich, author of the fraudulent best seller The Population Bomb is the central darling of the true believers in this hoax. Based on longevity alone, it’s certainly among the most successful frauds; whole nations still believe it and teach it to their children. But when you look at what Ehrlich said in this book, and you compare it to reality, you see that Ehrlich was and is a stupid ass among stupid asses. In fact, if stupid asses had a membership club, they would probably ex-communicate him and burn his membership card, because he makes stupid asses look so bad. Reality shows that Ehrlich is far too stupid even for stupid assery. Nevertheless, Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated intellectual elites lionize Paul Ehrlich and embrace his hoax to this very day; he is their hero. That’s what group-think can do.

Once God is divorced from the conversation, man is changed from being a mere creature to being the central figure of creation. His nature is changed. “Nature” becomes not so much a subject of stewardship and care-taking as a creature of man. Man becomes the creator, modifier and destroyer of nature. Suddenly, it is up to man to save nature, and the planet, from – well, from man. Through a myriad of other hoaxes that we won’t go into here, but that may be found all over this site, super-intellectual group-think arrived at the conclusion that man is bad, but all the rest of nature is good. Man – the new creator – stands somehow outside of nature and is unnatural. Man hurts nature, and so nature must be protected from man, by – well, by man. Not just by any man, or group of men, but only by properly Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated intellectual elites. All the rest, eventually, may be done away with.

With that fraud at the center of the argument in favor of Artificial Contraception, we have the experience of our Sexual Revolution and our Free Love Movement entered into Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated intellectual elitist thought. How wise we have become. We have even created a multi-billion dollar Masturbation Industry to show the world how advanced our thinking is. We now know, with elitist certitude, that employing Artificial Contraception is natural, which necessarily means that human pregnancy – reproduction of our own species – is and must be unnatural and perverse.

In the thinking of the “Establishment” Reublican Party – which may accurately be described as Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated thinking – Republican candidates should avoid “Social Conservative” topics at all costs. Why? Because the morality topics are losing topics with the “Center” and with the “Moderates” and with the “Undecideds” and with the “Independents” and with other various truly stupid people. Well, “Establishment” thinking is wrong. In this time of super-division and radical differences between political Parties and political directions, the so-called Independent or Undecided vote is, at this point, so miniscule as to be non-existent. This is a flat out contest between American Conservatism and Marxist Anti-Americanism. There is one and only one segment of the voting population Republicans ought to be going after, and they are called Constitutional Conservatives. To hell with the tiny and inconsequential fraction of voters that still haven’t made up their little minds whether America should be “fundamentally transformed” into a dictatorship or not. The Independent vote is not needed; what is needed is the growing Conservative vote.

Pelosi and Reed may have succeeded in purging or neutralizing the “Blue Dog Democrats” in Congress, but not among the voting populace. There are still all those Reagan Democrats out there, and their numbers are growing. There are still all those union members who feel disenfranchised and alienated from union leadership. Lots of them are coming to Tea Party meetings, where they join a blue million thoroughly pissed off Republican Conservatives and Libertarian Conservatives. Unlike the Independents, we can make up our minds on political issues, most particularly today, when the political differences are so vitally important, stark and clear.

Now, I have in the past criticized the Libertarian political position, in the Definition of Libertarian page and in the argument Opposing Libertarianism, because of it’s amoral standing, or lack of recognition of any fixed social moral norm for everyone. And I have in the past criticized various “Establishement,” or Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated Republicans, and Progressive Republican candidates such as Romney and Gingrich, for having waffled multiple times on multiple moral issues. To radically change sides or positions on, say, an economic issue, or a bookkeeping issue, or a banking issue, or a spending issue, or any non-social / moral question issue, is considerably different than a similar radical change on an issue such as abortion, because a moral does not ever change. Bouncing around both sides of such a straight up moral issue shows the bouncer to be more of a political man than a man of principle.

But where the Libertarian may exhibit amorality on some social issues, and where Republican “progressive” politicians like Romney and Gingrich may moderate their own moral standards to profit from the political wind of the moment, the Democrat position is just flat out immoral. Always. There is a big, big difference between amorality, ever-changing morality, and just flat out immorality in every instance.

Santorum should continue politicking as he has been politicking, which is to say, not even bringing up the social issues or the moral issues. But when the issues are brought up anyway, he should hang them around Democrat necks, and Journalist necks, and Moderator necks, and Obamunist necks, and beat them to death with their own issues. Moral issues are winning issues with the voters. Forget the elites; forget the experts; moral issues are winning issues with the voters. Period.

Democrat Party Institutionalized Immorality. You cannot name one single moral issue that the Democrat Party is on the moral side of. The official Democrat Party political position is always, always, the immoral position. In fact, they turn moral issues upside down; the people who call immorality immoral are themselves, by that act, labeled immoral by the Democrat position. That’s the way it is.

Take abortion, infanticide, eugenics, etc. – you will find that the Democrat Party loves it, sponsors it, champions it, supports it, legislates for it, regulates for it, taxes for it, spends for it, and that it’s a plank in their political platform. Any opposition to any part of it is demonized as immoral. Any speech against it is criminalized. Go figure.

Take open public homosexuality, homosexuality on the stage, homosexual marriage, homosexuals in the military, homosexual scout masters, special homosexual rights, homosexuality being taught as “normal” in schools, homosexuality encouraged among the young, etc. – you will find that the Democrat Party loves it, sponsors it, champions it, supports it, legislates for it, regulates for it, taxes for it, spends for it, and that it’s a plank in their political platform. Any opposition to any part of it is demonized as immoral. Any speech against it is criminalized. Go figure.

In the Judeo-Christian ethos, a lie, in and of itself, is an immorality. The Democrat Party agenda, and indeed the Party itself, is built on lie upon lie, fraud upon fraud, scam upon scam. And false language. They can’t even call Abortion by the name of Abortion; they prefer terms like Pro-Choice, or Right to Choose, for obvious reasons. The Democrat Party loves, sponsors and champions the Eco-Nazi Movement, the Femi-Nazi Movement, the Homo-Nazi Movement, and more. All these movements are part of a larger agenda to grow the government, reduce liberty and transform America. To change our nature.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Even on the current hot political issue of Artificial Contraception, where the Republican position is, basically, don’t even go there, and the Libertarian position is, do it if you want to but leave me out of it, and the Romney – Gingrich position is, whatever the voters want, in stark contrast to all that, the Democrat position is, shut up and get on the cattle car; we’ll tell you what’s right and what’s wrong.

So the Dems sent a hand-picked plant to testify in a Congressional hearing about the vital need for Artificial Contraception coverage in Obamacare and all health insurance. No one else on earth was talking about Artificial Contraception. Isn’t that interesting?

Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student, emotionally testified to the extreme difficulty of continuing in her studies without massive financial aid to cover her contraception needs through law school. Apparently, she was fornicating so much that she was going broke. ??? Not an eyebrow was raised among the Dems. This poor young lady was in danger of having to have (gasp!) unprotected sex, over and over and over again, at Georgetown University law school.

She needed $3,000 to cover the three year program. If we’re talking condoms, at .25 each, that means she’s fornicating about 10.96 times a day, 365 days a year for the whole three years. That’s a whole lot of fornicating. You might think it to be unnatural. You might wonder how she might have either the time or the energy to actually study law. Young male students looking to fornicate with someone but not having any luck ought to go to Georgetown law school, look up Sandra Fluke, and get in line.

But, the numbers don’t add up. As Rush Limbaugh (or his staff) learned, there’s a government telephone number you can call in Washington DC, and we may assume other cities, who will supply you with condoms for free. Or, if the oral version is chosen, a month’s supply at Wal-Mart costs $15, which is even cheaper than you can get it from Planned Barrenhood. Obviously, this girl was lying about the cost to her and to her many fornicating friends, in sworn testimony before Congress.

Comrade Obama (peace be upon him) was so off-put by the ridicule heaped on her by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck that he personally called to comfort her, and told her that her parents ought to be proud of her. Yeah, right.

Then Rush learned that Sandra Fluke not only knew ahead of time that Catholic Georgetown’s health insurance didn’t cover her gigantic contraception needs, but, knowing that, that’s why she decided to go there. She went there as an agitator. As a good Alinskyite, or a good Maoist, she would “swim in the sea of the people” and work from the inside toward eventual revolution. She was a plant. No wonder Pelosi called her to testify in the bogus Democrat political “hearings.”

If I am willing to allow Sandra Fluke to fornicate all the hell she wants to, why does she insist on making me pay for her contraception? Every health insurance provider is to be required to provide it; every employer is to be required to pay for it; every consumer is not allowed to opt out of it. All health insurance has a cost. Employers add the cost of benefits to the cost of employing employees. The cost of this benefit will affect the wages and other benefits of employees, or even the number of employees. Who pays for these benefits, in the end, is the end consumer, meaning, the employees, even when they don’t officially contribute out of their pay. Their employers treat health insurance, and other benefits, as a cost of employing them. It reduces the bottom line; therefore, it reduces employee pay.

This is to be a tax. If the government mandates it, and the citizen is required to pay it, it is a tax.

Note that the argument is slanted to make the public think that it is a right. Contraception for nymphomaniacs is a right, and we are to pay for it. They pretend that contraception has to do with health. All it does, health wise, is increase the risk of breast cancer, increase the risk of blood clot, pulmonary embolism, stroke and heart failure. But, as Comrade Obama (peace be upon him) once pointed out, he wouldn’t want one of his children to make a mistake and be punished with a child. A mistake, in his meaning, would be fornicating without practicing safe or protected fornication.

But, bottom line here, you can’t mess with mother nature.

When moral issues are raised by debate moderators, journalists, Democrats, Obamunists or other Marxists – and only after the issues are raised – Rick Santorum ought to begin by acknowledging how he knows how much the speaker despises Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. If that hatred is denied, Santorum ought to clearly publicly recognize how the speaker has a very funny way of showing it. If the speaker cannot or will not articulate a clear statement of faith, Santorum ought to recognize the fact that something about it obviously cannot stand the light of day, and how if his faith was that poor or that weak, or that phony, he wouldn’t want to talk about it in public any more either. He should repeatedly remind the speaker exactly who brought the topic up, and exactly who made it an open topic for public discussion.

Every moral issue is a winning issue for the Conservative vote.

Every Conservative, of every variety, is vastly more moral than any Democrat.

There are a whole hell of a lot more Conservative voters than there are “independents.” Independents will not decide this race. Conservatives will.

To Life. To Liberty. To the Pursuit of Happiness.

To God, and to God’s Nature.

=====

Sarcastic Acronym 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" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation; "Hover" the mouse over it just to see the simple interpretation.)

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 and ...
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-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
IYI¹⁹ Intellectual Yet Idiotic
TTRSCBTF²⁰ Them There Real Smart Catholic Bishop Type Fellers
IACMPVND²¹ Illegal-Alien-Criminal Marxocrat-Party-Voting Nation-Destroyers
PEJTML²² Palestinian Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
PSYOP²³ "Psychological Operation" Mind Trick
CDC²⁴ Covid Developmentally Challenged
LGBTQ+²⁵ Every Letter Represents A Serious Psychotic sexual Identity Disorder

Reference Material

[All Web Pages listed in Site Map by date-of-publication;
oldest at the top, newest at the bottom of the list.]

Culture=Religion+Politics;  Who Are We?  Vic Biorseth

The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA;  Vic Biorseth

Live Interviews

Return to the BLOG page

Return to the HOME PAGE

Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter

---

Date: Mon Mar 05 22:11:48 2012
From: Dionysus
Email:
Location:
Comment:

“There is no such thing as a population problem.”

Perhaps you could explain that to the starving populations in places like Bangladesh. Exploding human population is at the core of the whole problem of sustainable development and sustainable resources. The current world population cannot be properly fed and clothed, and yet you would like to ban contraception.

How moral is that principle?

---

Date: Tue Mar 06 07:14:13 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Dionysus:

Obviously you have not read the Population Problem reference linked to in the article, which explains the starving populations in places like Bangladesh. It also explains why much greater population densities, such as that of the tiny island of Hong Kong, with less natural resources and less agricultural land, are not only not starving, but prospering.

I seek to ban no such thing, in civil law. I seek to publicize and attack the falsehood of your argument.

Every time I hear an argument using terms like sustainable development and sustainable resources I know the speaker is one of our Enlightened, Modern, Secular, sophisticated, well-educated intellectual elites, who is convinced by his Marxism-dominated education (indoctrination?) that he knows better than all of us dunderheads who form the majority.

Go read the Population Problem, and then read the Eco-Nazi Movement, and then come back here and continue the discussion.

Regards,

Vic

---

Thursday, March 28, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0. 

---

Date:   Sun Nov 09 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

---

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

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

Name / Pseudo-Name:*

E-mail Address:

City / State / Country:

Comment:*

Please enter the word that you see below.

Copyrighted Material