There is Hope with God

I received the following story and wanted to share it with everyone. It is very appropriate especially in these times of stress on our beloved country. Please accept this as the gift it is intended to be...

The fern and the bamboo
One day I decided to quit...I quit my job, my relationship, my spirituality. I wanted to quit my life. I went to the woods to have one last talk with God.

 
"God", I said. "Can you give me one good reason not to quit?"

 
His answer surprised me; "Look around", He said. "Do you see the fern and the bamboo?"

"Yes", I replied.

 
"When I planted the fern and the bamboo seeds, I took very good care of them. I gave them light. I gave them water. The fern quickly grew from the Earth. Its brilliant green covered the floor. Yet nothing came from the bamboo seed...But I did not quit on the bamboo.

 
In the second year the fern grew more vibrant and plentiful. And again, nothing came from the bamboo seed. But I did not quit on the bamboo.

 
In year three there was still nothing from the bamboo seed. But I would not quit and the same in year four. Then in the fifth year, a tiny sprout emerged from the earth.


Compared to the fern, it was seemingly small and insignificant. But just six months later, the bamboo rose to over 100 feet tall.

 
It had spent the five years growing roots. Those roots made it strong and gave it what it needed to survive. I would not give any of my creations a challenge it could not handle.

 
Did you know, my child, that all this time you have been struggling, you have actually been growing roots? I would not quit on the bamboo. I will never quit on you.

 
Don't compare yourself to others. The bamboo had a different purpose than the fern. Yet they both make the forest beautiful. Your time will come…You will rise high"

 
"How high should I rise?" I asked.

 
"How high will the bamboo rise?" He asked in return.

 
"As high as it can?" I questioned

 
"Yes." He said, "Give me glory by rising as high as you can."

 
I left the forest, realizing that God will never give up on me. And He will never give up on you.
Never regret a day in your life.

 
Good days give you happiness; bad days give you experiences; both are essential to life.

Author ~ Unknown

Answering a Progressive

Before I begin, I want to explain three things; The first is why I placed this particular Blog entry under "Religion and Philosophy" instead of "News and Politics". Although the statements I am responding to are indeed political; they exhibit the philosophy of Left-wing Politics as well as the "religion" of Evolutionism and there is no category of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, so I chose the class label which contains two out of three.

Secondly, the Progressive disease which has infected All Political parties with a fatal pestilence that threatens to destroy our Republic, is not limited to the far left wing of the Democrats, although the Democratic Party has been hijacked by this Progressivism movement.

The third and final point I need to make is that Progressives label All conservatives, including Independents, (the few remaining) Democrats, Tea Party and Republicans simply as "Republican", a term they have equated with "Fat-Cats".

Now that you have been dutifully educated as to the Political atmosphere of America today, here are the venomous statements which require a humble response from me.

"It is tempting to begin a sentence about today's Republican Party
with the words, 'Just when you thought they couldn't get any
dumber,' but then you realize you're talking about a group that
actively thwarts benefits for the unemployed while pimping tax
cuts for rich people, a group that champions a political base
which by and large doesn't believe dinosaurs existed because
they're not in the Bible but can't stand the thought of stem cell
research making people whole again, who attack the ideas and
policies of the majority with vehemence but absolutely refuse to
offer any of their own, and you come to the realization that you
can't begin a sentence with those words, because there really is
no bottom to this particular barrel."

It is tempting to respond to your malicious verbiage with the words: "Just when you thought it was safe to listen to a Left Leaning Progressive Liberal again", they surprise you with comments that just makes blood shoot out of your eyes. Let me begin by requesting that before making comments about the Bible, perhaps people should read it first. To quote the scriptures: Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.". This verse is generally interpreted by Christians and Jews alike to mean that Dinosaurs Did exist...they just existed in a later Epoch than the Evolutionists would have you believe.

Statements such as: The Republican Party just want to give money to the rich (e.g.: Fat Cats) while denying benefits to the unemployed without offering alternative solutions is the kind of Propaganda regurgitated by these Progressives in spite of their insincerity...no make that in spite of their awareness of the truth. Re-stated in simpler, laymen terms that even I can understand, they lie. This statement is deceptive in its assertions because:

1. The reason for Conservative opposition to Extending Unemployment is the expansion of this entitlement that tends to result in reduced job searches

2. They oppose taxing individuals making $250,000 and above because not all these are “Rich People” and in fact includes 90% of the Small Business owners (who file their taxes as Individuals) ~ Since the small businesses are the engine of our economy, this taxation is stifling job growth.

3. Conservatives do have an alternate plan; reduce Taxes, allowing more money to flow into our economy and reduce spending because history has proven the only way to recover a sagging economy is to reduce both taxes and spending. Name the country (and there are many) that have tried to recover their economy by employing massive spending measures and then name the ones that succeeded…I’ll save you the trouble; the answer is None.

4. Stem cell research is Not opposed by Conservatives; new, Embryonic stem cell production is opposed because we believe that a human life is sacrificed to create these stem cells. What is asinine is the assertion by Progressives that these new stem cells are required; they are not. Not yet because the on hand supplies of these are far from being exhausted and Afterbirth can provide many more stem cells, so prudent use of existing stem cells, augmented by those which can be created from discarded Placentas, should last a long time into the future.

5. The United States is and has been politically, a center right country with a majority of its population identifying itself as either Conservative (42%) or Moderate ( 35%) and only 25% as Liberal ( as reported in Wikipedia’s Definition of Political Ideologies in the United States which contains the Progressives since they cannot be Conservative nor can they abide Moderates (just ask the Moderate Democrats that have been pushed out of the Democratic part like Joe Lieberman)

I am sorry for taking so much time to respond and that my response is so wordy, but the progressives have been eating away at the fabric of our Republic for over 100 years, so trying to cram in enough facts to expose their prevarications takes time. Besides, as we Conservatives have discovered, once we expose a lie they just go on to another without ever apologizing for the exposed one; regardless of whether the lie was intentional or not. What makes it even more difficult to get these wild eyed fanatics to understand they are actually In the minority is the actions taken by Congress. The Progressives in Congress hold a majority (when you add the Non-progressive Left Wing Nuts to their numbers) and no matter what we "little" people try to tell the 'Wackos" running our government, they continue to follow the Progressive agenda. This only instills the belief in that part of our country that has been brain-washed via a progressively infested Public and Collegiate school system that they are in the majority.

This is dangerous...this is quite dangerous to the survival of our beloved Republic. Why you ask, well this turning of a deaf ear to the people was one of the main reasons for our Revolutionary War. Do you not recall the phrase "No taxation without representation". We "little" people feel that we no longer have representation in our Government...do you get my drift?


Signed one of the few, remaining Conservative Democrats,
Paul D Garber

PS - I just heard one of the best examples of Propaganda being force-fed to the American people today...an example that everyone should be able to relate to and comprehend. A spokesman, no make that a Shill for the Obama Administration was on the News responding to accusations concerning the sad lack of action concerning the Arizona border by those who are supposed to be providing Border Security stated "...the facts are that the borders are more secure now than they have ever been". This was the favorite tool of Joseph Goebbels, the man credited with perfecting "...the 'Big Lie' technique of propaganda, which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses". The Borders cannot be "safer than they have ever been"...why? Well because our Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano who, has expressed this exact same fabrication herself, was appointed to her position directly from the Governorship of Arizona where she, a fact conveniently forgotten perhaps, was constantly begging Congress and the White House for more and better border security.,

State of the Union: Sinking Fast

The State of our Union is either in "Disrepair" or "Confusion" or "Panic", but the Obama Administration wants you to think that everything is just peachy keen. Relax, the economy is going great; our debt is only an indicator of our wealth [per Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) the poster politician for term limits];



we have a wonderful Health Care System...just like the NHS (National Health Service of Great Britain) and our President just bypassed the Senates' mandate of Advice and Consent by appointing Dr. Donald Berwick as the head of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) over the holiday weekend.

Why? Well he was looking at a very hard confirmation fight with Congress over this choice. Fact is that Dr. Berwick in on record as saying, “I am romantic about the National Health Service. I love it". The department of the NHCS he seems to admire the most is the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE), it's rationing arm. Citing Dr. Berwick this institution is a “global treasure.”



This is also akin to a "Death Panel" because if your life-prolonging costs are above a certain limit, chances are the procedure will be denied. Wow...this guy loves Rationing and "Death Panels' which critics of Obamacare said would happen while proponents, including Obama himself, laughingly asserted would never happen and were only lies and scare tactics. He and his (I won't even refer to them as his administration anymore; I'll call it like I see it) Henchmen are the ones spreading lies and in his arrogance just does whatever he pleases because in his mind we are just too stupid to know what is good for us. This post had been vacant since 2006; why the rush to appoint someone over a holiday weekend? Is it just a coincidence that this former Harvard acquaintance is also a proponent of Redistributive Wealth?

For all you "Lame Stream Media" as Bernie Goldberg has dubbed you, what did you call Glenn Beck when he told you that Obamacare was not about health care but was about Redistributive Wealth? If any other President had attempted this kind of Unconstitutional posturing and "Revolutionary" antics, well Congress would have had him impeached months ago. All Clinton did was lie about cheating on his wife; this man has cheated on the entire American public. Impeach Barack Hussein Obama before it is too late.

Separation of Church and State

Let's get one thing straight, the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is NOT in the First Amendment of the Constitution or anywhere else in the document for that matter. What the First Amendment actually says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:...". That is it and it is pretty clear, both in language and knowing the religious situation that existed in Europe at the time, the founders said nothing about keeping religion out of our Government. Somewhere in the past, Progressive Supreme Court Justices have re-defined our Constitution which is NOT their job...they are just supposed to apply the law in a Constitutional manner.


We should turn the tables on the Atheists and Tea Party detractors by actually applying the real First Amendment Guarantees. Let's consider those attempting to stifle all religion by shooting back that they are infringing on our First Amendment right to "freely exercise our religion". Erecting religious signs and objects is NOT prohibiting Atheists free expression of their religion but denying Christians the right to display our Icons IS denying our right to free expression. As for the Tea Party opposition, just remind those Progressive Zombies, including those in the current administration, that the First amendment states that we have the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government "... for a redress of grievances". Oh, and by the way, isn't the US Navy infringing on FOX News' right to free speech and denying the Freedom of the press, both rights defined in the First Amendment? FSN should sue the Navy on these grounds. Isn't Cass Sunstein's call for "infiltrating" demonstrations,both physical and virtual, Unconstitutional and shouldn't he lose his job based upon this fact? Conservatives need to fight back using the REAL Constitution.

Climate Gate

I have posted this Blog under Religion and Philosophy because the advocates of “Climate Change” (formerly known as “Global Warming”) remind me of the Evolutionists. Their “science” is their religion and woe to the non-believers. They are so sure in their convictions that they can distort the facts to fit their views without repercussions. Al Gore, High Priest of the Climate Change Society, should be required to wear a headdress containing the plumage of an endangered species bird and register this religious group with the Federal Government. Then no one can make fun of his chant “The debate is over” or they could be called just atheistic buffoons. For any of you who do not agree that Evolutionists and Climate Changers should be categorized together remember these facts: Climate Change believers insist that the Polar Bear is in danger of becoming extinct even though statistics indicate their population has increased five-fold. Add to this the Evolutionists insist all life began when nothing exploded (yeah, the Big Bang Theory). Any idiot who can believe that nothing, I repeat NOTHING can explode could also argue that a population increase of 500% was indicative of an “Endangered Species”. I rest my case.

A Logical Look at Evolution

Much has been made recently about creationists and proponents of intelligent design ignoring the “facts” of evolution and how silly creation museums and their believers are to ignore the scientific “evidence” of evolution. Okay, so now the evolutionists, who were banned from even teaching their theories in the not so distant past, have a place in the sun and want to ban all contrary theories from being even mentioned in schools. In fact, you are not even allowed to question any part of the evolution theory. Why? Why are they so, in my humble opinion, uncompromising in their beliefs? I’ll tell you why. It’s because they have suffered too many defections from their ranks of previously staunch supporters. These defectors are scientists who, after studying and learning about DNA and RNA during stem cell and cloning research, have decided that “Spontaneous Combustion” could not be the way life was created in our universe.
What the evolutionists don’t want you to hear is how they “manipulated” those beautiful, pictorial charts depicting evolutionary lineage. How? By arranging the pictures, such as those of some birds, mammals and ‘pre-human” man to better reflect the “march” of evolution while disregarding the science of when those creatures existed. They have already made some grievous errors (remember the “extinct” coelacanth?) and don’t want more problems to arise that might punch holes in their neat little world. That is why, although the scientific method itself demands constant scrutiny and questioning, evolutionists (who claim to be scientists) demand that their beliefs not be questioned. Well, I’m not a scientist and do not possess an academic background, but I was born with the God given ability (oops sorry for the Freudian slip) to apply logic and common sense to issues. This brings me some problem areas of evolution that my common sense has illuminated:

1. If it is so easy to create life that it can erupt from nothing, why hasn’t some evolutionist somewhere taken the building blocks, carbon, water etc., and produced a living entity from scratch? How about just making a simple protein? We know the elements of life and possess all the raw materials, so why can’t we just stir up a bowl of this “primordial soup” evolutionists are so fond of referencing? Simple logic dictates that although we can slice and dice and transplant and clone and perform all kinds of marvelous genetic manipulations, we cannot generate life from scratch. Now if the extremely intelligent and gifted individuals, who are trying to create life, while professing to know how it is fabricated, cannot produce even one single simple, celled organism, how am I supposed to believe that some inanimate, unthinking federation of rocks, sand, water, lava and whatever could generate and continue to generate life forms accidentally from scratch? I’d even settle for an unfertilized egg cell, as long as they could prove it was alive by fertilizing it to produce a living organism. Oh, and someone please tell me when this all powerful, inanimate cabal decided to stop producing life forms and concentrate solely on mutating the existing ones?

2. Another element of evolution that can only be accepted by “faith” is that not only did life spring from nothing, but even though it was only a one celled gelatinous mass when it first appeared, it somehow developed the urge and ability to alter, change and reproduce itself! How? They had no nervous system let alone a brain. Have faith baby, it’s the “way of nature”, because if you listen to evolutionists, life must evolve or die. I adhere to the concept that life must “adapt” or die, but the problem is that evolutionists use adaptation as a synonym for evolution. Not so fast…I adapt to cold weather by wearing gloves, hat, scarf and a coat. Does this signify evolution? I think not and if it did, why haven’t men who live in perpetually cold climates “evolved” to not require coats, hats, gloves or scarves? We adapt to the water by donning wetsuits, fins and scuba gear, and yet even though man has lived so long by water, he never evolved an “Aquaman”. By the way, to all those evolutionists who say man has not been around long enough to evolve these traits let me point out that you have maintained they have been around long enough for Cheetah to turn into Albert Einstein. Oh yeah and what or who is “Nature” anyway? Oh yeah, that sounds too much like intelligent design…better stifle questions in that area.

3. Let’s assume that a life form could mutate (another evolutionist synonym) and survive (although Science indicates otherwise). As long as it reproduces by cellular division, then a mutated life form could achieve population growth. However, since life must evolve or die, the organisms became more complex (according to the evolutionists). They developed sexual organs that required two; completely different yet totally compatible life forms to mutate at the same time, otherwise the mutation would simply go extinct very quickly. Except, of course, for those organisms that defied the “Theory of Evolution” and remained, unchanged one celled life forms.

4. This brings us to the concept of evolution. It is not a law, it is a theory. Laws are scientific theories that have been proven, such as “The Law of Gravity”. If it cannot be proven, it remains a theory and some theories cannot be proven due to the constraints of physics, like the “Theory of Relativity”. Although theories like this cannot be technically proven, they are accepted as probably factual by the scientific community. The evolutionists want the same consideration, but Darwin is not on the same level as Einstein. In fact Darwin required evolution because that was the only way he could justify his racial prejudice…some races of man were simply evolving at a slower rate. This fact makes it illogical for me to accept evolution as anymore than a biased man’s fancy.

5. Oh yeah, let’s not forget the fact that all this evolving has done nothing to stop the original, simple one celled organisms from still existing unchanged. I guess not all life must evolve or die after all. That is even true of some very large and complicated organisms according to the evolutionists themselves (isn’t this considered an oxymoron?). These life forms would be alligators, crocodiles, sharks etc. The animals are touted as “perfect predatory life forms”. By my logic I assert there can be no such thing in evolution and please, someone tell me when all large life forms on land and in the water were exterminated by an asteroid (or whatever), how did these animals remain “unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs”?

6. Now I come to an item of evolution that has baffled me since I was taught about it in school. This concerns marine mammals, specifically whales. They tell us all life came from the sea, but after living for millions of years on land, the whales decide they have had enough and re-evolve so they can return to the water (I call this retro or de-evolution). Now all other branches on the evolutionary tree simply die out and go extinct when they reach this end of the line, but not the whales by God (oops, there I go again). They simply branch back upon themselves and live happily ever after. It is also true for air breathing dolphins, but they are actually part of the whale family (Orcas or “Killer Whales” are actually dolphins). Is this true for seals, walruses and sea lions, or did they just evolve to a certain point and stop? If whales could then why didn’t a Brachiosaur just decide to de-evolve to allow its immense body to float easily in the water while it peacefully munched on seaweed? Even Mr. Spock would have a hard time explaining the logic of this to me. Oh wait, that’s right, the Dinosaurs changed into birds. Of course they didn’t start as birds, so it’ not quite the same thing as the whales. Logic compels me to ask, how could this happen? I’ve been told all the dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago.

7. Now I need someone to tell me just what “Natural Selection” is. Oh, I don’t mean the definition, but is it some kind of universal, driving force or a twitch in one’s libido? Where did it come from? When did it start? Did some amoeba suddenly decide one day that it should grow sexual organs and only copulate with the meanest protozoan in the pond? Or did it first occur when a one celled organism detected a weakness in itself and discontinued performing meiosis? And by the way, who decides how animals are to determine which potential mate is the “fittest”? After all, some do it merely by size, others determine it by combat, still others by plumage or color or sound or the size of their bank account. How or who defined the rules that individual species use to determine which animal is the fittest? It bothers me that life is so diverse when it all arose from the same, accidental birthing procedure. Logic tells me there should be more conformity to life if it all evolved from the same concoction of elements, using the same process. Animal, vegetable and mineral…how in God’s name (I just can’t help it) did the powers that be (huh?) decide to develop these things? Why only three? How could a pussy willow come from the same source as a Neanderthal?

8. Now let’s get to my last bit of logical reasoning concerning evolution. Logic dictates that, as I previously stated, if so many learned scientists are bailing out of the evolutionary boat, then it stands to reason that this imaginary vessel is no longer sea worthy; a “Ship of Fools” so to speak. Not all these scientific deserters are religious. Au contraire mon ami. Although many have been forced to review their stand on religion, most are still either atheists or agnostics. And for your information, these are the individuals, along with Alien Life theorists, who coined the “Intelligent Design” term, not the Creationists. Creationists believe in “Devine Design”, but persons that did not believe in divine intervention needed another expression (one that did not imply the existence of a meddling God) and since “Intelligent Design” suited everyone, it became a viable alternative to evolution for them. I am a Creationist, but I was always open minded and figured that evolution was possible as long as God directed it. I have never had a problem with the difference in time expressed in the Bible versus the scientific beliefs of the time span. My logic always told me that time is physically different depending on your location. A day is not the same on Earth as it is on Jupiter or Mars. The length of a day is affected by the size of a body and its rotational speed. The length of an Earth day itself has changed since the formation of the planet. Since I am not privy to God’s physical location, I do not know what a day may be to him. How can I even know if the earth even rotated on its axis in the beginning? I can still believe in evolution as a tool of God, but I can never accept evolution as an entity unto itself.