Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts

07 September 2011

Democrats Want Republicans Dead

22 January 2011

Jared Loughner's Similarity to Tea Partiers

Source

Posted by Van Helsing

No wonder the "mainstream" media tried so hard to sell the idea that Jared Loughner was motivated by the Tea Party movement. Look at all the eerie similarities:

loughner-tea-partier-comparison.gif

On a tip from TED.

20 January 2011

Why the Left Hates Sarah Palin





January 19, 2011

By Robin of Berkeley
When I was ten years old, I participated in an act of unadulterated group evil. It happened at a sleep-away camp in the Catskill Mountains.

Starting in third grade, I was shipped off to this summer camp for three months at a time. Although I was in no way ready to be so far from home, my parents wanted the summers free and clear -- so I was whisked away, like hundreds of other Camp Tawonga kids.
I lived in a bunk with a gaggle of other girls, with two teenagers to oversee us. Since our counselors were more absorbed in the male staff than in us, we girls had the run of the house.
One day, my bunkmates decided to punish Barbara, a popular and confident child. The masterminds held Barb down while a few others stripped off her clothes. Barbara struggled and screamed as the rest of us watched, transfixed. The details are blessedly murky, but they involve mocking Barbara and grabbing at her body.
Although I wasn't a major player, I also did nothing to stop the madness, which shames me to this day. I even recall feeling a strange, wicked thrill surging through my body. Now that I analyze it, it was the maniacal power of sadism -- and evil.
I've always wondered why Barbara was chosen to be tortured, and not a nerdy girl instead. But after beholding the horrible treatment of Sarah Palin, I finally understand: Barb was a sweet and happy and innocent child. The leaders of the pack wanted to knock her down from her high horse.
My mind flashed to this awful memory after hearing that Palin was being scapegoated for the Tucson Massacre. Palin has been a target of the left's wrath from the moment she was nominated for vice president. Many conservatives have tried to explain why.
Some say it's jealousy, which is true; Palin is a lovely woman with a handsome husband. She's also a self-made woman; Palin has risen to power on her own, without the coattails of husband or father.
Some conservatives believe that the hatred is a result of brainwashing; this is true, as well. Liberals respond robotically, like Pavlov's dogs, whenever Palin's name is uttered.
But there's a darker reason for the abject hatred of Palin, and the clues can be found in that Catskill Mountains bunk. Because evil can manifest when people project their own badness and shame onto another.
People on the left hate Palin for one simple reason: because she is everything they are not. She is their polar opposite because her life journey has diverged from the prescribed liberal path.
Palin was raised to be self-sufficient and independent since "idle hands are the devil's tools." Little Sarah was up at the crack of dawn, hunting with her dad; in sharp contrast, liberal kids like me were still fast asleep.
Palin didn't have life handed to her on a silver platter, like so many in the ruling class. Instead, Sarah balanced school, chores, jobs, and sports. While liberal girls like me were glued to the boob tube, Sarah had no time for sloth.
Palin attended church with her family on Sundays. On Sunday morning, young liberals like me were recovering from Saturday night.
From her devout Christian upbringing, Sarah learned to be a good girl. In contrast, I learned everything I needed to know about how to be a modern girl from the monthly Playboy Magazine, which was conspicuously displayed on our living room table.
Sarah dated and then married her high school sweetheart; I learned that my body was a commodity that I "owned." And I could use my body -- and allow it to be used -- to temporarily still the pangs of loneliness.
There's a lyric from a Matt Maher song that always moves me to tears. It's when he cries out to God: "Where were You when sin stole my innocence?"
When I hear these words, an unspeakable pain cuts through me. I feel the ache of something stolen from me -- something precious, never quite recovered. And there are countless others out there, similarly robbed, though they have no idea what has gone missing.
And then, out of the blue, Sarah Palin, like a majestic bird in flight, swooped onto the scene of a depraved and deprived nation. With her children and grandchild, her religion and her patriotism, Sarah is the antithesis of everything the progressives stand for. Palin is not just pro-life, but she emanates life -- and good, clean living.
And what does the left do? They try to drag her through the mud to sully her. The hardcore among them want to eliminate her, even if this means putting her life at risk.
The progressives "joke" about gang-rape, make pornographic movies about her, and leer at her legs. (Would any of this be tolerated against Michelle Obama?)
Palin's church was torched during the primary, a vicious crime that was hushed up by the MSM. And now, with the smears about Tucson, death threats against Palin have soared.
Yes, leftists attack Palin because they envy her beauty; and true, she's a political threat. But the main reason for the hatred is something deeper and darker.
Leftists loathe Palin because she has retained something that was stripped from them years ago: a wholesomeness, a purity of heart. People on the left despise Palin because she shines a bright light on their shame and unworthiness, which they try desperately to deny.
The progressives, like that brutal gang of abandoned girls, want to drag Palin down into the gutter with them; they want to spoil her. Of course, their efforts will be futile; Palin is fueled by a Spirit that isn't simply her own.
The left knows only how to point fingers, and threaten, and menace. Why? They are lost, abandoned children as well; they have shunned the only Force who could wash them clean and bring them home again.
A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley. Robin's articles are intended to inform and entertain, not to provide psychotherapeutic advice or diagnosis. You can post a comment for this article here.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/why_the_left_hates_sarah_palin.html at January 20, 2011 - 02:39:55 AM CST

12 January 2011

Facebook Hate Group Against Sarah Palin

Source

Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 10:56 PM

This is absolutely disgusting.
The facebook group, “I hate it when I wake up and Sarah Palin is still alive” passed 2,000 members today.

Don’t expect the state-run media to touch this.
They’re only good at linking anti-war, anti-Christian, anti-Constitution, left-wing, pro-Marx, antiflag, “quite liberal” lunatics to the tea party.
That’s as far as they’re willing to go.

10 January 2011

Liberal Usage of Atempted Murder

Source

The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of several people by gunman Jared Loughner in Arizona yesterday has revealed two sicknesses.

The first and most serious is the sickness living in Loughner's head. Evidence in the form of farewell videos, internet postings, and the recollections of people who knew him reveal a profoundly disturbed person who had veered far into a paranoid world. Loughner's complaints about government mind control and other rants were not "anti-government" in any political sense, but anti-government or anarchist in the Ted Kazynski-deranged sense. We do not know Loughner's motives, but those motives whatever they were were the byproduct of Loughner's clearly delusional view of the world.

There also was a second sickness on display, and it was the swiftness and the vigor with which the left-wing blogosphere and some more mainstream Democrats immediately sought to blame Sarah Palin and right-wing "vitriol" in general for the shooting.

Within minutes of the shooting being made known, two of the highest profile left-wing bloggers, Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos and Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress, pulled out a 10-month-old electoral map used at a Sarah Palin website showing almost two dozen congressional districts being targeted, including Giffords' district. The map was similar to one used by the Democratic Leadership Committee to target Republicans in the prior election cycle, and as Howard Kurtz points out, simply typical of campaign rhetoric using military-themed language.

Markos explicitly accused Palin of having blood on her hands and Yglesias did so implicitly. Through retweets of this message and the map, the left-blogosphere (with some exceptions who took a wait-and-see attitude) took up the cudgel of turning this shooting to their political advantage. Think Progress ran updates with details on the Palin map and also an advertisement several months ago by Giffords' congressional campaign opponent also using military terminology. But clearly, Palin has been the focus, with a larger attack on "right wing vitriol."

Not surprisingly, Keith Olbermann -- one of the most hateful television personalities who names a nightly "Worst Person In The World" -- joined the chorus. Even The New York Times joined the fray, reporting on the Palin map in its initial coverage, and running a Paul Krugman blog post blaming right-wing rhetoric.

Numerous sources also are reporting that Judge John M. Roll, who was killed, had been the subject of threats because of an immigration ruling, but by all accounts Roll was not targeted and was at the event in a shopping area purely by coincidence. [Update: The Criminal Complaint filed this afternoon indicates Judge Roll intended to attend the event to speak with Giffords or her staff, but there is no indication Loughner would have known that.]

Yet not a single person pushing the blame-Palin line has offered a shred of evidence that Loughner ever saw Palin's electoral map, was motivated by it, was right-wing (anectodally it appears Loughner was quite left-wing as of a few years ago), was motivated by right-wing radio, or did any of the things being assumed by the left-blogosphere, the mainstream media and some Democratic politicians.

Not a shred of evidence connecting Loughner to Palin, the Tea Parties, or the right wing, yet the left-blogosphere, mainstream media and Democratic politicians have erupted into a frenzy of name-calling directed at Palin and those who oppose Obama's agenda.

Who knows what evidence will come forward in coming days, but based on what we know now, the attempt to blame Palin and opponents of Obama for the shooting is every bit as delusional as Loughner's attempt to blame government mind control.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen this type of reaction. The meme that opponents of Obama are crazy and dangerous has been an explicit Democratic Party campaign strategy for over two years. Here is just a partial list of events in which the left-wing and Democratic Party media operation has immediately blamed right-wing rhetoric, only to be proven wrong when the facts finally came out: Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

The facts will come out about the shooting and murder by Loughner. Until then, we'll be subjected to the sickness of people who seek to use the crime to their political advantage and who will worry about the facts later on, if ever.

In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the deceased and those injured.

Update: Congresswoman Giffords took part in the reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House last week, an event which was denounced by the left-blogosphere and some Democrats as a stunt and a reflection of a fetish:



Interestingly, Think Progress posted this video on its YouTube channel back in November, of Democratic pollster (and former Hillary Clinton campaign manager) Mark Penn arguing that Obama needed "another Oklahoma City" in order to reconnect with the people:



The manner in which the left-wing is seeking to exploit this crime reflects an attempt to replicate the political success Bill Clinton had after the Oklahoma City bombing.

Indeed, Politico reports (h/t Gateway Pundit) that a Democratic strategist is advising as follows:

One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did.

“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”
Update No. 2 - Does Sheriff Clarence Dupnik Have No Shame? His whose press conference yesterday has been widely cited as proof that right-wing vitriol led to the killings was just interviewed by Meghan Kelly on FoxNews and for the first time was forced to commit as to whether he had any evidence that Loughner actually listened to or was influenced by such political rhetoric. Dupnik admitted "it's just my opinion period" and that "I don't have that information yet." Videos at the link.

26 November 2010

A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States

Moose hunter clubbs the media.
My fellow Americans in all 57 states, the time has changed for come. With our country founded more than 20 centuries ago, we have much to celebrate – from the FBI’s 100 days to the reforms that bring greater inefficiencies to our health care system. We know that countries like Europe are willing to stand with us in our fight to halt the rise of privacy, and Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. And let’s face it, everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma and they end up taking up a hospital bed.

It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early, and they got some treatment, and ah, a breathalyzer, or an inhalator. I mean, not a breathalyzer, ah, I don’t know what the term is in Austrian for that…

Of course, the paragraph above is based on a series of misstatements and verbal gaffes made by Barack Obama (I didn’t have enough time to do one for Joe Biden). YouTube links are provided just in case you doubt the accuracy of these all too human slips-of-the-tongue. If you can’t remember hearing about them, that’s because for the most part the media didn’t consider them newsworthy. I have no complaint about that. Everybody makes the occasional verbal gaffe – even news anchors.

Obviously, I would have been even more impressed if the media showed some consistency on this issue. Unfortunately, it seems they couldn’t resist the temptation to turn a simple one word slip-of-the-tongue of mine into a major political headline. The one word slip occurred yesterday during one of my seven back-to-back interviews wherein I was privileged to speak to the American public about the important, world-changing issues before us.

If the media had bothered to actually listen to all of my remarks on Glenn Beck’s radio show, they would have noticed that I refer to South Korea as our ally throughout, that I corrected myself seconds after my slip-of-the-tongue, and that I made it abundantly clear that pressure should be put on China to restrict energy exports to the North Korean regime. The media could even have done due diligence and checked my previous statements on the subject, which have always been consistent, and in fact even ahead of the curve.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good story? (And for that matter, why not just make up stories out of thin air – like the totally false hard news story which has run for three days now reporting that I lobbied the producers of “Dancing with the Stars” to cast a former Senate candidate on their show. That lie is further clear proof that the media completely makes things up without doing even rudimentary fact-checking.)

“Hope springs eternal” as the poet says. Let’s hope that perhaps, just maybe, they might get it right next time. When we the people are effective in holding America’s free press accountable for responsible and truthful reporting, then we shall all have even more to be thankful for!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

- Sarah Palin

11 November 2010

Pleasing Republicans Necessary For Big-League TV Success

by John Nolte

James Hibberd over at THR has written a terrific article that should cause all kinds of heartburn throughout the left-wing fever swamp we call Hollywood. No one should be surprised that we Republicans like television, but what is surprising is that while Democrats flock in larger numbers to niche programming such as “30 Rock,” ”Mad Men,” and “Dexter,” pleasing we righties appears to be one of the key factors in creating a mainstream ratings success:

[I]f you look at the list of broadcast shows that are Republican favorites, it closely mirrors the Nielsen top 10 list, whereas Democrats tend to gravitate toward titles likely to have narrower audiences.

To Hollywood, the data suggest a potentially disquieting idea: The TV industry is populated by liberals, but big-league success may require pleasing conservatives. …

“Historically, the shows that have done better are populist, mainstream and give us confidence in our public institutions,” TV historian Tim Brooks says. “For a while in the 1960s and early 1970s, shows started representing social rebellion, but broadcast quickly reverted to Happy Days.”

What has changed is the explosion on cable that has allowed networks to appeal to more specific viewpoints, from Comedy Central’s The Daily Show With Jon Stewart to Fox News’ Glenn Beck. Moreover, if you’re a liberal viewer in a major city (which typically correlates with higher education) and you have such titles as Mad Men and Dexter to watch each week, are you going to also be interested in seeing a paint-by-numbers crime procedural on broadcast or a laugh-track-boosted sitcom? On the scripted side, at least, the explosion of complex dramas on cable may have ceded some of the broadcast ground to what one might label Republican tastes.

Funny how it’s the left who screams the loudest about the loss of the old network monopolies that gave concentrated power to a very few, and yet they seem to be the ones benefiting most from the choices created by an ever-growing cable landscape. Another takeaway:

John Fetto, senior marketing manager at Experian Simmons [says], “Looking at the Democrats side, I don’t mean to make light of it, but they seem to like shows about damaged people. Those are the kind of shows Republicans just stay away from.”

Before the left dislocates something patting themselves on the back over how complicated and interesting their television choices are, both “Kourtney and Khloe Take Miami” and “90210″ place in their top five with the relentlessly sleazy (last I saw) “Law & Order: SVU” not far behind.

Really, Lefties? Kourtney and Khloe Take Miami?

If anything, we righties seem to just want to escape … as long as that escapism doesn’t involve someone who spells “Chloe” with a “k.”

The most disturbing news for the intolerant left is probably that The Learning Channel appears to be taking this reality seriously and ”Sarah Palin’s Alaska” is just the start of a line up of new shows aimed at the “Heartland.” More programming is coming and if they happen to be successful…

Oh no, one channel in 250 aimed at Red Staters! Quick, destroy it! Would anyone be surprised? After all, we have one news network out of ten and look at how unhinged that makes them.

So, what have we learned today?

We’ve learned Republicans like winners. The shows might be considered fluffy, but they’re generally programs that make people feel good. If you’re a broadcast network executive weighing whether to buy a show, you might ask your uncle who voted twice for George W. Bush if he likes the idea. We’ve learned Democrats are, depending on your perspective, discriminating viewers who prefer highly original, well-written series or are cynics who enjoy watching jerks.

Fair enough. But I think it’s also safe to say that the right-wing popularity of programs like “Modern Family,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Two and a Half Man” pretty much puts to rest the lie that we’re a bunch of prudes looking only for reaffirmation of our own worldview. Here’s a clip from the third most popular Republican show.

Not sure where I would land on this list. Over the past fifteen years the only television I’ve watched has been “The Sopranos,” “The Wire” (the greatest television I’ve ever seen), “Lost,” and “24.” When I do watch television these days it’s most any true crime documentary I can find, ranging from forensics to prison escapes and then there’s my beloved my DVD collections of “Married With Children, “Seinfeld,” “Sanford and Son,” “Rockford Files,” “Honeymooners,” and the original “Twilight Zone” and “Outer Limits” — shows I can return to again and again after only a couple of years in-between.

If it’s any consolation, I know I’m missing a lot of great TV, but free time isn’t a premium in my life and so the tried and true are my comfort food — oh, and movies. Lots and lots of movies.

20 September 2010

Sarah => Mainstream. Obama => Fringe

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, September 20, 2010, 11:47 AM

Of course, this surprises no one except the far left cranks in the state-run media…
63% of mainstream voters say their views are more like Sarah Palin’s than Barack Obama’s.

Rasmussen reported:

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin’s than they are to President Obama’s, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 40% say their views are closer to the president’s than to those of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate.

Among the Political Class, however, 68% say their views are more like Obama’s, while 63% of Mainstream voters describe their views as more like Palin’s.

Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party say their views are more like Palin’s. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats say they think more like the president.

What do you mean?…
Not everyone wants to build a victory mosque at Ground Zero?

06 September 2008

What does Charles Johnson know about Christianity?

In his latest jibe against Creationism, Charles makes a few coments that are worth comenting.

Since I’ve posted two articles about Sarah Palin’s statements on creationism, let’s go across the aisle and see what the fanatical Darwin-hating creationists at “Answers In Genesis” think.
Notice the emotional words "fanatical" and "hating" that Charles uses in these short lines. I believe he uses those words with the clear purpose of arboring negative feelings towards those who believe that God spoke the Truth about Creation in Genesis 1.

Do creationists hate Darwin? I have been reading a lot of creationist material for some years, and I have never seen "hatred" for Darwin anywhere. Now, do we hate darwinism? Sure we do, since it's a lie. The Bible says:

Prov 8:13 To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech

Continuing....
They’re also examining Palin’s statements, and of course they’re eagerly hoping she’ll be an advocate for their weird pseudo-science: Is She Really a Creationist?
Coming from a man who believes that land mammals became whales, and dinossaurs became birds, it's trully amazing him considering the belief that there is empirical evidence for design in the universe as "weird pseudo-science".
(Notice how they add footnotes everywhere to make it seem like a scholarly work.)

Oh, those evil creationists! How dare they to put the references for the things they are claiming?! Pure evil! EVIL, I say!
(...) The Answers in Genesis crowd is quick to reassure the world that they don’t want to force creationism on students—not because it’s wrong or anything, but because science teachers trained in “Darwinism” wouldn’t be able to teach their pseudo-science well enough.

Which is, by the way, true. We only need to observe the ways the mainstream media portrays Christian beliefs in general, creationism in particular, to see that darwinian teachers would do their best to put creationism in the worse light possible.

Instead, they’re in favor of “teaching the controversy,” the current strategy of creationists and proponents of “intelligent design.” Rather than force their hooey into schools, they want to sneak it in.

LOL!
That's right! There is no controverys around the theory of evolution. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Every single thing about the theory is 100% right, and 100% observable. If you say that it isn't so, then you must be a young earth creationist.

The truth of the matter, of course, is that it is not only the evil creationists who are pointing out the problems with the theory of evolution. Here is a short collection of citations by scientists concerning areas where the theory is lacking: (All emphasys mine)

"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason.
But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!"


Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.
............

"What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform.
There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."
Pierre-Paul Grasse,
French zoologist in 'Evolution of Living Organisms' (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 104

...........

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.
But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity--omnipotent chance."

T. Rosazak,
Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

.............

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?
There is another theory, now quite out of favor, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny.
I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.
I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
Dr. H. S. Lipson,
F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138

.................

"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Arthur Eddington,
(Astrophysicist): Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.

Bottom line is that there is no shortage of scientists who say out that the evidence points away from the theory of evolution, and closer to the design hypothesis. What Charles and his darwinian brothers sugest, contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of conservatives, and contrary to the wishes of most americans, is that we don't tell the students about the problems of the theory because, says Charles, that is "sneaking creationism". In other words, we should throw away the evidence lest people become creationists. Never mind the truth.

Charles then cites Answers in Genesis and comments on their words:

Incidentally, it should be noted that there is no such position as a “neutral” or “non-religious” stance in this debate. Public school biology textbooks and many teachers explain the origin of the universe and life through “natural” processes, defining science as explaining things by “natural” processes. They are indoctrinating students in an atheistic religious belief—that no god is or has been involved; thus, naturalism—in essence, atheism—is now the religion taught in public schools. Parents need to wake up to the fact that public education is not non-religious. Even the Bible affirms that one is either for Christ or against—clearly teaching that there is no such “neutral” position.


If you don’t want to turn the clock back to medieval times and deny most of modern science, then according to Answers in Genesis you’re a damned atheist.

Huh, that is not what they said, Charlie. They said that by defining science as the enterprise which seeks only "natural causes", public schools are in fact indoctrinating people in naturalism. That is hardly a neutral position.

Why should we accept their assumptions and their definitions when debating untestable events?

And you can’t be neutral, or believe in God and evolution; it’s creationism or hell.

They didn't say that either. But it's a common trend among darwinists to misquote creatonists. They can't handle the true position, so they make up caricatures, and "attack" them.

One can be a Christian and believe in evolution. The problem is that he is not consistent. If God is the Creator, surely He left evidence. Is that evidence seen? If yes, then creationists are right. If not, then atheistic evolutionists are right.

If God, as the Master Designer, was Unable to leave evidence for Himself in the things He created, He is the Only Designer who was Unable to leave evidence. Even humans are able to leave evidence of their work (paintigs, etc). Strangely, God, the Supreme Designer, was not Able to leave evidence.

Weird.

But what does Charles make of the evolutionists who say that evolution and God are mutually exclusive? How come he puts the canard "Belief in evolution does not exclude belief in God", and points it at creationists? He should be using that line against people like Dawkins who say that evolution made it possible to be an intelectually fullfilled atheist.

What is it about evolution that makes atheists be intellectually fullfilled? Perhaps Charles should write them, and tell them that they have to get back being intelectually unfullfilled, since evolution does not remove God from the place of Creator.

Or does it?

04 September 2008

Palin Has Not "Pushed" Creationism as Governor.

In this last swing against the belief held by the majority of conservatives, Charles Johnson says a few things that should make conservatives move away from his evolutionary position.

He says:

Apparently, she has a rather confused attitude toward evolution (an attitude she shares with about 50% of the US population), but when asked explicitly whether she would support teaching the pseudo-science of “intelligent design,” her answer was “No.”


So in Charles worldview, believing that there is empirical evidence for creation is "confusion", and that "confusion" is shared by 50% of american simpletons.

What an elistist, prejudiced, condescending statement. Charles like to attack Obama (rightfully) about his elistist views (like the "bitter people who cling to guns and religions"), but it seems that, when it comes to evolution, Charles is just as elistist and unrepresentive of the american worldview as Obama is of the political, social and even religious worldview.

If I had been an american conservative, I would be very offended by Charles statement that 50% of americans are "confused" only because they believe that there is empirical evidence that the living world was designed.

How elistist. How condescending. How patronizing.

To use some of liberal style, shame on you, Charles.

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More