My YouTube Channel


Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Blood moon and religion

Reminder to me to comment upon this when there's more time.


Well, there's a LITTLE more time, so here goes.  I'm having to recall something here from memory about what they are saying ie.  that the sun will darken and the moon will turn red, or something to that effect.  Now, there's a possibility of those two events occuring simultaneously.  If an asteroid big enough to wipe out humanity comes in a blood moon, then it could qualify.  The odds of that have to be really low, but not impossible.

Consider an asteroid about 5 miles in diameter.  Such an asteroid would be capable of ending civilization.  There's no doubt that near the point of impact that it will blot out the sun because it will be freakin' huge.

So the sun could be darkened during a blood moon and it would be the end of days.  Not impossible at all.

After that, you can believe what you want to believe about a second coming.  But somebody a long time ago did predict something that could happen, so you have to wonder about that second coming thing...

On the other hand, maybe you wouldn't wonder at all.  You'd just say, come on Greg!  You don't really believe that do you?

Houston schools ditch 'Indians,' other mascots - State - ValleyMorningStar

Houston schools ditch 'Indians,' other mascots - State - ValleyMorningStar

Political correctness wins again.  What harm was there in a mascot name?

Drat! I thought I was on to something

That post about the state of California having a right to counsel related to the this amendment in the Bill of Rights

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Ooops!  This is a right to counsel for criminal cases.  This wasn't a criminal case, so that's out the window.  Yet, if an individual who is accused of a crime has a right to representation, why can't the people of California be represented?  Although that is not in the Bill of Rights per se, it would surely seem to be a gigantic hole in the law, which the governor of California just waltzed right on through.

If the people's representatives won't represent them, who can speak for them?  Should the Court have said that the people have no right to representation in the Court just because their own representatives won't do that which they swore to do?

Has Rush Limbaugh Finally Reached the End Of The Road?

Forbes via Free Republic

The article says that Rush is trying to pull the wool over his audience's eyes.   For that reason, he is running on empty.

I think I had some negative things to say about Rush not too long ago.  Actually, Dick Morris is catching up to Rush, and may be passing him.   That may be a bit much since Morris was an adviser to Slick Willy.

Ben Carson: White House wanted apology for ‘offending’ Obama

Free Republic

He did not appear to be hostile or angry,” Carson writes of Obama, “but within a matter of minutes after the conclusion of the program, I received a call from some of the prayer breakfast organizers saying that the White House was upset and requesting that I call the president and apologize for offending him. I said that I did not think that he was offended and that I didn’t think that such a call was warranted.”---quote from Daily Caller
Yeah, I'd say it was unwarranted to expect an apology.  Anybody ever heard of the First Amendment?  But one of the Supreme Court justices thinks that the First Amendment isn't an individual right.  So, one of these days, somebody might be jailed for what Carson said.

“Oligarchy, not democracy: Americans have ‘near-zero’ input on policy – report”

Protein Wisdom

This is a link to a Russia Today report, that itself links to a report done by some universities here.

Well, I don't know.  Do we have a bit of propaganda or do we have a bit of truth?

Seems to me that there was a poll somewhere that said that most people don't think we are governed by consent.

The other side of that is that way too many people don't bother to vote.  Although it may seem pointless, there's really nothing preventing people from going to the polls and making themselves heard.

You don't have to vote for the two major parties, either.  There are other choices.

Could it be that people just want to complain and not actually do something about their situation?  How many people actually try to inform themselves and make themselves heard?  How many?  I'd like to see a major poll taken to determine that.

I do think that the rich have too much power.  But that doesn't excuse apathy or indifference.

The Bundy situation isn't going away

Now we've got Harry Reid's son out there looking for Bundy's scalp.

Rory Reid gives this big statement that there's a "rule of law" that must be obeyed.  Okay, that would be nice if it applied to everybody.  Evidently, Rory Reid doesn't seem to think it applies that way.

RORY REID, SON OF SEN. HARRY REID: We believe in a country in which we are subject to laws and you can’t just ignore the laws we don’t like.---Hotair
Well, let's see.  The President can just ignore laws he doesn't like and not enforce them.  But this one, no siree Bob, this law must be enforced or else throw the book at the guy.

The hell of it is this:  Reid may actually be wrong on the law.  Somewhere along the line, Bundy may have been wronged.  At least, I think it may be so.

I think what we could have here is a contest of wills.  The left wants to impose its will come hell or high water.  They are going to have to be opposed firmly.

Actually, Harry Reid said it isn't over.  Whatever he says must be true.


An example of how laws are selectively enforced:

You may recall last year's Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage.  There was a Proposition in California that the Governor didn't want to enforce, so he didn't send a state representative to the Court in order to defend the case.  Since there was no state representative, somebody else decided to come in their stead.  But the Court ruled that they didn't have standing, so the law was successfully circumvented.

So what do the Reids have to say about that one?  Same-sex marriage is one of their favorite causes of the moment and this law passed by the voters of California went directly against that.  But one of their own, Governor Moonbeam himself, wouldn't enforce it.

And the Court may not have ruled justly, either.  The Constitution says everyone has a right to representation.  In this case, the Court said okay if the Governor won't represent the people, the people lose.  Some decision they made there.  Some rule of law, eh?  Some democracy, eh?

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

No Bypassing the Electoral College

White is not right: Campus admins ask for help weeding out white people

Free Republic

Western Washington University sent a questionnaire to students asking them for advice on how the administration could succeed at making sure that in future years, “we are not as white as we are today.”---Daily Caller, Robby Soave

I guess academic standards don't matter, huh?  Just as long as you've got the right number of the right colored faces, everything is peachy.  Liberalism is ruinous.

Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy

Powerline via Instapundit

Looks like a good argument.

Another reason for sympathy could be that he could win if the law was enforced fairly, which I suspect that it is not.