Friday, February 27, 2015

Obama Murders Black Teenager by Proxy: Press Is Silent

Which Black Lives Actually Matter In Obama's Utopia?
Father Of Black Teenager Murdered By Illegal Alien Asks ‘Do Black Lives Really Matter?’

"The father of a black teenager murdered by an illegal immigrant asked “do black lives really matter?” in a House hearing to review the Department of Homeland Security’s policies towards “non-citizens unlawfully present in the United States.”

That father, Jamiel Shaw, and Michael Ronnebeck, the uncle of another man murdered earlier this month by an illegal immigrant, testified at Wednesday’s hearing in front of a subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Both men asserted that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) lax detainment policies contributed to the death of their family members. ICE came under intense scrutiny last year when it was revealed that in 2013 the agency had released over 36,000 convicted criminal aliens from its custody. Of those, nearly 200 had committed murder."
Obama knowingly released murderers onto American society; he is guilty of these and other murders and crimes being perpetrated by these darlings of the Obama, his Administration and the Left.

Doing this to Americans is criminal, and would be impeachable except that half of Congress is also guilty of these murders and crimes. No impeachment of this criminal is possible.

To assess the morality of these governmental human virulences, only the immigration policy need be addressed and analyzed, even in isolation from all their other atrocities in the past 6 years.

If you voted for utopia, here it is. This represents the standard Leftist Utopia.

This Is Why I Don't Use My Real Name

Religion of Peace Members Hack Up Blogger.
But it started when I was cyber-stalked by an Atheism-of-Peace member.

Both sets have unpredictable morals; both sets have histories of massive violence.

Dissent In Leftist America...

...Gets you investigated by Congress.
Climate scientist being investigated by Congress for not believing in global warming enough

"Roger Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and six others are under investigation by Congress regarding testimony they've given on the subject of climate change.

Pielke, a believer in man-caused global warming, can't quite figure out why he's the object of a witch hunt.

Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.

For instance, the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a “climate skeptic” opposed to action on climate change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect to disasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research.

What am I accused of that prompts being investigated? Here is my crime:

Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts. His 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.

Two At CPAC Who Have My Attention

Scott Walker and Ben Carson.

Despite Obama's dictatorial hegemonies, nearly half the country still approves of him. Based on that alone, I'm not sure that an actual Constitution-bearing candidate can win in '16. And of course there is the new constituency, the Leftist Illegals vote...

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Obama Starts His War On Guns, Ammo

Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle

"It’s starting.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
"

Imperial Obama: Congress Is Now Trivial, Without Power To Stop Me.

Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead, ‘Have a Vote on Whether What I’m Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto’

"Pres. Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal.

Discussing opposition to his executive amnesty orders at an immigration town hall Wednesday, Obama said he would veto the vote because his actions are “the right thing to do”:

“So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”"
With the pansy Republicans Mitch McConnell and John Boehner caving into him daily, Obama will run rampant over the USA. All funding for the White House should be removed.

Trigger Alert

CAREFUL! This image offends me and is a micro-aggression against my sensibilities and makes me feel unsafe!

Leftist Race War: Democrat blames Segregation On Republicans, Who Fought It Orignally Against Democrats Who Created It

Dem Rep: ‘Tea Party People’ Want To Bring Back Segregation, Get Rid Of Women’s Rights

"Democratic Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said during a Democratic town hall this weekend that he would defend against “Tea Party people” who want to go back to a time of segregation and no women’s rights. (VIDEO: Dem Rep: GOP Still Believes In Slavery, ‘Racial Superiority’)"
It's not clear that Democrats are stupid, it is possible that Cleaver, for example is just vastly ignorant. But it's also possible that he is evil, spreading the exact opposite of truth to the Democrat's black plantation captives.

Black persecution historically has ALWAYS been at the hands of the Democrats.

The Leftist Class Warriors repeat the opposite lie constantly, and apparently the Democrat Ghetto Plantation population believe it. Ignorance, controlled by evil, is powerful. That's the entire principle behind government Leftist education machinery: maleducate, control the maleducated, profit from it.

Maybe Cleaver is all of these things: an evil liar, controlling the maleducated.

Here's Charlie Rangel, claiming Republicans want slavery and racial superiority to return. On what basis does he say that? Just himself, that's all.

Hillary Got Foreign Money While Sec'y of State; No Surprise Here - Move Along

Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.
"The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels."
I guess Libya didn't give enough... Probably Iran and Russia did though. I saw that the Clinton's have amassed more than $80 million. They, along with a lot of Dems, are in the 0.001%. And of course, under Hillary, women got paid 78% of men's pay, a similar number to Obama's White House pay rates.

The 2016 presidential elections are projected to cost > $1 billion. And the leftist candidate is expected to hammer on how evil the rich are, in order to woo the poor. Biden already fired up the blacks with yesterday's Black Something-or-other Month Speech, calling for emancipation of wealth. I bet he knows that wealth is printed up daily in the Fed and sent off to the big banks, which just decreases the actual wealth of the poor. I doubt that he buys groceries.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Creepy Uncle Joe Wants To Emancipate Wealth



Black History Biden: Veep calls for 'emancipation' of people's wealth

"Vice President Joe Biden used a Black History Month event at his official residence Monday night to decry the rich, both white and black, for stunting economic growth and suggested that “emancipation” is in order.

“A lot of wealthy white and black people aren't bad but they control 1 percent of the economy and this cannot stand,” Biden told about 100 guests, including past civil rights activists and NBC weatherman Al Roker.

RELATED: Why is the press ignoring Joe Biden's 2016 ambition?

“It's not fair because the business experts are saying that concentration of wealth is stunting growth. So let's do something that's worthy of emancipation,” said Biden, according to a press pool report of the event.

Then, explaining the impact of Civil War era emancipation, Biden concluded, “What happened is not only did we move toward freeing black Americans but also the conscience of white Americans.”
Those who know anything - ANYTHING - about black history, know that it was Democrats who opposed liberation, Democrats who instituted segregation and Jim Crow, Democrats who desperately fought against every Civil Rights Law, and Democrats who keep funding the Democrat ghetto plantations and black abortion factories.

Democrats, after Lyndon Johnson, started lying about their racism and changed the tactics of their Class War to appear that they wanted to save blacks from the Republicans. In fact, during the prior 100 years the Republicans passed around a dozen Civil Rights Laws which Democrats fought with every base tactic they could devise.

That's all real black history.

Emancipation of blacks was against Democrat policy. But emancipating wealth certainly is certainly their dream. But it is not really the uberwealthy they want to strip; that's just a head fake. They want to "normalize" everyone's wealth, except for themselves and their cronies.

Washington State Government Demands Jizya From Christian

Washington State AG Demands Payment From Christian

"Flower Power: Christian florist rejects attorney general’s offer, won’t betray her religious beliefs

Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington State florist who declined to provide flowers for a gay wedding , has rejected a deal by the attorney general’s office that would’ve forced her to betray her religious beliefs – much like Judas betrayed Jesus.

“You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver,” Stutzman wrote in a letter to state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. “That is something I will not do.”

Stutzman said she never imagined the day when what she loved to do would become illegal.

Ferguson had offered to settle the case if she paid a $2,000 penalty for violating the Consumer Protection Act, a $1 payment for costs and fees, and agreed not to discriminate in the future.

“My primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the defendant’s unlawful conduct and to make clear that I will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Ferguson said in a prepared statement.

On Feb. 18 a judge ruled Stutzman had violated the law by refusing to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding of a longtime customer. The state had not only gone after the flower shop but also Stutzman personally.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the religious liberty law firm representing Stutzman, said legal bills could be as high as seven figures.

“He’s using the full power of his office to personally and professionally destroy her,” ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner told me."
Note the arrogance of the "I will not tolerate" boast. I support the ADF.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

The Left Will Crap Themselves When They Hear About the...

...Christian MILITIA
fighting with Kurds in Syria.
For some reason I feel compelled to repeat that:
CHRISTIAN MILITIA

IPCC Chairman Pachauri Out Due to Sliminess

OK, that headline is just my (ongoing) personal opinion of the man. Now he is implicated in sexual harassment. He has profited in a large, financial way from the IPCC scares. Even India doesn't believe he is honest.

Criticizing Dear Leader...

As around the world people are persecuted for criticizing their dictators, the American Left has produced a pogrom against critics of Obama.
Stephanie Miller: Giuliani's Comments About Obama Akin To The N-Word And The C-Word

"it's like when someone says I'm not a racist, but n-word for a black person. I'm not a homophobe, but f-word for gay person. I'm not a sexist, but c-word for a woman. "
The first reaction to criticism is to call out the Class War on the critics. That's as close to a moral pogrom as the Left can get at the moment.

But it's revealing. They are shameless in their god-worship of Obama. When you have no shame, it's an indicator that you have no morals. Obama-worship is their moral-free religion.

Bill Nye: Psycho? Or Just Immature?

Here's what Bill Nye thinks will solve the antisemitism problem in Europe:
Bill Nye's Solution For Jews In Europe: "Get To Know Your Neighbors" Better; Israel "Not Their Home"
See, it's the Jews' fault for not getting cozy with the Muslims. Muslims are SO open to that, you know.

Another Settled Science Debunked?

Fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain, warn scientists


Fluoride could be causing depression and weight gain and councils should stop adding it to drinking water to prevent tooth decay, scientists have warned.

A study of 98 per cent of GP practices in England found that high rates of underactive thyroid were 30 per cent more likely in areas of the greatest fluoridation.

It could mean that up to 15,000 people are suffering needlessly from thyroid problems which can cause depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles.

Last year Public Health England released a report saying fluoride was a ‘safe and effective’ way of improving dental health.

But new research from the University of Kent suggests that there is a spike in the number of cases of underactive thyroid in high fluoride areas such as the West Midlands and the North East of England.

Lead author Professor Stephen Peckham, Centre for Health Service Studies, said: “I think it is concerning for people living in those areas.

“The difference between the West Midlands, which fluoridates, and Manchester, which doesn’t was particularly striking. There were nearly double the number of cases in Manchester.

“Underactive thyroid is a particularly nasty thing to have and it can lead to other long term health problems. I do think councils need to think again about putting fluoride in the water. There are far safer ways to improve dental health.”
Or maybe these folks are "flouride deniers" or "anti-science" scientists...

Illegal Aliens ARE expected to Vote...

We've known this for a while now; but the Dems clear it up for us:
Obama amnesty creates loophole for illegal immigrants to vote in elections

"Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s nonvoting member of Congress, accused Republicans of an effort at voter suppression.

“The president’s executive order gives immigrants the right to stay — immigrants who have been here for years, immigrants who have been working hard and whose labor we have needed,” Ms. Norton said. “The Republicans may want to go down in history as the party who tried once again 100 years later to nullify the right to vote. Well, I am here to say they shall not succeed.”

Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat, said he doubted illegal immigrants would risk running afoul of the law — which could get them deported — just to be an insignificant part of an election."

Let's parse this:

1. Norton says that controlling the border against illegal entry is voter suppression. Good. Now we know that the Left is going to give them the vote, illegally.

2. Lynch says that the people who already violated US law would "not risk running afoul of the law". Good. Now we know how non-coherent the current policy and its supporters actually are.

3. Lynch says that the illegal votes will be "an insignificant part of an election". Good. Now we know that the Dems know that illegals actually could vote if they didn't care about breaking US laws.

I'm glad they straightened that out.

We Knew Obama Would Give Iran The Nuclear Bomb

The only question has been, "how would he do it"?
Historic US-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape

"GENEVA (AP) — Edging toward a historic compromise, the U.S. and Iran reported progress Monday on a deal that would clamp down on Tehran's nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then slowly ease restrictions on programs that could be used to make atomic arms.

Officials said there were still obstacles to overcome before a March 31 deadline, and any deal will face harsh opposition in both countries. It also would be sure to further strain already-tense U.S. relations with Israel, whose leaders oppose any agreement that doesn't end Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to strongly criticize the deal in an address before Congress next week.

Still, a comprehensive pact could ease 35 years of U.S-Iranian enmity — and seems within reach for the first time in more than a decade of negotiations.

"We made progress," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said as he bade farewell to members of the American delegation at the table with Iran. More discussions between Iran and the six nations engaging it were set for next Monday, a senior U.S. official said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the sides found "a better understanding" at the negotiating table."
The entire Obama administration are treasonous to the west, western values, and western peoples, and are bent on total destruction of Israel by proxy. Their values are congruent with both those of the Marxist class-warriors of the Left, and with Islamic hegemonic destruction of rational western values.

This is more than arming the enemy; it is arming the not-so secret ally of the treasonous Leftist/Islamist nexus.

Monday, February 23, 2015

Obama's Answer To Jihadi Massacres


I wish I had compiled all the re-definitions done by the Lefties over the past 6 years.

Islam: Two Views

Is the ISIS interpretation of Islamic perfection "premodern"? If that is the case, is that view closer to the original, true Islam? This is demonstrated in two articles, one which documents the Islamic justifications for the practices of ISIS, and another, which claims the need for eradicating literalism from Islamic interpretations.

ISIS does, in fact, use documented Islamic tradition and law to justify its actions. To claim that ISIS is not Islamic is irrational, because if their actions are justifiable under Islamic principles, if they worship Allah and the prophet, and if they mimic the prophet's behaviors and attitudes, then they are as Islamic as those who do not, and possibly moreso.

On the other hand, the call to modify Islam in order to make it into the beautiful religion which it currently is not makes it clear that in order for Islam to be considered "modern" rather than premodern, peaceful rather than violently hegemonic, and tolerant rather than violently monolithic, that the fundamental understanding of Islam must change. And that means that the Islamic "scholars" must change, the comprehensions of sharia and the hadiths must change. This would require an all-new religious base, an all-new intellectual and moral infrastructure.

The chance of that happening, in the face of centuries of premodern Islamic tradition which flow into Islamists around the world, is none. Moral law become relativist, is no longer moral law. To destroy the moral enabling of men over women and Islam over all others would destroy the essence of Islam. That will not happen.

For that reason Islam in the form of ISIS will be much more likely to grow rather than succumb to modernization. And for the free west, that can only mean that Islam must be, at a minimum, marginalized in the west in order to preserve western freedoms and rights.

There Is A Solution To This

Islamist Group Calls for Attack on US Shopping Malls
Widespread concealed carry, with bullets dipped in bacon grease, like mine are.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Obama Is God; Dissent Is Heresy; Heresy Requires Death Threats. But This God Is Empty: A Vacuum.

Richard Fernandez hits it right: Obama is different. It's OK that Obama attacked Bush's patriotism. Bush was just Bush. Obama is God Almighty On Earth, and cannot be seen as anything else. His existence is the Legend; Obama IS the Narrative. The "palace guards", as Instapundit calls them, must avenge the insult, must neutralize the attack, must marginalize the attacker with all the venom and violence they can legally muster, short of actual assassination. The media and Obama are One. Together they are the Everything Theory of Progressive Moral Authority, the Unification of Lower Human Classes and the Elite Messiahs in Social Salvation. Obama is as sacred as Evolution.
A Question of Personality

A charismatic leader derives authority from himself; from an astounding life story, from attributes possessed by no other man. The approach has become common and we know the sort; the Native American who became a law professor and then Senator; the single mother who wanted to be a governor. The life-story is now standard, but Obama was clearly special. From the very beginning of his career Obama argued that his unique biography — his bi-racial parentage, foreign upbringing, his literary skills etc — made him a special person. By virtue of these gifts he could heal racial divisions; reach out to the Muslim world; bridge the gap between rich and poor and serve as a link between the generations.

By contrast most American presidents derived their greatness from the position, many simply political hacks who we remember today simply because they occupied the Oval Office. Obama marks the first time in recent memory when the office is deemed uplifted by the man and not the other way round. Charismatic leadership has its advantages, which is why it occurs repeatedly in history. It permits the charismatic person to “be bigger than the job” and do great things. Men with this attribute, like Alexander, Caesar or Napoleon seem to rise above the rules and constraints that bind mere human beings. It’s natural that Obama would prefer to be a ‘special’ president rather than an ordinary one.

Yet as someone said to a student who aspired to drop out of college “like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs”, you have to first be sure you can walk that walk before casting your academic career to the winds. Because charismatic leadership has some drawbacks. The most obvious being that since power flows from the person himself then when Rudy Giuliani publicly questioned Obama’s patriotism he was attacking the wellsprings of the administration.

When Giuliani told an audience ”I do not believe – and I know this is a horrible thing to say – but I do not believe that the President loves America,” he was inadvertently doing more than criticizing a president; he was in a manner of speaking, committing treason. The unprecedented firestorm of opprobrium that greeted Giuliani suggested that he had somehow hit a switch. It was like pushing an ordinary button in the wall and watching the skyscrapers out the window suddenly crumble in dust down into the ground.

What Giuliani had done was undermine Obama’s legitimacy. Because so much of Obama’s “power” comes from his special-ness that to question his patriotism is to strike at the basis for his governance. It was, as in a monarchy, tantamount to rebellion. The reason that similar remarks by Obama about George Bush’s patriotism evoked simple shrugs was because Bush was just an ordinary president, the latest in a line of politicians to occupy the office since George Washington.

But Obama is different. One cannot understand, for example, the vituperation vented by Dana Milbank at Scott Walker, calling him out for “cowardice”, arguing for his “disqualification” (yes those are the words) for the simple act of refusing to publicly repudiate Giuliani’s words about the president, unless one grasps this essential fact. Obama is different. The Obama phenomenon is founded so completely on his legend that to attack the legend is to undermine the very foundations of the tower on which he stands.

But this is not the first time the Obama myth has been directly impugned. The first major political figure to accidentally touch the Third Rail was Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu has become an extraordinary hate object in the press, not because of any views he may hold on policy, but because Netanyahu had the temerity to disrespect Obama. Netanyahu must have been astonished by the charge of electricity that gave back on him.

Disrespect America, even attack it if you want, and you will not receive a tenth such voltage as did Netanyahu. The torrent of hostility poured upon Netanyahu was so out of proportion to any conceivable offense, that he probably felt obliged to persist in coming, reasoning that he must be on to something. Yet the myth of the president has been crumbling abroad for some time. Readers will recall that Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande recently made the almost unheard-of move of negotiating directly with Vladimir Putin over Ukraine without receiving instructions from the “leader of the free world”.
Obama is nothing if his "legend" is found empty. Those of us who paid attention in 2008 saw how deeply empty the vacuum of Obama truly is. One final excerpt:
"American credibility — and that of its cultural elite — now rests on a single point of failure: the narrative life history of the least vetted person in recent presidential politics. No republic, especially one as great as the United States, should ever be based on the such a fragile thing as the biography of a single man."
Especially a man who hides his biography.

Read it all.

It's Mayor's Week On Planet Earth

First Rudy Giuliani takes down Obama, then the mayor of Jerusalem takes down a knife wielding terrorist:


Islamic Peace Ring Protects Oslo Synagogue

Muslims form 'ring of peace' to protect Oslo synagogue

" More than 1,000 people formed a "ring of peace" Saturday outside Oslo's main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims.

The event in the Norwegian capital follows a series of attacks against Jews in Europe, including the terror attacks in Paris in January and in neighboring Denmark last week.

One of the eight independent organisers of Saturday's event in Oslo, Hajrah Arshad said the gathering shows "that Islam is about love and unity."

"We want to demonstrate that Jews and Muslims do not hate each other," co-organiser Zeeshan Abdullah told the crowd, standing in a half-circle before the white synagogue. "We do not want individuals to define what Islam is for the rest of us."

"There are many more peace-mongers than warmongers," he added. "
This type of action is much more beneficial than just talking up "religion of peace" while advocating universal Sharia.

Would that they all might take such actions.

But what is to prevent these peace-keepers from being declared heretics and/or apostates and made into targets themselves?

Yeah! What HE said!

Twelve-year old CJ Pearson lays it out for Obama.


Atheists Critique the Article, "Very Short Course On Evolution"; I Reply.

A reader has introduced an Atheist forum to “A Very Short Course On Evolution” on this blog.

They responded, mostly in the arrogant style of Atheists stuck in adolescent “know everything” mode trying to refute, but without any actual refutation in terms of actual science, and the standard rhetorical tactic of crying fallacy where there is none.

There is one semi-valid complaint that the Atheists make regarding the article, and that is that there are no references at the end of the article, as there would be at the end of a scholarly research piece. Yet there is the most important reference of all, which is in the middle of the article and which contains the thoughts of the latest consortium of evolutionary theorists, and which I repeat here:
“Evolution – The Extended Synthesis”, edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd Muller; 2010; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. (a compendium of 16 top evolutionists discussing past and future evolutionary theories).
This compendium covers the latest evolutionary theories and includes the reasoning for abandoning prior evolutionary theories as non-viable.

The Atheist experts seem unaware of this, even though it is fully explained in the article – indicating either that they did not read the article, or that they did not comprehend what they read, or more likely that they didn’t care about it. I think probably the latter, since many (all?) of their “rebuttals” are covered in full within the pages of that book. Their self-assurance in their opinions went out of date two decades ago, and much longer ago if they were actually paying attention to the inner workings of their vaunted evolutionary gurus to whom they pretend to be attuned. (They obviously were not paying attention to those gurus, and are operating in an echo chamber which still values theories which their gurus have long acknowledged are failed theories).

However, there are other sources besides that compendium that have been used in this examination of Evolution, including these, which are the most important, and all of which have contributed to the destruction of evolution as objective knowledge (as opposed to Scientistic religious belief). The number of these and others is the reason that it has taken me so long to acquire an accurate view of the evolution as objective knowledge issue:

Theories of Knowledge:
Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
John Locke; An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Karl Popper; The Logic of Scientific Discovery
George Boole; An Investigation of the Laws of Thought
William Jaworski; Philosophy of Mind
Bertrand Russell; Nine Lectures on Mind
Bertrand Russell; The Analysis of Mind
Michael Polanyi: Personal Knowledge
Karl Popper: Objective Knowledge, An Evolutionary Approach
Thomas Nagel; The Last Word
Brand Blanchard; Reason and Analysis
Yanofsky; The Outer Limits of Reason, What Science, Mathematics and Logic CANNOT Tell Us.
Theories of Science:
Karl Popper; The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Thomas Kuhn; The Structure of Scientific Revoutions
Roger Kimball; Experiments Against Reality
Ian Hutchinson: Monopolizing Knowledge
Robert Bolger; Kneeling At The Altar Of Science
Thomas Nagel; Mind and Cosmos; why the Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False.
W.M. Marshall; The history of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
Peter Lipton; Inference to the Best Explanation
Robert Abelson; Statistics as Principled Argument
National Academy of Sciences; On Being a Scientist; Responsible Conduct in Research
Evolution:
Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution
National Academy of Sciences: Science, Evolution and Creationism
Jerry Coyne: Why Evolution is True
Sean Carroll: Making of the Fittest
Grant and Grant: Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population
Jonathan Weiner: the Beak of the Finch
Dawking; The Selfish Gene
RM Atlas; Principles of Microbiology
Cooper, Hausman; The Cell, A Molecular Approach, sixth ed.
Darwin; Origin of the Species; Descent of Man
Sanford; Genetic Entropy
Bio-Information Theory:
Christof Koch: Biophysics of Computation; information Processing in Single Neurons
Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life
Paul Davies, N.H. Gregersen Eds.; Information and the Nature of Reality: (15 evolutionists)
Fred Hoyle; Mathematics of Evolution
John Lennox; God’s Undertaker
Emergence Theory:
Kauffman; Origins of Order
Gleick; Chaos
Waldrop; Complexity
Juarrero and Rubino; Emergence, Complexity and Self-Organization
Mitchell; Complexity
Strogatz; Sync: How Order Emerges From Chaos in the Universe, Nature an Daily Life
Kauffman; At Home in the Universe
Now, on to the Atheist critics.

The rebuttals to the very short course on evolution are in these categories:
1. You’re too ignorant.
I.e., You must read evolutionists’ works, not arguments against evolution. Only evolutionists’ arguments matter.

It doesn’t matter that the Atheists themselves obviously have not read anything regarding evolution since Junior High School, and hold dear to the Modern Synthesis of the 1940's and 50's, still in those text books.
2. Evolution is simple, here, I’ll explain it to you.
Simple is as simple does. Ignorance of the falsifications is no excuse.
3. Evolution is proven.
Without open, peer-reviewed data, successful replication and empirical standing, there is no proof, not even contingent proof. Story telling is not proof. Real scientists don't claim this and never would because it is ignorant of the limitations of science.
4. That blog/blogger is ...[fill in Ad hominem Abusive required to avoid addressing the issues raised there].
Rhetorical attacks using logical fallacies are useless in proving the truth of evolutionary claims.
5. “and i tore down all his points
seriously if you read an article that ignores the evidence and then just flat out lies and claims there is none, its not a valid source”.

You have provided no evidence in support of your self-perceived refutations; you have only blustered as if you actually know something, which you have not provided. Your claim is merely bluster without substance.
6. "Straw Man" accusation:
It cannot be a straw man if it addresses the argument straight on, and it is a valid argument. The definition of objective knowledge generation via replication of physical cause and effect is the basic reason for the existence of science, starting with the Age of Enlightenment. Anything less is religion and narrative (dogma). That Atheist site engages in religiosity under the false flag of “science” when it is actually engaging in fact-free Scientism (a religion).

Apparently for evolutionary religionists, prediction is not required in their science any more. Just narrative dogma, stories which “seem reasonable” but which have no objective, empirical validation.

Using false charges of fallacy is one of the worst abuses of logic.
7. he uses the term "micro evolution and not macro" that alone discredits him
Then that also discredits a great many published evolutionists. For example, in the compendium, “the Extended Synthesis”, Jablonka and Lamb discuss macroevolution in their article, “Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance” (see page 166, 7).
8. he claims no new information can arise, MOTHERFUCKING MUTATIONS, and ERVs wich are virus code injected by viruses

so he flat out lies..
Again: Produce one deductively designed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this claim. (Name a new species that came from MOTHERFUCKING MUTATIONS and ERVS (a juvenile statement if there ever were one). We’ll need multiple observation of it happening, or else it is just another JUST SO STORY, a fable which is necessary for Atheism to be a self-sustaining religion of self-aggrandizement.

9. " It is not possible to deduce the creation of such a teleological code, much less the agents which comprehend and use the code, from minerals. It is logically absurd. "

i do fucking love argumetns from ignorance
Again: Produce one deductively designed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this claim. (PROVE it is false, or else show your own ignorance by your admission that there is no such deduction and you can’t produce one.)

Further, show that it is NOT logically absurd (internally non-coherent) to hypothesize non-determinism from determinism.

Just do it. No? Can't? Then apologize for yet another false charge.
10. he just flat out claims dna is teological with nothing to back it up besides "its too long" on what basis did he decide the length it must reach before it cant be considered part of chemistry and has to have a purpose?
This statement is convoluted; DNA which is useful obviously does have a purpose; to argue otherwise is irrational. And it has nothing to do with length; what length has to do with it, (along with non-compressible, necessary and meaningful information which is in multiple overlays) is the rational impossibility of that being created from deterministic characteristics of minerals.

And again: Produce one deductively designed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this (inferential) counter-claim. (Show that there is a respectable probability for this useful information bearing molecule occurring from minerals, based on known mineral properties, which are scientifically known to be purely deterministic.) Or just produce the deductive chain itself as a logical, grounded argument.

Do it. Do it now, or apologize for your tone and condescension.
11. Claim that new, useful information is, in fact, created all the time. The evidence is that evolution requires it, and evolution happened, so it has to be “fact” and “truth” "

no we claims that because it does happen all the time AND WE CAN DIRECTLY OBSERVE IT

so more fucking lies
Yet again: Produce one, JUST ONE, peer reviewed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this claim. (New information is created that is not deleterious to the organism, but instead creates speciation).

Absent that data, then apologize for your false charge.
12. he also makes the argument that since sceince changes its all just opinion
METHINKS HE DOESNT KNOW HOW SCIENCE WORKS, seriously ive said it before, the guy who wrote the article knows nothing about biology, ive refuted his fucking points, it shouldn't convince anyone.
Again: Produce one deductively designed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this claim. (ANY evolutionary claim of speciation procedures).

Absent that data, you have refuted nothing. You have a religious belief based on unverified stories, myths which are told as metaphysical truths without any empirical validation whatsoever.

And you speak like a child with unsupervised access to a computer.
13. No references:
False; the Altenberg 16 Book, “The Extended Synthesis”, where 16 top evolutionists attempt to correct for the failed previous evolutionary hypotheses, is credited in the text of the article. Within that reference, many, many references are made by the 16 evolution scientists, who both refute mutation/selection and the failed biogenesis theories of RNA world and metabolite world.
14. whats hard about change over time? i mean i can grok ERVS and thats pretty complicated
Again: Produce one deductively designed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this claim. (that ERVs produced speciation).

Change over time was rejected at the advent of the discovery of the importance of the Cambrian Explosion, resulting in the Punctuated Equilibrium theory of “the existence of no evidence proves rapid evolution”, by Stephen Jay Gould, 30 years ago, Deep time is a known failed hypothesis for at least that long. Gould's PE is the first “Scientific Theory” to be supported by lack of evidence. Prior evolutionary theory at least had subjective story telling.

Also, the failure after roughly 250 years of fossil digging to find the common ancestor to the phyla created in the Cambrian explosion strongly tends to falsify the Common Ancestor Theory. There is no hypothesis which shows a path from a common ancestor at the beginning of the era to all the phyla created within that era.

From the Introduction to “Extended Synthesis”, by Pigliucci and Muller, pg 14:
”The overcoming of gradualism [deep time], externalism [mutations, ERVs], and gene centrism [micro-evolution] are the general hallmarks of the Extended Synthesis…”

Previous evolutionary theories DID NOT WORK; so they have invented new ones which are even more lacking in evidence (I will expand on this last concept in the near future).

HT: Paul Varhola

Comments of the Day

Mark Steyn:
"So please don't insult Neville Chamberlain by comparing him to Obama. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, because conspiracies are generally a comforting illusion: the real problem with Obama is that the citizens of the global superpower twice elected him to office. Yet one way to look at the current "leader of the free world" is this:

If he were working for the other side, what exactly would he be doing differently?

...in between such eccentric side spectacles as Marie Harf, star of the hilarious new comedy Geopolitically Blonde, explaining her jobs-for-jihadis program, and the new hombre in charge of the planet's mightiest military machine having his woman felt up on camera by Joe Biden. Now there's a message to send to the misogynists of Burqastan about what happens when you let the missuses out of their body bags."

And Steyn quotes Roger Kimball:
"ISIL is not 'Islamic.'" Really? Was the Ayatollah Khomeini "Islamic?" How about Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Erdogan: is he "Islamic"? A few years ago, Erdogan told the world that the phrase "moderate Islam" is "ugly" because "Islam is Islam." Democracy, he said, is just an express stop on the train whose destination is Islam...

The Saudis, the biggest and richest Sunni nation? They torture bloggers for "insulting Islam," stone adulteresses, maim thieves, and treat women like chattel. Do they represent Islam?

... If the Islamic State isn't "true Islam", is the Taliban, our "partners for peace" in Aghanistan? Is "true Islam" the Iranian mullahs, our "partners for peace" in the Persian Gulf and beyond? How about the Houthi? They're our Iranian partners for peace's partners for peace in Yemen, and they were awfully sporting to let our diplomats flee without beheading them."

... "Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding," says the President. You might think that Islam has been entirely irrelevant to "the fabric of our country" for its first two centuries, and you might further think that Islam, being self-segregating, tends not to weave itself into anybody's fabric but instead tends to unravel it - as it's doing in, say, Copenhagen, where 500 mourners turned up for the funeral of an ISIS-supporting Jew-hating anti-free-speech murderer.

But President Obama knows better than you. So he organized a summit dedicated to creating and promoting a self-invented phantom enemy. Conveniently enough, the main problem with "violent extremists" is that its principal victims are Muslims. No, no, I don't mean the thousands of Muslims being slaughtered, beheaded, burned alive, raped, sold into sex slavery, etc, etc, in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and so on. The Muslims most at risk are right here in America. Just ask Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson:

"We in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face. And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face. The fact that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and the Islamic faith is one about peace and brotherhood."
This final point is perhaps the most important observation of all:
"I have quoted before my old friend Theodore Dalrymple on the purposes of lies in totalitarian societies:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.

We are at war with a depraved enemy, but we cannot be allowed to assert our moral superiority even to head-choppers, rapists, slavers and immolators. Thus the priority of Barack ("Hey, how 'bout those Crusades?") Obama has been to undermine our sense of probity, and make us not merely equivalent to but worse than our enemies. That was the purpose of this last week of Official Lies."

The perpetual liars of this administration are convinced that they can change reality to reflect their lies, if they can repeat them often enough and loud enough. Note that nearly 50% of the US population now approves of Obama again. Perhaps the nation was truly destroyed without us even noticing the degree of its intellectual and moral rot.

Read the whole thing. This is one of Steyn's best articles.