Paul's Blog

• Vote Democratic? For whom might I ask? (Part II)

  2008 Mar 03

  Barack Obama

  
  The picture below is of Senator Barack Obama, Governor BillRichardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin as they stand during the National Anthem. The article this photo came from reported that he did not put his hand on his heart during the singing of the National Anthem. This claim has been verified on Snopes.com which also contains the video from which the photograph at the end was taken.
  
  How can a man who does not display American values expect to become an American President?
  
  Some other points to consider that I do not like:
  o He voted for preserving and enhancing the role of English as a common unifying language but against making English the National language.
  o Did not vote on the support for injured service member’s act.
  o His extremely limited political service
   1997 to 2004 as a member of the Illinois State Senate
   2005 as a US Senator from the state of Illinois
  
  I have heard his commercials promising reduced Medical costs, making college education affordable and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Can I ask how he is going to pay for all of this? He displays signs of being a classic tax and spend liberal and that is bad news if we are in a recessions as he claims. Read my lips…no recession has ever been overcome by raising taxes. His promise to meet with no pre-set conditions with the leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba scares the hell out of me.
  Just because he is the only African-American serving in the US Senate doesn’t mean he is qualified for the Presidency. Eleven total years of Public Service is not what I would consider enough qualification for a President especially when only three of those years (and I question how much of the third year was actually spent doing his job due to campaigning) in National Politics. There have been others that have served as president without many years of general public service, but those individuals had been state governors, providing them with the type of experience required in these days for the job as President of the United States.
  
  

• Vote Democratic? For whom might I ask?

  2007 Nov 25

  Hillary Clinton

  
  
  Why am I, a registered democrat, probably going to vote for a republican again in 2008? It might have something to do with the Democratic candidates. The two front runners (and some say the possible end ticket) are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I would not vote for either of these creeps for dog catcher during a rabies epidemic. Why? Well, let’s start with some quotes from Hillary Rodham Clinton:
  
  • "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - June 29, 2004
  • "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." - May 29, 2007
  • "(We) ....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." - June 4, 2007
  • "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground." - June 4, 2007
  • "I certainly think the free-market has failed." - June 4, 2007
  • "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." - September 2, 2005
  
  Is this a US Presidential candidate or a reincarnation of Karl Marx? Okay, let’s now examine some of her concepts of an “Affordable Health Plan” as laid out in her Health Care speech given September 17th, 2007. Here’s a quote from that speech:
  
  “I'm fighting to improve care for our seniors, to lower prescription drug costs by empowering Medicare to negotiate with drug companies and by allowing imports of our drugs from Canada at lower prices”
  
  She is going to bestow the power upon Medicare to negotiate with Canada for cheaper drugs? Wake up people, Canadian drugs are cheaper because Canadian health care is socialized and they dictate to the drug companies how much they are going to pay for their drugs. The Drug companies let them because they make up the difference by charging higher prices to other countries that do not have socialized health care. If Canada is going to supply Medicare with drugs, then the drug companies are going to make up for the lost revenue by increasing the costs of drugs to other health care providers in the US. Therefore, everyone in the US not on Medicare will now be subsidizing those who are, as well as subsidizing the Canadians, the Politicians and almost all of Europe (most of which have socialized health care). Negotiate with Canada? She is going to let Canada make money on our subsidies! It boggles the mind does it not?
  
  …And let’s not forget her involvement in the Whitewater scandal. Remember, as an attorney who knew better, she shredded documents after they had been subpoenaed and thereby destroyed any evidence that might implicate her in the scandal. Nice set of morals for a presidential candidate don’t you think?
  
  Some other points to consider that I do not like:
  • She voted for preserving and enhancing the role of English as a common unifying language but against making English the National language
  • She voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000.
  • She voted against capping attorney fees in the District of Columbia when challenging special education placement.
  • She voted for allowing exceptions to limits for attorney fees in the District of Columbia when challenging special education placement.
  • She voted against banning Partial-birth abortions.
  • Voted against extending the 2005 Tax relief measure.
  • Did not vote on the support for injured service member’s act.
  • Voted against amending the Constitution to prohibit desecration of the US flag.
  
  Next rant will be on Barack Obama.
  
  
  

• What don’t Americans understand? - Part III

  2007 Oct 15

  "The Great Satan"

  
  My final rant under this topic concerns the general conception that most Islamic nations have of the United States as “The Great Satan”. We have been told repeatedly by the Islamic Extremists (I consider them to be Terrorists) and the part of the Muslim world that deems them Freedom Fighters (I still consider them Terrorists) and the part of the Muslim world that does not condone their actions (since they are violent and Islam is a peaceful religion) but cannot seem to condemn their actions (I still consider them Terrorists; I hope you get my drift by now) because they are fighting against the “Great Satan”. Now, one reason we are dubbed as such is due to our unwavering support of Israel. Let’s assume for the moment that America finally accedes to the wishes of the Muslim world and cuts all ties to Israel. Will we still be considered the “Great Satan”? Yes…because although we may have cut our ties to Israel, we have not joined in the fight to eliminate the Israeli State. Okay, let’s pretend we even do that and Israel no longer exists.
  Now will America still be considered the “Great Satan”? Yes…most definitely. Why? Well, let’s list the reasons:
  • We eat pork
  • We drink liquor
  • We allow free speech
  • We let women travel freely alone and uncovered in public
  • We let women vote
  • We do not beat women but try to treat them as human beings
  • We tolerate all religions and even the lack of religion
  (…and the Most important reason of all…)
  • We are not all Muslims.
  You see there is one principal that Islam, Christianity and Atheism have in common, which is not shared with Judaism, they all proselytize. In other words they actively attempt to convert other faiths to their own (I include Atheism as a “faith” and if you have been paying attention to conditions in America the past few decades you will understand why). The Jews (Judaism is a religion, not a race) do not actively seek converts even though they allow conversion. The attempt to proselytize, especially by Christians, resulted in major hardships and death on non-Christians (especially Muslims and Jews) during the Crusades; on everyone (especially non-Catholics) during the Spanish Inquisition; upon all Native Americans during the conquest of both North and South America and I thank God Almighty those bygone eras are in the past. However, today there is a more comprehensive and insidious movement afoot; the attempt to convert the entire world to Islam. Like Christians, it is the Muslim’s duty to preach and convert. Unlike Christians, who stopped using force in their conversion attempts centuries ago, the Islamic Extremists (Muslim Crusaders) have not realized that violence is no longer an acceptable tool of conversion.
  The particularly vicious doctrine (Wahabism) espoused by the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other Extremist groups, was established in Saudi Arabia…one of the richest nations in the world, but hordes of its inhabitants languish in squalor. As long as the money was controlled by a select few, the Saudis were not worried about the terrorism Wahabism spawned. After all, it takes money to support terrorism and the ruling Saudis controlled which groups would get how much and when. To deflect attention from themselves, they nurtured the belief that the United States was the “Great Satan” and any country, especially Israel, allied with America fell under the “Great Satan’s” spell and was to be treated with equal harshness. Osama Bin Laden was one of those rich, ruling Saudis, a playboy and an appreciator of the “good life” until he was “awakened” by the Wahabis. Then he became an embarrassment to the Saudis and they even began, with justification, to fear him. They banished and disavowed him and now the irony of it all is that the terrorism the Saudis spawned is now being practiced upon them and since they pushed the theory of guilt by association with America, they are now, themselves guilty of being under the “Great Satan’s” influence. You see, in Wahabism, even other Muslims are targets as long as they do not adhere to their particular form of Islam. That means that any country not ruled by a Taliban-like authority or a Wahabi inspired leader is a legitimate target for terrorism and is actually no more than a pawn of America, the “Great Satan”.
  
  
  

• What don’t Americans understand? Part II

  2007 Sep 25

  “The Palestinian Issue”

  
  
  Muslim’s respond to inquiries concerning terrorist acts against the United States as self-inflicted because Americans do not understand the “Palestinian Issue”. Most of the Islamic world condemns terrorism, but characterizes their terrorists as freedom fighters. If America would only side with the Palestinians instead of always backing Israel (dubbed the “True Terrorists”) the terrorist attacks upon Americans would cease. In essence, the United States must agree to the fact that Israel has no right to exist. Muslims and/or Arabs imply that American handling of the “Palestinian Issue” is the main reason Islamic “Freedom Fighters” exist all over the world. Let’s look into this “Palestinian Issue” from the beginning shall we?
  The trouble began in 1948 when the United Nations agreed to partition the area into Palestine and Israel. This could only happen because Harry Truman was finally convinced to acknowledge Israel as a nation. There was no Palestinian Kingdom at the time, just a UN Protectorate (consisting of Sheikdoms and Kibitzes) administered by Great Britain whose army was constantly besieged by Israeli terrorists (Freedom Fighters?). Once Israel was established, this allowed the British to “Get out of Dodge” and leave the Israelites to defend themselves. Syria, Egypt and Jordan announced they would wipe Israel from the map. Unfriendly Palestinians (who aligned themselves with these Arab countries) were forcefully driven out by the Israelis. Those who did not mind the partitioning remained friendly and either stayed (to be attacked along with the Jews) or fled to avoid the violence, bringing the total refugee count to 750,000. Camps were established in Arab counties to house these refugees and ever since these “temporary” camps have been maintained through money provided by the UN (about 33% coming from America and about 3% coming from the richest contingent, all the Arab countries combined.)
  It is interesting to note that many refugee camps were established at the end of World War II, but none of them existed for more than a few years even though the map of the world had changed extensively after the war. Why are there still Palestinian “refugee” camps almost 60 years later? Well, Americans do understand that if these “refugees” (How many millions now?) were assimilated and the camps disappeared, there would be no Palestinian issue and therefore no reason to destroy Israel. Keeping these camps going also helps foster hatred for Israel, especially from those forced to exist in their squalor. There is also one more thing that we Americans do understand and that is that even if Israel was gone and the “Palestinian Issue” was resolved, America would still be considered “The Great Satan” by Islamic Extremists. Since these extremists are the driving force behind the terrorist attacks, the United States would still be a target. The reason we would be considered “The Great Satan” will be discussed in my third, and final, rant on this subject.
  
  

• What don’t Americans understand?

  2007 Sep 10

  I am offended by statements such as: “America is under attack by Islamic Terrorists because it doesn’t understand...The Palestinian Issue…the Middle Eastern Mind set…Muslim values and has brought this trouble down upon itself because Americans just don’t realize that they are part of the problem”. People insist that if we would only take the time to understand these issues and negotiate in good faith with the terrorists instead of trying to destroy them, peace will prevail.
  To this line of reasoning I respond “HORSE FEATHERS and BULL HOCKEY!” I will explain my position and reasoning through a series of rants and my first deals with the assertion that Muslims are a peaceful, religious people who do not advocate terrorism; Islam is a religion of peace; terrorism is not a part of Islam.
  I won’t argue with that reasoning; most religions claim the same. However, more people have been massacred for religious reasons than any other. If you don’t believe me just look at the Genocides inflicted upon…Native Americans by Spanish Christians; Jews by Nazi Atheists through the Holocaust; the Armenians, Assyrians and Coptic Greeks due to “relocations” perpetrated by Turkish Muslims. Are not all the deaths caused by all the Crusades attributable to religious beliefs? What about the deaths incurred due to clashes between Irish Catholics and Protestants? Did you know that after Catholicism was outlawed in England, you could be killed just for being a Catholic? Even the Jews cannot be exempted from this discussion if you believe in the Bible’s Old Testament or the Torah in their treatment of the Philistines and Canaanites.
  So to simply state that your religion does not condone “Terrorism” (even when that is true) does not absolve a group from practicing terrorist tactics. This is an important point to be made because most Muslims do not believe that the attacks on Israel or Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan or anywhere where Muslims are fighting falls under the umbrella of terrorism. What Americans DO understand is that we are lumped in, as “The Great Satan”, with everything Israeli by most Muslims, and anything done to the Israelis and their supporters is not terrorism, merely justifiable actions.
  So what do we Americans have to learn about this Middle Eastern mind set? Are we to sever all ties with Israel? Are we to let Israel be destroyed? I pray to God we never cut Israel adrift, but I am worried it may happen. I believe that one reason for the assault against Christianity in America is to facilitate cutting bonds with Israel because that is one thing no true Christian can ever do. Why? Because if you believe in the bible, then you believe that it is a Christian’s duty to stand by the Jews. So what we need to teach the World is that just because we believe that Israel has the right to exist (and we will never waiver on this point) doesn’t mean that we are fair game for Terrorists. We need to show the world what happens to those who kill our citizens and allies and friends. And we did this by declaring war against terrorism so attempting a truce with these assholes is only a show of weakness, which is not good in the Middle East. My next edition will cover the “Palestinian Issue”. Please feel free to comment.
  
  

• Terrorist Suspects may go Free

  2007 Aug 19

  In South Carolina, Ahmed Abda Sherf Mohamed, 24, and Yousef Samir Megahed, 21, two students of at the University of South Florida were arrested near the Naval Weapons Station which holds terrorist prisoners. They were stopped for speeding and police became suspicious when they nervously closed a laptop they had been using and could not explain why they were in the area. Pipe bombs were found in their car. Their attorney petitioned the court to exclude all evidence discovered because they were illegally profiled.
  Now the judge will schedule a hearing and the prosecutor will have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the men were not arrested because they looked like middle-eastern Muslims. If the judge feels that they were profiled, then this case will be thrown out because all evidence obtained due to the “illegal” stop will become inadmissible. This is ridiculous and not just because they are terrorist suspects. I am getting quite upset reading about cases being tossed out of court because the evidence was obtained illegally. I know why this happens. This happens because our constitutional rights require protection from any overzealous, totalitarian law enforcement. No one wants a police state like Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia. However I don’t want to see criminals and terrorists go free because, in some cases, an “I” was not dotted or a “T” was not crossed. Even in the cases were the abuse was blatant, I cannot stomach murderers and thieves being set free because evidence was obtained illegally.
  So I have a solution. Do not change the rules defining the legality of the method employed to obtain the evidence, but change the resulting outcome. Don’t remove the murder weapon from a case because the search warrant that was used to obtain it was based upon an illegal traffic stop. Rather allow the evidence to stand, but discipline the person(s) responsible for the creating the illegal condition. That discipline can be anything from personnel file condemnation letters to felony charges. For example:
  - If the search warrant was typed improperly or dated incorrectly or any such stupid mistake, fine or admonish the clerk responsible for the error, but allow the evidence.
  - If a search warrant was obtained because a law enforcement officer conducted an illegal search, then that officer should be disciplined; fined, suspended or fired, but the evidence stands.
  - If the search warrant was obtained because a law enforcement official lied, then that official should be charged with obstructing justice, but the evidence is allowed.
  - If no search warrant is obtained, then the case should be reviewed by the district attorney’s office and the law enforcement officer(s) should be charged with the appropriate crime, up to and including burglary of an inhabited dwelling, but the evidence remains.
  The bottom line is if someone is breaking to law in order to make arrests, then they should be punished. Why punish Society by releasing dangerous predators because the evidence against them was obtained illegally? I do not mind losing evidence in minor, illegal activities, but some cases being dismissed are significant, horrendous felonies. Why can’t common sense be applied to the justice system? Justice may be blind, but she can’t deaf and dumb too!
  
  

• Parole and Prison Terms

  2007 Aug 11

  Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, two parolees are charged with abducting a Connecticut family, killing 48-year-old Jennifer Hawke-Petit, causing her two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11, to die from smoke inhalation by burning their home and badly beating William Petit Jr. (who escaped and survived). Everyone is outraged; some people are demanding the resignations of the parole board members, others question the leniency of the parole guidelines and still others are horrified by the lenient sentences that were imposed.
  
  Let’s examine these three points shall we?
  - Although Komisarjevsky's file was 89 pages, it did not include the transcript of a 2002 hearing at which a judge sentencing him for a string of burglaries called him a "cold, calculating predator." The law requires the board to make sure they have and review all sentencing documents before making parole decisions.
  - Hayes’ file was 260 pages yet they did not consider him to be a danger to the community; no “Red Flag”.
  - Both had admitted to having drug problems and actually met in rehab.
  1. Strike one for the parole board.
  - Komisarjevsky served nearly 60 percent of his sentence before parole.
  - Hayes served 75 percent of his sentence.
  - Only 50 percent is required to be eligible for parole.
  2. Strike two for the Parole Board Guidelines.
  - Neither were considered violent offenders so light sentences were imposed.
  - If a judge considered a Komisarjevsky "cold, calculating predator", why was his sentence so light?
  - If Hayes' file was 260 pages, why was there no stiffer “repeat offender” sentence imposed?
  3. Strike three for sentencing guidelines and/or application.
  
  In my opinion, all three are the problem, so here are my suggestions:
  
  • Parole board members must be held accountable for their actions. At the very least, they should lose their job when found grossly derelict in their duties. Maybe then they will make more prudent decisions.
  
  • Parole eligibility guidelines need to be reviewed and made stricter.
  
  • Individuals dubbed “A threat to society” and Repeat Offenders should be required to serve their entire sentence. No possibility of parole ever, period.
  
  • Threats to Society and Repeat Offenders should receive maximum sentences and sentencing guidelines need to be reviewed and made stricter.
  
  • When ex-cons (paroled or not) commit crimes after release and the judge was deemed too lenient at their sentencing, then that judge should be sanctioned. If judges accumulate multiple sanctions, they should be permanently removed from the bench.
  
  • Parole officers should also be held accountable their actions and if they are found to be negligent in performing their duties, then they should at least lose their job.
  
  The bottom line is that anyone responsible for putting convicted felons back on the streets via early release (with the exception of ethical defense attorneys) must be held accountable for their actions.
  
  

• A Solution to Illegal Immigration

  2007 Aug 04

  If the government was really interested in solving the “Illegal” immigrant problem, the Constitution would have to be amended. Right now States that have large populations of these “Illegals” benefit from the Constitutional requirement that a census be taken every ten years. Both the number of seats in the House of Representatives and the number of Electoral College votes a state has are determined by this count of the “population”. Neither legal residence status nor voting privileges are listed as prerequisites.
  The amendment(s) should state the number of Electoral College votes a state possess should be based on its number of its registered voters. After all, why should a state benefit from the count of its population if that population cannot determine the outcome of the presidential election? Additionally the number of House of Representatives should also be determined by the number of registered voters. Since Congressmen are representing their constituents and the definition of constituent is:” noun: a member of a constituency; a citizen who is represented in a government by officials for whom he or she votes”, then why base the number of House of Representatives on non-voters?
  The number of both should be set after the deadline for registering to vote in a presidential election. That way the numbers are dynamically updated every four years instead of every ten years. This seems a more equitable procedure to me and it might provide states like California, New York, New Mexico, etc, with some incentive to actually control the legality of their population’s immigration status. Right now, they derive benefits from “Illegals”, so they don’t mind their presence. The best part is that the only right a citizen of the United States enjoys that non-citizens (legal or otherwise) do not have is the right to vote and these changes make that right even more expedient.
  
  

• A Logical Look at Evolution

  2007 Aug 04

  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.