Royal Wedding Special

It must be a royal wedding when the Mrs. gets out of bed at 3:30 AM and I do also because, well, I can't get back to sleep. Luckily these things come up only every once-in-a-great-while so I guess I can't complain.

Special thanks to Bavarian Orange Order for the highly original commemorative button idea as he has been offering up his thoughts on the blessed union over at his site.

Thoughts on the Birth Certificate

While Barack Obama has released his birth certificate, there still seems to be unanswered questions. Jerome Corsi (the man who added the verb "swiftboated" to the American lexicon) shares his thoughts the day after the release of this document.

"A key problem for Obama is that birth certificates issued to twin girls born one day later at Kapi'olani hospital, the Nordykes, are the Rosetta Stone of deciphering both Obama's previously released short-form Certification of Live Birth and the newly released purported copy of his long-form birth certificate.

As WND reported, the long-form birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins have certificate numbers lower than the number given Obama, even though the president purportedly was born at the same hospital a day earlier than the Nordykes.

Note, Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.

Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961."

An anomaly for sure. I'm sure there is likely a valid explanation for this, I am also sure that there will be no explanation forthcoming from the president or his supporters.

Now that we presumably know who Mr. Soebarkah's Soetoro's Obama's parents are, the debate can now begin as to whether he truly is qualified to be president of the US as defined by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution which reads...

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

And how is the term "natural born citizen defined"? Under the circumstances of Obama's account, it doesnt look good for the guy.

"Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . ."

It will be interesting to see if enough people in this country are sufficiently interested in pressing the issue. Maybe, or maybe not. We'll see.

I would only like to add that in my opinion, it wasn't really so much Donald Trump that forced Obama's hand in this situation as it was the Oklahoma legislature and Jerome Corsi's upcoming book set to be released in a couple of weeks.

I would like to throw out a question for discussion? Why didnt Obama release this document any sooner? If I had to venture a guess I would say elitism and a sense of entitlement. What are your thoughts?

Nothing says 'Happy Easter!' Quite Like Radical Gay Activism

While many of us flocked to our respective churches to commerate out Saviour's resurrection, Clay Waters over at Newsbusters informs us that some people can't let go of the homosexual agenda for one minute, even on the holiest day of the year...

"The New York Times’s coverage of Easter Sunday was sparse, but the paper did mark the Christian holiday in its own inimitable way, by spotlighting anti-traditional gay rights activism.



Reporter Liz Robbins was at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan on Sunday morning to hear Archbishop Timothy Dolan delivers his Easter homily to nearly 3,000. St. Patrick’s also marked the “finish line” of the Easter Day parade. But her story Monday, “A Sermon Of Rebirth, And a Rally For Rights,” was pre-occupied by a tiny band of protesters in support of gay marriage, “A small group of about 25 people stood while temperatures soared near 80 degrees.” For Robbins, two dozen people standing outside in “near 80 degree” heat (was it really that onerous?) was worth both special mention and 364 of the story’s 634 words."

Really. Can't we give a rest on just ONE day out of the year? I can see the need to show off any newly aquired spring fashions but National Coming Out Day is just around the corner in early October and I hear tell that Tom Ford is pulling out all the stops and breaking new ground for his upcoming fall lineup.



This segues neatly into an earlier, unanswered objection raised by GS.....

"you'd (JD) withhold marriage from monogamaous and disease-free lesbian couples in Ohio because 46% of gay men (in San Francisco) say that they prefer open relationships"

My first point would be to let me ask you a question GS. Are you aware of any coordinated effort whatsoever amongst the gay community to uncouple those who advocate multiple partners with the minority that are more monogamous? I'm not aware of a single one at all and it seems like there is this sort of "all-or-nothing" attitude among gay partners. Feel free to point out where I am wrong though.


Secondly, what benefit would endorsing such lesbian "marriages" have on a society? One could argue that such a lesbian coule could raise a child, through artificial semination or adoption. However this author slaps down that idea as something much less than favorable...

"One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female...



Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.




The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos."

So you'll have to pardon me if I give pause to the notion and I consider it's eventual effects on society rather than succumbing to full support for it out of blind emotionalism to do what I at first may think would help the group in question and society in general. I would rather approach such wholesale change with careful thought.


While your "Ohio lesbian" couple may get along fine, statistics paint a very different picture...

"Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation." Link

I'll let Ann Coulter have the last word on this one...

"Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose. Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!"

The Problem of Evil

While I use the blog a a repository of information to access while invloved in online argumentation, I came across two stupendous articles this week. These articles pertain to the commonly raised objections by skeptics (and even some Christians) as to the existance of evil and suffering in the world.

First, Vox day weighs in with his thoughts on the matter...

"For centuries, philosophers have wrestled with the so-called problem of evil. They have attempted to define the nature and the character of evil and to provide explanations for the persistence of its existence. Many of them have been Christians and, indeed, the problem of evil is a major stumbling block to belief in the existence of God for many individuals. It is not uncommon for those struck by tragedy to question their faith, or even to lose it, since they are unable to balance the notion of personal suffering with the existence of a God who claims to love them.

The problem with this reasoning is that it is fundamentally at odds with the very heart of Christianity. Christianity does not postulate that the world is a good place. Jesus repeatedly declared that the world hated him and it would hate those who loved him. Christianity does not claim that God is presently in control of events; when Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, Jesus rejected the offer but did not claim that it was spurious. And, indeed, Jesus twice spoke of "the prince of this world" as a being who was coming to kill him but would ultimately be driven out by Jesus' death.

Christianity does not have a problem of evil because it requires evil for the great historical event celebrated yesterday to have any meaning at all. Just as I wrote last week that the Crucifixion and Resurrection make no sense if man is not at risk of hell, they make no sense in a world that is not given over to evil. But if Christianity has no problem of evil, Christians most certainly have a problem with evil."

So we see, the Resurrection only makes sense if we view that event from the starting point that we live in a fallen world and man is in a fallen state. day goes on to mention.. "The great irony is that despite the world's rejection of God and its foolish embrace of evil, those who find themselves suffering the promised consequences of their actions will end up blaming God for them. Such are the perils of free will."



I would posit "the perils of free will" are part of the problem of understanding evil. Evil is typically an act that is committed. When one has free will over a wide variety of actions that one can perform, then the fallen state of man can easily be seen by some of the heinous acts that our fellow human beings commit.

Father Dwight Longenecker (who I link to on the right side of the page), had this to say recently about suffering...

"Suffering--as terrible as it is--therefore validates our existence. My suffering affirms my eternal destiny. "This is so bad that it must point me to the good. My pain screams out to me and defines the joy I am lacking." How do I know I exist? How do I know my humanity? Because of my pain. The pleasures of this life are ephemeral, and may be produced within me through all sorts of illusory and self-induced phenomena. They are therefore untrustworthy as validation of my existence. But I do not bring pain onto myself. I avoid pain. Therefore, pain is the sensation that not only makes me believe in the existence of pleasure, but it also makes me believe in the existence of me. Pain validates me. Not "I think therefore I am" but "I scream therefore I am."

The cynical nihilist may still turn around and say, "That pleasure and reasonable answer you dream of is an illusion. It is wishful thinking. There is no such thing. Pleasure, like pain, is simply an animal sensation.--a primitive instinct of survival." To which we reply, "Then why do I rage against the unreasonableness of it all? Why not simply whimper and crouch down and lick my wounds and run from the pain like a beast? Instead I rage against God for allowing this suffering and I demand an answer."

There would be no such thing as thirst unless there were such a thing as water. Man could not reason unless there was such a thing as Reason. We could not ask questions if there were no such thing as answers. This is why Christianity puts suffering right at the heart of our faith. We do not avoid it. We do not come up with philosophical or theological theories. We do not say that suffering is an illusion and that we must simply rise above it. Instead we behold the cross. We preach Christ crucified."

So maybe there is a deeper meaning to pain and suffering and we are provided with only a brief glimpse on the overall historical timeline that accentuates the negative. With Christ's victory over death at the cross, we have the example of the empty tomb that there will be comfort and greater understanding in the end for those who seek Him.

Second State Looking to Pass Proof of Citizenship Requirement

It would appear that a second state, Oklahoma, is set to pass a bill already being considered in Arizona that would require Obama to release his long-form birth certificate (example above). In fact, there are a total of 10 states currently considering such legislation. While it may not dawn on Kool Aid drinking Obama supporters to even question why he won't release a simple document and clear up this entire contraversy and instead state legislators are meeting to force his hand to do so, writer Jack Cashill is weighing in on the decision by billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump to make the birth certificate question an ever present nightmare for the Obama team...

"Word to Donald Trump: Nothing scares our Lilliputian media like facts. Each fact you present makes them rethink their petty little mission to whittle you down to size. When asked why you don't take President Obama's word that he was born in America, simply reply, "Why should I? The story he has been telling America about the first two years of his life is provably and profoundly untrue."

This will sting. The Lilliputians have invested great emotional equity in what Obama-friendly biographer David Remnick calls his "signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal." From the beginning, Team Obama has worked hard to protect the investment. This has meant shielding the world from all salient documentation about Obama's life, his long-form birth certificate included. In the last few years, Obama's nativity story has been told almost as often as Jesus' but with nowhere near the accuracy."

If even one state passes such legislation, Obama is through. If the original long form certificate exposes his entire nativity story as a sham, then he should have admitted so long ago. The American people are largely forgiving and a slick, Madison Avenue approach might have even been able to garner some sympathy for him. But I think we're past that point now and this is going to just get uglier for Obama.

On Atheists, the 6th Commandment and that 'other' Hitchens

Columnist Peter Hitchens (above, right), younger brother of arch-atheist Peter Hitchens (left) weighs in on one of the more common criticisms raised by atheists. One that they preceive to be an supposed inconsistency in the conservative Christian worldview, as to how one could support the death penalty and and still adhere to the 6th of the 10 Commandments Thou shalt not kill..

"This is annoying because the atheists themselves couldn't care less what scripture says, and are trying to catch Christians out - and because they so seldom seem to realise that the matter has many times been dealt with before, and is not as they think it is. This should now go into the index under 'Capital Punishment' or 'the Death penalty', and so should be easily found. Not that this will stop them...

On the question of the Commandment 'Thou Shalt do no Murder', it is so rendered by Christ himself (Gospel according to St Matthew, Chapter 19, 18th verse, Authorised or 'King James' version). This is why it is also so rendered in the service of The Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

Now, as this dispute is supposed to be about what Christians believe the Commandment to mean, and Christians believe that Christ is God himself, or they would not be Christians, this rather closes the debate. If God himself in his most recent appearance among us (as believed by Christians) says 'Thou shalt do no murder', then that is what the Commandment is, superseding and overriding any previous version, or clarifying it if you prefer.

Atheists can believe what they like. I cannot see why they should care one way or the other. But they really need to be better-informed before trying to tell Christians how to interpret their own scriptures, don't you think?

I might add that Christ himself was subject to the death penalty, and his sayings were recorded when sentence was passed on him and while it was being carried out, and He did not take the opportunities offered to condemn it in principle. I agree that arguments from silence are not always reliable. But in this case, the silence is pretty eloquent. He did say much on other subjects during this event. What is more, one of the two thieves stated from his cross that they were justly punished for their crimes, and Christ did not contradict him.

I might add that both the 39 Articles of the Church of England (Article 37) , and the Roman Catholic Catechism, both conclude that the death penalty is justified in certain circumstances. Those who compile these documents do not do so without much study of scriptural texts, or without much thought. Non-religious persons trying to make trouble will just have to accept that mainstream Christianity somehow manages to distinguish between lawless murder and lawful execution - even if Atheists appear to be unable to do so.

Likewise it manages to observe that the destruction of a baby in the womb is the wrongful taking of life, which atheists also seem unable to perceive."

Kudos to Hitchens for being able to relate quite effectively that there are people who can distinguish between life that is totally innocent and someone's life that has been tried and convicted by a jury of their peers.

Is Failure to Support Gay Marriage Immoral?

I recall last week that a certain blogger named Justin seemed to think that opposition to same-sex marraige is immoral. I don't recall how they laid out exactly how such opposition is "immoral" or even if he tried to at all, but as with other commenters in the blogosphere, perhaps he thought that just saying that it was just made it so.

Robert Knight's recent article mentions a couple of reasons that may suggest to the average reader, that a case could be made that gay marraige could be viewed as "immoral".

"Utah, which had a Mormon population that advocated polygamous unions, was denied statehood until it passed a law ensuring that only one man, one woman marriages would be legally recognized.

The key case was Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), in which the Supreme Court upheld Congress' right to make polygamy and bigamy illegal in U.S. territories and a requirement for statehood. The court said:

"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."

WORLD magazine culture critic Gene Edward Veith notes that the homosexual drive to gain marital benefits is destroying marriage itself as people abandon commitment and embrace the "gay" notion of serial monogamy with "sex partners": "This sort of reductionism -- a spouse is nothing more than a sex partner, so a sex partner is the same as a spouse -- misses the point of what marriage is and what its role in society amounts to....Marriage is being defined down..."

Hoover Institute research fellow Stanley Kurtz has chronicled the acceleration of societal uncoupling from marriage in Sweden:

"Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock....Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood."

Knight links to a report by the group Mass Resistance which chronicles an extensive list of questionable outcomes since gay marraige was instituted in the state of Massachusetts. Some examples from the list might be debatable insofar as if they're "immoral" or not. However, who among us could possibly argue with the following?

"Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the homosexual lobby group MassEquality wrote to their supporters after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that money: "With the rate of HIV infections rising dramatically in Massachusetts, it's clear the fight against AIDS is far from over."

Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.

Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year."

I don"t mean to throw too much information out there at this time, so I'll stop right there. I believe that a good starting point would be to entertain explanations as to why the opposition to a practice that has seen AIDS cases rise in it's wake, increased domestic violence, increased levels of illegitimacy in countries where it was adopted and has led to questionable subject matter to students that is arguably not age appropriate could in any way be considered "immoral. What are your thoughts on the matter?





And please, I don't want this discussion to devolve into an accusation that those who are not supportive of the idea of gay marraige are trying to keep people who love each other apart from one another. We're talking about the effects of such a sweeping change as it relates to society. For example, what are some of the benefits to a society that redefines monogamous marraige to that of the "notion of serial monogamy "?

Romney: On jobs, where's Obama?

Republican front-runner for 2012 Mitt Romney criticized President Obama earlier this week when he pointed out...

"President Obama didn't cause the recession, but he made it worse and caused it to last longer. From the outset, he inaugurated the most anti-investment, anti-business, anti-jobs policies we have seen since Jimmy Carter. Further, the White House has still not crafted any discernible plan to put Americans back to work. Creating good, lasting jobs will require the following:

•A tax policy that rewards savings, investment, entrepreneurial risk-taking and exports.

•Free, open and fair access to foreign markets, with a focus on constructive trade reform with China.

•Elimination of the federal bureaucratic and regulatory stranglehold on business.

•A market-driven energy policy that encourages investment in America and reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

•A commitment to fiscal responsibility through budget restraints and entitlement reform."

All of these above steps are needed if we are to stave off the upcoming economic disaster. You know things are getting pretty bad when fairly non-partisan Congressional Budget Office tells you that they "can’t conceive of any way in which the economy can continue past the year 2037 because of debt burdens" Link

Romney's campaign was the unexpected recipient of an unexpected gift from 2008 Republican runner-up to the nomination, Mike Huckabee who it seems, is also testing the waters for 2012. Quote...

"As you'll remember, in early January 2007, as his tenure as governor ran out, Huckabee ordered his staff to electronically wipe and then crush the hard drives of almost 100 laptop and desktop computers in the governor's office (soon after taking office, incoming governor Mike Beebe had to allocate $335,000 from his operating fund to buy new hard drives and computers to replace those crushed by his successor). At the time, Huckabee said that the decision to crush the hard drives was made in order to protect the privacy of those who had personal information on the drives. Critics, however, recalled that early in Huckabee's term as governor, documents, e-mails and memos stored on hard drives just like the ones that were destroyed formed the basis of embarrassing stories about Huckabee, including a 1998 story in the Arkansas Times detailing how Huckabee and his family were using the $60,000-a-year Governor's Mansion fund as their personal piggy bank. As revealed in documents provided to the Times by a former governor's office employee, the Huckabee family had used the mansion fund — which was supposed to be used only for purchases related to official state business — to buy everything from pantyhose and dog houses to meals out and loaves of Velveeta cheese."

It's shaping up to be an interesting election season folks.

Fighting Intolerance in Tennessee

The contraversy in Tennessee over whether to pass House Bill 368 is beginning to heat up. The bill would encourage...

"The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues."

What could be wrong with that? A whole host of things if the reaction by some people is any indication. Robin D. Zimmer Ph.D. weighs in and spells out why such a bill is a good idea..

"Those who oppose the bill seem to be focused on the teaching of evolution as a non-controversial fact. But are there controversies associated with theories such as full Darwinian macroevolution? Sure there are. Michael Behe, a biochemist from Lehigh University, recently published a book entitled: The Edge of Evolution, the Search for the Limits of Darwinism. In it he notes that plasmodium bacteria, which cause malaria, have developed resistance to new drugs. This is indeed a form of evolutionary change through adaptation. But why is it that these bugs have not evolved significantly in other ways? Why is it that malaria is still confined to the tropics and has not evolved to thrive in more temperate regions? He then argues that there are limitations or boundaries to classic Darwinian evolution. Dr. Behe is not alone in questioning apparent boundaries.

I am not writing to argue for or against macroevolution or any other scientific theory. But the bottom line is that critical thinking and analysis fosters good science. For high schoolers, their love of science and acumen for it will not come from memorizing and repeating textbook prose, but rather by diving into the strengths and weaknesses of theories such as evolution."

Zimmer is exactly right. Why not present arguments from both sides? What could it hurt? It would only enable the students to sharpen their skills in critical examination of competeing theories. This segues neatly into a cute comment on the recent Myth of Horse Evolution thread from GS...

"The split between any two of those species may be farther back than previously thought, but that doesn't kill the principle behind the theory. Real scientists work hard to sort that shit out and advance our understanding. Of course, if creationist observers insist on limiting their evidence to fossils-only, it kind of looks like they have a case to make."

Although not rightfully defined as "Creationism" there are Intelligent Design theorists who are having papers reviewed all the time. Such as the "work of Douglas Axe who published articles in 2000 and 2004 in the Journal of Molecular Biology, Michael Behe and David Snoke who published in 2004 in Protein Science, and Axe again in 2010 in BIO-Complexity, a peer reviewed journal for testing ID claims. From my reading, all these papers cast doubt on natural selection acting on random mutations as a source of new information." Link

Here's an even more extensive list with various links that includes not only peer-reviewed papers but entire peer-reviewed books on the topic of Intelligent Design. And given the past treatment of evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, one can clearly see the prevailing prejudices that currently exist in academia at this time. It's really no wonder that there aren't even more such papers in the public domain. In short, we can see this issue is far from settled and a little debate can be a healthy thing for young learners in Tennessee and elsewhere.

UPDATE: Whoever had 19 in the office pool as to how many days it would take for some rigid Darwinist to make a comparison to the psuedo-history of the Scopes Trial with House Bill 368, you're the winner.

"Even John Washington Butler would be disturbed by this bill. He was the Tennessee state representative who, in 1925, introduced the Butler Act, which criminalized the teaching of evolution or any other principle than the creation story given in the Bible. That act led to the arrest of biology teacher John Scopes and what became known as the "Scopes Monkey Trial,'' one of the more infamous moments in Tennessee's history."

Such is one's lifeview when they allow their perceptions to be affected by a biased and error-filled Hollywood movie like Inherit the Wind (pictured above). Does anyone want to give odds on how long it will be before the obligatory Taliban comparisons are foolishly spouted off?

042 part II

It seems that the debate over whether Obama is actually eligible for the office he currently holds is beginning to heat up. One well known blogger put it thusly...

"..while it is still possible that Obama is Constitutionally eligible, you have to be an ignorant fool to believe that he has offered any conclusive evidence on his own behalf. And when one considers all the actual evidence that has been amassed along with the mass of information being hidden from the public, the logical conclusion is that there is something very unusual about the man that likely goes well beyond his probable lack of Constitutional eligibility."

And what is some of this "conclusive evidence" that has been amassed? Day goes on to cite an debate between two San Diego area columnists, one of whom posits an interesting, fact-filled entry that neatly summarizes the following...

"Recent documents substantiate that Obama only attended Columbia University for 9 months in 1982-1983, contrary to official accounts.

FOIA and other requests have been submitted to the State Department for passport and travel records. The Selective Service and Social Security Administrations have been asked for documentation regarding Obama’s Connecticut-based social security number 042-68-4425.

Investigators have traced the number prior to Obama’s [ending in 4424] to Newington, Conn. resident Thomas Wood, deceased at age 19. To date no government agency can explain how Obama obtained the Connecticut number when at no point in his child or early adult years was he a resident of the state.

Investigations continue into Hawaiian infant-death records for sequential relationships with Obama’s COLB record number 151 01961 010641. The Nordyke twins have made public their long-form certificates with numbers ending in 37 and 38.

There are several infant-death candidates that may have had birth certificate numbers issued during the August 1961 time frame. These efforts hope to yield more information now kept from the public."

Feel free to check out the other columnists response which basically boils down to 'I don't care, this is stupid'. Nice moron. Why don't you make a paper airplane out of the Constitution while youre at it? Last May when I posted the original installment of 042, one Obama lackey,lapdog,water carrier apologist offered up this possible explanation as to why someone who was living in Indonesia at the time was issued a Connecticut Social Security Number...

"the president "got his SSN as a child living in Indonesia and the application was just processed in Connecticut."

Seems a bit plausible. Especially when one considers that his alleged father went to school in New England (Harvard) and might have applied for little Barry's SSN while living there. It so happens that writer Jack Cashill has chimed in to cast serious doubts upon such a hypothesis...

"[Social Security] Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency," crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post as though he had said something meaningful. [Jason] Linkins (of the Huffington Post) suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous. One is that Obama applied for his SSN as a little boy in Indonesia for no known reason, and the application just happened to be processed in Connecticut for no known reason either.

For the second, Linkins cited the argument of Carole Glibert, in the Yahoo-related "Associated Content." Said Gilbert, presumably with a straight face, "In fact, Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father's alma mater?"

Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts. The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting."

While it is becoming increasingly obvious that Obama lied about his attendance at Columbia, is it then reasonable to ask questions as to whether there are other fabrications about parts of his history as well? As WND has announced that they will be beginning a concentrated advertising campaign utilizing both radio and television ads to prompt Obama to release his long-form birth certificate, this, the most easily avoidable contraversy of the Obama presidency is only now just beginning to heat up.

UPDATE: If there is anyone who doubts even for the slightest moment that the MSM is completely in the tank for Obama, then click here to read a recent article from the Daily Mail asserting in the strongest terms possible that Obama has already released hi birth certificate when the document that they cite is the certification of live birth and either they don't know the difference between the two documents in which they shouldnt be commenting on the matter, or they are only mere lackeys who wrote this article and they are just taking their orders from other, more well positioned liberals who are above them.

To the friend I never met

It would seem that Belfast Cabby (Jonny) whose blog I link to on the right, has passed on. My condolences to Mrs. Cabbie and their young son. I enjoyed his blog immensely and always liked reading about the perspective of a taxi driver in Northern Ireland whose wonderful personality shined through in his words. May God comfort you in this time of sorrow.