Posts Tagged ‘Speculation’

Scientistic Speculation

by Thomas E. Brewton on Friday, July 12th, 2013

This is article 15 of 30 in the topic Science

Darwin proposed his hypothesis of purely materialistic evolution, according to his autobiography, in order to discredit “the damnable doctrine of Christianity.”
There exists not a single proof of Darwinian evolution.  There is only inferential speculation about possible explanations for the myriad forms of life found on earth.

Read Darwin’s Doubt, a review by Frank Turek of Stephen Meyer’s New York Times best-selling refutation of Darwinian evolution.

As I wrote in The Liberal Jihad:  The Hundred-Year War Against the Constitution:
Darwin’s hypothesis of biological evolution, when confined to natural selection as a means of modifying species, is just another interesting speculation. When, however, it is employed as Darwin intended— to deny God and morality— Darwinian evolution becomes a piece of heavy artillery for the liberal jihad.

Not only does it deny the truth of the Bible; more destructively it reduces the world of human habitation to a jungle of kill-or-be-kill amorality. Its doctrine provided a rationalization for the liquidations of tens of millions of people in the totalitarian regimes of Soviet Russia, National Socialist Germany, and Red China.

The battlefield on which the liberal jihad has had its greatest success is education. As Hitler said of the Hitler Youth organization, train the youth in the doctrine of Aryan superiority and you will have them for life. From high schools through college young students are taught that Darwinian evolution is the only scientific truth.

Once having accepted that doctrine, students are only a step away from the doctrine that the Judeo-Christian morality underpinning the Constitution is ignorant nonsense.  That is essentially where we are today and why our youngest generations favor the Democrat-Socialist Party’s jihad to replace the Constitution’s government of limited powers and individual liberty with an all-powerful, socialistic Federal government.

Darwinian evolutionary theory appeared soon after the introduction of the French Enlightenment’s socialism, and it is closely related. Above all, Darwin’s theory of evolution was intended to cut the legs from under Western civilization’s paradigm of a universe conforming to a unified design that Judaeo-Christians and classical philosophers call the Mind of God. Evolution is an unapologetic rationalization for a completely materialistic world that bears no resemblance to the Creation pictured in the Bible’s Book of Genesis. It is therefore not coincidental that Darwin and most of his followers in 1859 and afterwards have been atheists or agnostics.

Socialist theory and Darwin’s hypothesis share a common basis in their complete reliance on secular materialism and concurrent rejection of God and spiritual religion. Both attack the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western civilization, on which our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are based.

When Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859, an important section of the British scientific community, led by Thomas Huxley, pushed Darwin’s theory more for its philosophical and religious implications than because they believed it to be firmly founded in science.

In the words of Carlton J. H. Hayes (The Rise of Modern Europe: A Generation of Materialism, 1871-1900),

“Soon the doctrine began to affect and reinforce the predilections of a great variety of intellectuals.

Click to continue reading “Scientistic Speculation”
Go straight to Post

Wyoming attack in yet another gun-free zone

by John Lott on Saturday, December 1st, 2012

This is article 264 of 563 in the topic Gun Rights

Another gun-free zone:

Casper police say three are dead stemming from an attack at Casper College this morning.

Casper Police Chief Chris Walsh said two are dead at the school’s World Physical Science Center and one dead at another location in Casper, although he wouldn’t identify the dead or the other location.

No suspects are at large and nobody else was injured, Walsh said.

Asked about speculation that a bow and arrow were used in the attack, Walsh wouldn’t identify what weapon or weapons were involved, although he said no firearms were used. . . .

This might have been a bow and arrow attack, that would make it quite different and I bet it won’t get as much attention as normal.

Wyoming Statute  6-8-104 (t) “No permit issued pursuant to this section or any permit issued from any other state shall authorize any person to carry a concealed firearm into any college or university facility without the written consent of the security service of the college or university” . . .

As almost always happens around the US, when a college gets this power to decide whether law-abiding citizens can carry concealed handguns on their campuses they do not allow it.  That is no different in the case of Casper College.

Go straight to Post

Angus T. Jones on ‘Two And A Half Men’ — FIRE the ungrateful little bastard!

by Stephen Levine on Wednesday, November 28th, 2012

This is article 73 of 116 in the topic Hollywood

At a time when the economy is shredded and the average citizen is unemployed, underemployed or facing layoff, we see Angus T. Jones earning a reported $350,000 per episode on a silly sitcom – and then having the stunningly bad judgement and nerve to describe the show as “filth,” and telling viewers not to watch it.

One might suspect that this was a publicity stunt to boost flagging ratings were it not for the fact that the statement – which went viral on YouTube – was made in the presence of a controversial pastor associated with a peripheral religious group.

Now we get the apology that was clearly crafted by a public relations team at Insignia PR …

Angus T. Jones Breaks Silence About Controversial ‘Two And A Half Men’ Remarks

I have been the subject of much discussion, speculation and commentary over the past 24 hours. While I cannot address everything that has been said or right every misstatement or misunderstanding, there is one thing I want to make clear.

Without qualification, I am grateful to and have the highest regard and respect for all of the wonderful people on Two and Half Men with whom I have worked over the past ten years and who have become an extension of my family.

Chuck Lorre, Peter Roth and many others at Warner Bros. and CBS are responsible for what has been one of the most significant experiences in my life to date.  I thank them for the opportunity they have given and continue to give me and the help and guidance I have and expect to continue to receive from them.

I also want all of the crew and cast on our show to know how much I personally care for them and appreciate their support, guidance and love over the years.  I grew up around them and know that the time they spent with me was in many instances more than with their own families.  I learned life lessons from so many of them and will never forget how much positive impact they have had on my life.

I apologize if my remarks reflect me showing indifference to and disrespect of my colleagues and a lack of appreciation of the extraordinary opportunity of which I have been blessed.  I never intended that. <Source>

Not only disrespectful to his employer and co-workers, now disrespectful of the public …

This statement is clearly disrespectful of the public as it has been crafted in Public-Relations-Speak without any shred of remorse or personality that would indicate this even came from the snotty little brat.  Let him learn the consequences of his actions in both affiliating with a controversial religious leader who appears to have capitalized on Jones’ notoriety … but the consequences of crapping all over your overly generous employer without provocation.

There is no mistake, in his own words …

“I’m on ‘Two and a Half Men’ and I don’t want to be on it,” he said. “If you watch ‘Two and a Half Men,’ please stop watching it and filling your head with filth. People say it’s just entertainment.

Click to continue reading “Angus T. Jones on ‘Two And A Half Men’ — FIRE the ungrateful little bastard!”
Go straight to Post

Abandoning America’s honor

by Douglas J. Hagmann on Thursday, November 1st, 2012

This is article 765 of 1004 in the topic Obama

There is much focus on the events following the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, as there should be. Four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador are dead. Real  Americans, real men do not leave other Americans to die mercilessly in the throes of battle, at their time of greatest need. That’s not who we are, individually as people or collectively as a nation. Yet the inquiries of late boil down to one simple but very revealing question that no one in a position of authority has answered: Is this what we’ve become?

This is a question that transcends politics, political parties and agendas. It is much bigger than all of that and all of us, and speaks to the very heart of who we are as a people, a nation, and a brotherhood and sisterhood of soldiers who have entrusted their lives to the men and women leading the greatest nation on earth. It is the very essence of who we are and everything for which we stand. It is about honor, and a man or a nation who has lost honor can lose nothing more.*

At the heart of the issue are four Americans whose names and faces we must never forget: Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty, Tyrone Woods and U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. They were sons and fathers, friends and family, and fellow soldiers doing what other Americans were not, could not or would not. At present, they are the face of America’s integrity and honor, exhibits of courage, and members of a special group who have died in the name of our nation.

Have we abandoned not only our dead, but our nation’s honor? With regard to the events in Benghazi, there is one very simple and expeditious way to put inquiring minds to rest, and to assure every American serving their country that they will not be left behind in their time of greatest need. Through a simple stroke of a pen, one man has the ability to put an end to the growing undercurrent of speculation and fear of abandonment: Barack Hussein Obama.

The accounts of the September 11, 2012 meeting in the Oval Office are well documented and undisputed in open source reports. Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden and Leon Panetta were meeting in the Oval Office at the very moment in time when the frantic pleas for help were made by our men who were engaged in a battle for their lives. In Benghazi, it was their final battle, but I beseech every American that it must not be ours.

Barack Obama has publicly assured every American that he ordered assistance to be dispatched to save our people. Let there be no equivocation, no word play, and no doubt, as the stakes are too high, the grief too real, and the consequences too dire to our country for anything but full and honest disclosure. We have told by Barack Obama that he issued an order, in real time, to save the lives of our men as the doors of hell opened before them.

That is his statement recorded in history. Three men know the truth. Four men are dead. A nation’s honor hangs in the balance.

Click to continue reading “Abandoning America’s honor”
Go straight to Post

Benghazi’s Tough Questions

by Daniel Greenfield on Tuesday, October 30th, 2012

This is article 416 of 791 in the topic Terrorism

The story of how the Obama Administration failed to secure a US consulate and then failed to send in support while it was under attack may turn out to be the biggest scandal of this administration. But that will only happen if Benghazigate is the subject of a thorough and rigorous investigation. And that means basing stories on facts or on reliable reports, rather than on speculation and internet rumors that no one would take seriously in any other context.

I have received dozens of emails in the last few days claiming that General Ham was fired for trying to go ahead with a rescue operation. The story appeared in the Washington Times. The source for the Times’ story was an anonymous comment on Tiger Droppings, a forum for LSU football fans, from someone in Louisiana working in “Self Employed/Restaurants/Catering” who claimed that the story came “from someone inside the military”.

Now for all I know this story is true, but an anonymous comment on a football fan forum is not enough to run with a major story. It’s certainly not enough to start treating it as an established fact.

That comment has gone beyond the Washington Times and is being sourced in various outlets all of whom are reporting a story based on an anonymous comment on an internet forum.

On October 20th, Clare Lopez wrote a column raising various questions about Benghazi and suggesting that Ambassador Stevens may have been involved in a weapons smuggling operation moving Libyan weapons into Syria. Lopez’s column raised some questions, a lot of them, but provided no proof and no truly credible connection between Stevens and the transfer of Libyan weapons to Syrian Jihadists. Nor did that theory come with a motive for why the consulate was attacked.

Nevertheless large numbers of people have now taken it as a fact that Stevens was involved in running Libyan guns to Syria without any actual evidence to verify that as a fact. Many repeat Lopez’s suggestion that the warehouses behind the consulate stored guns meant for Syria as a statement of fact. To many people, it seems “right” and it may be true, it may not be true. The difference between the two is actual evidence.

I am not attacking Lopez, she was doing what many of us were doing in the days and weeks after the attack. I have run plenty of speculative pieces, some that were right, some that were wrong, it’s in the nature of the business to do that. The problem only begins when a speculative piece is treated as fact and when speculations begin to be used as evidence when they are only questions, not answers.

Was Stevens being set up to be used in a prisoner exchange for the Blind Sheik? It’s an interesting theory, but if Obama had really wanted to release the Blind Sheik, he would extradited him to Egypt and after waiting two months, the Egyptian government would have released him. Furthermore if the goal was to take an American hostage, then there were easier and safer ways to take Stevens than an armed attack on a consulate.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Who will vet the story-teller-in-chief’s latest Obamacare anecdote?

by Michelle Malkin on Monday, October 8th, 2012

This is article 345 of 687 in the topic Healthcare

Man of the people Barack Obama schmoozed 150 high-dollar Hollywood donors at the Ritz-Carlton in Los Angeles last night. Cost of admission? $25,000/plate. A transcript of his remarks is posted on the White House website. He told a new, self-aggrandizing health care tale about his life-saving powers that caught my eye.

READ this and pay attention to the part I’ve bolded:

8:26 P.M. PDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Everybody, please have a seat. First of all, you just heard from the future of the Democratic Party — the great Mayor of San Antonio, Julian Castro. (Applause.) We’re so proud of him.

There are so many people I could thank tonight, so I’m just going to focus on three individuals. First of all, my unbelievable Southern California co-chairs — John Emerson and Ken Solomon. Please give them a big round of applause. (Applause.) They have been tireless in their efforts. They have been unbelievable.

The other person that I want to acknowledge in particular — because I said this to them privately, I’ve got to say it publicly — Jeffrey and Marilyn Katzenberg have been — (applause) — they have been tireless and stalwart and have never wavered through good times and bad since my first presidential race, back when a lot of people still couldn’t pronounce my name. (Laughter.) And I will always be grateful to them for just the incredible support that they’ve given. So thank you very much. (Applause.) Thanks, both of you.

Some of you are aware that — well, all of you are aware that Michelle and I just celebrated our 20th anniversary. (Applause.) And the actual anniversary date was not that romantic. (Laughter.) There was some speculation as to whether this had an impact on my performance. (Laughter.) But I did make it up to her on Saturday. We went out to dinner, a date night. And it was a wonderful evening. It was a private room, because people kind of lean over and start listening if we’re in the booth next to them. (Laughter.) And Secret Service gets nervous. (Laughter.)

And we had this wonderful young waiter, and he brought us all our stuff, and he was patient with us as we were dawdling over the menu. And we were milking it for all it was worth because we don’t get out that often. But at the end of the dinner — it was very professional, very unobtrusive — but at the end of the dinner he just said, I wanted to just say how much I appreciate you because you saved my mother’s life — because my mother had a stroke, she wasn’t yet qualifying for Medicare, and because of the Affordable Care Act, we were able to get her coverage that allows her to take her medicines and is keeping her alive.

The restaurant that POTUS and FLOTUS dined at for their anniversary dinner was DC’s Bourbon Steak house in Georgetown.

Will any reporter follow up on this new Obamacare anecdote? Obama disseminated this hearsay story to Hollywood writers, celebs, and producers to bolster his case that the behemoth federal health care law provided coverage that a woman would not have otherwise had.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

JUST ASKING: DID OBAMA’S TEAM GET CAUGHT TAKING SAUDI, CHINESE OR RUSSIAN MONEY?

by Stephen Levine on Saturday, October 6th, 2012

Speculation is ramping up that an automated credit card system using “untraceable” prepaid credit cards was used to fund a portion of the Obama campaign. And while the cards may not be traceable to individuals, they can be traced to foreign sources. Did the Obama campaign employ safeguards to prevent foreign influence on an American election – or did they welcome money from any and all sources? Is someone suspected of masterminding this campaign – and is that person connected with Obama’s top campaign leadership team?

According to published reports, the breaking story will be released soon – possibly Friday or Monday. Unfortunately, it seems stories of political corruption usually result in relatively minor fines and a stern – but ineffective – warning not to do it again. Nobody in Washington turns down money. From any source.

Go straight to Post

Joy Behar: Maybe Obama would rather talk to me than Netanyahu — ever consider that?

by Doug Powers on Wednesday, September 26th, 2012

This is article 63 of 116 in the topic Hollywood

As a bizarre and perpetually confused friend once reminded me, “even a blind squirrel’s broken clock finds a nut twice a day.” And so it was with Joy Behar, who attempted to offer a defense of President Obama’s meeting schedule while at the same time unwittingly pointing out a perceived problem with the priorities:

Joy Behar doesn’t like all the criticism President Obama has received for going on The View while refusing to meet with any world leaders at the United Nations meeting in New York City this week.

“Obama is being bashed for doing the View instead of meeting world leaders,” Behar, a co-host of The View and outspoken liberal comedian, tweeted. “Maybe he’d rather talk to me than Netanyahu. Ever think of that?” She also tweeted a photo from Obama’s appearance on the show, which she described as a “lovefest.”

No argument here. It was a simple decision on the part of the president, really. Where’s he more likely to be considered eye candy while reaching “low information voters”: at boring meetings with world leaders during times of trouble around the world (speculation about how a Netanyahu meeting would look can be seen here) or amid an adoring throng (save perhaps for one) at The View?

Go straight to Post

More on gun sales surging

by John Lott on Friday, September 14th, 2012

This is article 238 of 563 in the topic Gun Rights
Seems like a pretty rational fear to me.  From CNBC:

What’s driving the demand that has gun makers cranking up production?Speculation has focused on fears of a coming regulatory crackdown on gun ownership. Liberal administrations tend to be anti-gun and so, the thinking goes, an Obama re-election would set the stage for stricter gun purchasing requirements. Hence, people are buying now in anticipation of difficulty later. . . .

Go straight to Post

Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez seriously ill and facing more cancer treatment, rumor swirl about who might take his place

by John Lott on Friday, March 16th, 2012

This is article 640 of 1239 in the topic International

It is good to know that Venezuela will be in such good hands. From the Financial Times:

. . . Mr Chávez has prevented a successor from emerging and senior government figures insist there is “no Plan B”. Still, speculation about who might replace the leader has centred on bus driver turned foreign minister Nicolás Maduro; the vice-president and former student radical Elias Jaua; and one of Mr Chávez’s former military colleagues, Diosdado Cabello, who was beaten by Mr Capriles in the elections to Miranda state in 2008. . . .

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin