NYC and Mamdani Deserve Each Other

 J. R. Dunn has a post today at the American Thinker entitled Let's not save the Dems this time. He makes a number of good points including one that is often attributed to Napoleon: “never interrupt when your enemy is in the process of destroying himself.”

As the clock ticks down the last days before the 2025 elections, we’re hearing more calls for the GOP and conservatives in general to intervene in the NYC election to prevent Zohran Mamdani from being elected mayor.

What we don’t hear is an answer to the question of why? Why, exactly, should the GOP and the MAGA movement waste time, effort, and political capital to prevent the Democrats from throwing themselves off the cliff? Why write another chapter in the never-ending saga of Republicans pulling Dem chestnuts out of the fire and the getting kicked in the face immediately afterward?

...snip...

The Dems, so we’re told, having come to their senses, will realize what the Republicans have spared them from and will be grateful. New York voters, with their customary insight and depth of perception, will reward the GOP with showers of votes. In other words, we’ll witness something that has never happened and never will.

What will happen instead is this: voters will see the GOP tossing away the principles and practices of MAGA just as they were beginning to bear fruit. They will see conservatives supporting one virulent social democrat over another for no rational reason. They will see the Uniparty in action. And they will respond as they always have: by walking away.

Dunn is correct here. New York voters have continually voted for Leftists like Bill DeBlasio and as Dunn notes elsewhere have spit on Rudy Giuliani who made New York again a tourist destination. What, pray tell, does the GOP owe to the party that started the Civil War, and apparently want to start another, who riot at the drop of a hat and maintain actual paid rioters. These people actively interfere with Trump's order to carry out the law and kick illegals out.  They flood the streets with criminals who should be in jail.  These people deserve everything Mamdani can deliver to NYC.

The impulse to save New York City doesn’t play, either. New York City doesn’t want to be saved. This is the city that elected Bill DeBlasio to two terms – in landslides, to boot. That sent Sandy O to Congress. That has reelected Chuck Schumer repeatedly. This is the city that had not one good word to say for Rudy Giuliani, the man who effectively destroyed the Mafia’s control of key city industries and who bought NYC an extra twenty years of life as mayor, when he was targeted by the Left. They’ve made their bed, and I wish them the joy of it.

I've highlighted the key issue. New York City doesn't want to be saved, didn't asked to be saved, and will just resent it if the GOP steps in to save them. There is another proverb here that applies: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." It reminds of Christians who think they are being kind by attempting to send missionaries to the unchurched. But all they do is make the people they are trying to save angry. Instead, they should stand ready to give a defense for why they have hope and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

I encorage gentle readers to read the whole post.

Nutrient Partitioning and the Inability To Lose Fat

 Following onto yesterday's post, I get a weekly missive (I think they call these newsletters) from Dr. Michael Eades, one of two authors of The Protein Power Life Plan which advocates for a low carbohydrate lifestyle. Eades himself has said that the plan is really a high fat diet, but that the publishers felt this wouldn't sell because of the way fats have been demonized.

Featured in this week's Arrow is a piece by Adam Kosloff on nutrient partitioning entitled The Rats Who Starved to Death While Obese. The article is both disturbing and interesting. It is disturbing not because of the starvation of the rats, as disturbing as that is, but what it has to say about human obesity. It is also disturbing because it points to the blindness of doctors and dieticians to the suffering of their patients.  I encourage gentle readers to read Kosloff's article.  In many cases, these nutritionists are as cold as liquid nitrogen to our sufferings.

Using a low carbohydrate, ketogenic diet, I have gotten my weight down to 225 from a high of 307. Yet I have been unable to get any lower for at least 6 months. This despite starting a jogging program and keeping my calorie consumption around 1500-1800 calories per day. There is something else going on. At those low-calorie consumption levels, if the Calories In/Calories Out (CICO) formula worked I would be losing a pound every week and a half conservatively. But the Carb-insulin-hypothesis (CIH) doesn't explain the problem fully either. It gets closer but doesn't quite close the gap in understanding.

I have noted that I can gain weight, meaning fat, by just smelling a piece of pie. That may or may not be true, but it illustrates the problem. I have gained weight while fasting for a couple of days. Holiday eating consists of one meal, yet it takes weeks to get back into ketosis, and even then, the weight doesn't fall right off. As I stated above, I seem to have a lower limit to my weight that my body simply refuses to let go. I know of other people who have the same issues. There clearly is more to it than mere CICO.

(As a way to determine if I need to take in calories, if I am hungry, I eat protein.  If I don't have energy, I eat fats.  But I always have energy, so I am only concerned about protein intake which usually includes enough fats as well.)

Kosloff sums up his essay with three questions researchers should be asking:

The core questions should be along the lines of:

Why does the body partition fat the way it does?

Is that partitioning normal?

If not, what can be done about it?

These are the questions that actually matter.

And once we start asking these questions, perhaps we can stop blaming people for biology—and start figuring out how to fix it. Maybe then—just maybe—the torture of our mammalian cousins won’t have been entirely in vain.

The More Things Change, the More Things Stay the Same

I was at church yesterday evening rehearsing with the handbell choir.  Now you need to understand that we are currently experiencing stormy weather from at least two different storm systems with winds gusting to 35 miles per hour and rain that will continue for most of the week.  One of the ladies seemed surprised that I was there because I am an old fart and she thought couldn't get around well.  I pointed out that I jog 2 miles 3 times per week.  That surprised her.

Actually, it surprised me as well.  I thought I had run for the last time perhaps 25 years ago when I took to riding a bicycle.  I had always practiced running hard, and running hard all the time breaks the body down.  Bicycling did not break the body down, while still giving one the benefits of aerobic exercise.  Oh, and bicycling was fun, so much fun!

But feeling the need to build myself up after so much time spent in the hospital, then in getting radiation, I went for a walk.  But that was not enough to get the heart pumping.  I started jogging, it was too loosey-goosey to be called a "program," about 6 months into my recovery from cancer surgery.    Technically, I can call it a jog because both my feet are off the ground during every step.  But my pace is about the same as when I walk, about 20 minutes per mile.

Somewhere in the back of my mind was a memory from the early 1970s of a kind of training not unlike what I was experiencing called Long Slow Distance, or LSD.  LSD, the drug, was at that time a psychotropic drug that some proclaimed would open up the unused portion of the brain to all the wonders of the universe.  But it proved to be, as could be predicted, a massive failure.  LSD, the training method, turned out to be the then latest re-packaging of what has been learned and relearned over the generations.

Training by jogging long slow distances was popularized by then Runner's World editor Joe Henderson.  At the time, Henderson noted that a number of very successful runners, mostly distance runners, people who ran anywhere from 1 mile to the marathon, were training this way.  In his book Long Slow Distance: The Humane Way to Train Henderson points out that the speed that one is capable of running is a function of genetics. You are either born fast, or for most of us, we are not. Constantly training for speed will only shave a few seconds off your basic speed. But by constantly training for speed by doing fast intervals you will inevitable injure yourself time and again and may do more damage than can be repaired.  For the great majority of runners who run for fitness and the occasional race for a personal best, is it really worth it?  Only you can decide, but the fact there is an alternative is eye-opening.

By contrast, LSD is training for endurance. You can train yourself to run for fantastic distances. The marathon has in the years since been outclassed as the world's most grueling race by iron man and ultra-marathon races up to 100 miles. I am not endorsing such extremes that test the body to the limits of what it is capable of doing.  Such extreme events carry their own problems of injury and damage. The current record, by the way, for the 100-mile race is held by Zack Bitter at a blistering 6 minute 48 second per mile pace.

Speaking of Zach Bitter, he eats a low carbohydrate, ketogenic diet for both his training and racing.  The diet is very high in animal products.  While most running and marathon training coaches still endorse a high carbohydrate diet, carb loading before races, and using carb heavy gels during races, Professor Tim Noakes has shown that using fats to fuel a race rather than glycogen and carbs is a more efficient way to run.  Even very thin runners have enough fat on their bodies to sustain a full marathon without eating a single bite and without bonking.

Following a carnivore diet. basically beef, butter, bacon and eggs, I have put Dr. Noakes finding into practice myself and find that along with jogging, it is slowly changing my body, slowing down the aging process.  It will not make me live longer, but it will allow me to live better with the time I have left.

I recently got a copy of Joe Henderson's book again and have been reading it.  The more things change, the more they stay the same, it seems.  You can also watch an interview between Henderson, now 82 years old, and two of his running desciples here. Enjoy.

Another Loss in the Formerly Great Britain

 Fay Voshell at the American Thinker today has an article entitled An Enemy Has Done This that speaks to the downfall of the Anglican Communion in the formerly Great Britain. She is writing about the recent defacement of Canterbury Cathedral by graffiti "artists" at the invitation of the Dean of the Cathedral. Like everything else in the formerly Great Britain, the elites have attempted to smear s**t on everything from literature, to art, to the religion of the people.

So much is true. But Voshell, of all people should understand that a Cathedral is not where the LORD lives, but it is in the hearts and minds of the people themselves. Voshell should go ahead and name the enemy of whom she speaks, for it is none other than the Devil himself. As in Eden, these clerics are in a childish rebellion against our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ.  That these childish, rebellious little people were allowed to put on the robes of pastors and to pollute the gospel message is an utter disgrace.

It is no wonder that the Anglican Communion has been shedding people right and left.  This happens whenever the gospel is watered down to conform to the world and its sinful nature.  In congregations where the pastors preach the true, real gospel they are growing, having children and are attracting escapees from other denominations.

And what is that true gospel?  In the words of Pastor Kevin Martin at Our Savior Lutheran Church in Raleigh, North Carolina:

The good news is not that Jesus loves you just the way you are—so you should feel good about your lousy sinful self. NO! The good news is you can feel good about Jesus, the LORD who took on all your sins, damned and died of them on the cross, so that sharing his dying and rising, by faith alone in his Gospel and sacraments, you have the promise of rising free of your lousy old sinful self, one fine day…

The good news is that just like Jesus beat the crap out of Jacob at the Jabbok last week, so he beats us—up and down—sharing his dying with us daily, so this lousy old sinner we are so sick and tired of will get drowned, engulfed, and die everyday, flooded by Baptism’s cleansing waters, fed with Jesus’ body and blood, torn down and rebuilt daily into Christ’s Image.

So, to Fay Voshell, whom I like as a writer, and if she is reading this, and to others who are thoroughly disgusted by events in the Anglican church, run, don't walk, run from there and join a congregation that preaches the true gospel message.

Congress Should Finish the Job on Recognizing Concealed Carry Permits

 How about a little gun news.  This is first and foremost a gun blog, though events have unfolded that require me to emphasize the Christian nature of self-defense and of course guns that facilitate it.  I have spoken in the past about the fact that a license to carry a firearm in public is much like a driver's license.  For example, your state of residence examines you, and determines that you have no criminal history or other disability that would prevent you from owning a handgun, and that you have taken and passed the required legal training and submitted the paperwork requirements and the fees.  I think all states have implemented some sort of mental inquiry into their examination of your qualifications.  They thereupon license you to carry a weapon in public, usually concealed.  Here's the difference; with a driver's license you can drive in any state, but with a concealed weapon permit, your rights end at the state line.

Sean Maloney at Ammoland makes the argument that America is Overdue for National Concealed Weapons Carry Reciprocity.

If you can legally carry a concealed firearm in your home state, you should be able to do the same when you travel across state lines. That’s common sense. It’s consistent with the Constitution. And thanks to the Supreme Court, it’s increasingly clear that it should be the law.

America doesn’t tell travelers to give up their First Amendment rights at a state border. It doesn’t say that Ohioans lose free speech in New Jersey, or that Texans lose Fourth Amendment protections when landing at LAX. Yet with the Second Amendment, some states act as if constitutional rights stop at their borders.

They don’t.

Gentle readers can read the entire article and are encouraged to do so. It covers such things as that concealed carriers would still have to obey local laws and that in truth concealed carriers are more law abiding than the average person. Congress regulates such things across the states all the time. Driver's licenses are just one of them. Marriages in one state are recognized in all the other states as well. What Congress has so far been unable to overcome is the minority of states, like New York and Illinois, that refuse to recognize other states licenses to carry a concealed weapon. But now, while the Republicans have a majority and a president willing to sign off on it is the time. I know, of course, that a number of RINOs would balk at it as well, but in truth it is no longer such a stretch. Most states already recognize each others permits, and Congress doing its duty is just finishing the job.

God Help Us

The American Thinker yesterday had a post by Joseph Ford Cotto entitled They want to destroy normal people: The Left's war on the Right. The "Right" here are people who just want to be left alone; to raise their families, live in peace with their neighbors, live good lives and be good citizens. They don't care about or subscribe to the multiplying causes of the Left. But the Left is determined to make them care, or to punish them for not caring.

There are moments when politics ceases to be about policy and becomes something deeper. The public reaction to Charlie Kirk’s assassination was one of those moments. Some Americans mourned; others reveled in cruelty. What emerged was not simply outrage, but a portrait of a society whose fractures now define its moral compass.

Cotto describes a recent conversation he had with his friend Paul Gottfried, editor of Chronicles magazine. Because Cotto is quoting Gottfried in many cases, the man sounds not quite sure of himself, but I think this is just him hunting for the right words to convey his thoughts.

“The dominant class comes out of the left in our dominant class in our society,” Gottfried noted. “So, so the, the right, I think is in a desperate position. I do not buy any of this nonsense to the Democratic Party.” His skepticism toward the idea of a collapsing Democratic Party underscores his larger belief: institutional control matters more than temporary polling shifts.

“I think what, it’s more important than that is hate, hatred” of “normal people who the, the left would like to destroy, take away their power,” Gottfried said. “If you have to kill them, that’s fine. We want to, we want to rid the world of them. And there’s a, there’s a hatred particularly for Western civilization and more particularly for white male Christians and, you know, are seen sort of seen as the ultimate enemies.”

That hatred, he argued, is the emotional engine of what he calls the new political religion of “wokeness.”

“I think this is the way I see wokeness. I think it’s extremely dangerous because, because of its pervasiveness and because it is able to appeal to, to a number of people throughout the western world in a way that no other movement could,” Gottfried told.

His view is stark: “The other side is winning, winning decisively. And we have to come up with a, with a strategy. The strategy is not going to be dialogue that’s long over…the question is, can you meet leftist violence with force on your side?”

Gentle readers, I urge you to read the entire article. The emphasis above is mine, as it gets to the crux of the matter.  I could go on quoting, but fair use prevents it, and in any case, Cotto does a better job than I could of explaining exactly what we are up against.  You, me, all of us who lay claim to normalcy, to being just another Bozo on the bus, have a target on our backs.  It might be easier to go along to get along, but God does not allow a middle ground.  We are either with Him unconditionally, or we are against Him.

 Gottfried is correct that the Democrat party is not done, not by a long shot. As the Democrat party has moved further and further to the Left, and the mask is coming off, we can see that what the members of the party want is totalitarian control of the population. Better to rule in hell than be a servant of God. Now, the guy down the street who votes Democrat may seem like a perfectly nice guy. He goes to the Baptist church and holds great tailgate parties when his team is in town. But he votes Dem, and the politicians he votes for want totalitarian control, and he sadly is just a useful idiot.

I keep telling people to buy guns and ammunition, and to train with those weapons. If your church does not have a security plan, perhaps it is time to put one in place. I can't see the future, and I am no prophet, but the writing on the wall says that the day is coming soon when we will have to defend ourselves, while at the same time maintaining duty to be proper images of God on earth. God help us.

AI Doesn't Know What It Is Doing

 I don't get to hear the Glenn Beck radio show ever day like I did when I was working.  But I did here one recently in which Beck was ranting about the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) taking over the world.  According to Beck, AI would take all the jobs, and we would find ourselves with nothing to do.  I listened with interest but just couldn't get worked up.  Despite what the tech gurus want to believe, computers can never replicate, nor can they replace the human mind.

At First Things Thomas Fowler has an article entitled AI Doesn't Know What It's Doing.

Modern AI is based on ideas of human knowing that stem from the British empiricist tradition, in particular the philosophy of David Hume. Hume envisioned the body as a composite of discrete physical systems, with the senses sending their reports to the mind, which then worked on these reports. These “reports” he termed “impressions,” which gave rise to “ideas”:

I venture to affirm that the rule here holds without any exception, and that every simple idea has a simple impression, which resembles it; and every simple impression a correspondent idea.

Hume presents a theory of knowing in which ­senses deliver impressions, which we process as ideas. Once we have ideas, we can reason with them, either by means of logical inference, or directly as “matters of fact” (empirically ­grounded facts, including scientific laws). As for general ideas, they are nothing more than particular representations, connected to a certain general term. This theory quickly leads to nominalism, the belief that abstract entities do not exist and that any talk of entities such as “mankind” refers only to collections of individuals. Hume recognizes that we have such universal ideas in our minds, but they are mere labels, bearing no relation to reality. He rejects the longstanding opinion that there exist universals in themselves.

Hume was never able to explain how we arrive at forms of knowledge such as science, mathematics, and history. What “impression” gave rise to Einstein’s field equations for general relativity? Because every idea must be associated with a precedent impression resembling it, Hume could not explain how we can do something as simple as recognize a thing that is in a different position than when we first saw it—a problem that bedevils AI systems used in autonomous cars. Nor was he able to explain how it is possible to have knowledge of almost anything without recognizing abstract entities as real. For example, the statement “­Beethoven’s Fifth is a great symphony” uses abstract entities as both subject and predicate. Had there never been any performance of the notes Beethoven wrote, the statement would still be meaningful and true. And the term “great symphony” refers not to a collection of performances of music, but to a real characteristic of a certain type of music ­composition.

You see the problem, don't you? We don't really know how the human mind works, but we know it doesn't operate on a Humean model of knowledge. There is something...deeper...that drives the human mind.  We are unique in the animal kingdom in a number of ways.  The most obvious is that we know good and evil

Only in some cases, such as scientific and most historical writing, is the literal meaning of a text its principal meaning. For many works, especially works of literature and philosophy, the message or theme requires a holistic understanding of the text; it is not conveyed by any piece or excerpt that AI can scan. Often, indeed, the meaning of a work may depend on the reader’s imaginative reception of it, as is the case with poetry. And many texts have multiple levels of meaning, so that a literal reading may be true as far as it goes, while being less important than the symbolic reading. Or the real meaning of a text may be the exact opposite of its surface meaning, as in satirical writing. The purpose of much theological and ­poetic writing is to open a window onto a numinous world, and texts in disciplines such as philosophy may depend entirely on abstract ideas and entities. The reader of any of these kinds of texts must be able to perceive the reality behind the words—reading and understanding the entire text (including very abstract ideas and what they entail or imply), taking into consideration the writer’s goal, presuppositions, and biases, and then relating the work to others in order to ascertain its thoroughness, accuracy, and contribution value. Only thus can a thorough view of the subject emerge.

On this ground alone, it is plain that large language models will never replicate human knowing. AI can parrot what real minds have thought and said on these topics, and thus sound intelligent. What it cannot do is understand material.

...snip...

The goal of human knowing is always to know something about reality, regardless of whether that knowledge has operational value. By contrast, neither an animal nor an AI seeks the reality of the real. AI must employ symbols, which have no meaning except that assigned to them by someone outside the computer system. The implication for the uniqueness of humans is straightforward. Those who would assimilate humans to computers use an argument with this compound premise: Humans are material only and Human functions can be reduced to algorithms. The conclusion is, Computers can duplicate human minds. But if computers cannot duplicate human minds, then it follows that either (or both) Humans are not material only or ­Human functions cannot be reduced to algorithms. These are fairly momentous points, and they suggest one reason why understanding what computers can and cannot do is important.

Human knowing operates on a principle that is radically different from AI’s Humean paradigm. Humans know by means of an integrated system of sensing, motor skills, and the brain. We have direct contact with reality, and we are able to know realities that exist beyond the realities we ­immediately perceive. This form of knowing is supremely ­creative. It encompasses the way in which we understand situations we have never encountered and generate new theories about reality. Humans can “think outside the box”; AI cannot. AI can, of course, generate “ideas,” understood in the rather limited sense of data structures or random chatbot statements. That is not how humans develop new theories or deal with unexpected situations. Our perception of reality is unlike anything that can be achieved by any paradigm based on separation of functions. AI algorithms cannot creatively and analytically think through a question, using information learned from reading and research, bringing to bear a critical eye for discerning what is valuable and a perception of reality for synthesizing new ideas. They can only ape human intelligence. The AI paradigm reacts to stimuli in the form of sense-type data or website texts; it cannot react, except very indirectly, to any underlying reality. It does not know what it is doing.

Children learn, say arithmetic, by first memorizing tables of examples. 1+1=2. 1+2=3 and so forth. It gets more complicated, for instance 3+3=6, but 3x2 also equals 6. Slowly they begin to know what they are doing, why they are doing it, and to understand. Computers may be able to replicate these feats, but they will never understand. Which is why I do not fear AI, though I do believe that it will present many problems. In the end, it is just another tool, to be used for good and (sadly) for ill.

Don't Cry For Them America

 You young whippersnappers may not remember that the United States once owned the Panama Canal and leased a huge strip of land on either side of it called the Canal Zone.  Then our second worst president, one Jimmy Carter gave it away to the Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos.  I realize that is not the official way it works, but that is the effect, nonetheless.  In the process he made us much less secure.

Anyway, in the mid-1980s Mrs. PolyKahr and I were detailed to Panama for a tour of duty with the Navy Department.  We have fond memories of our life in Panama, a third world country.  But even then, we realized it would have been far less enjoyable had we just gone and lived on the economy.  And of course, while we were there, we visited Costa Rica, another third world country.

It was thus amusing to me to read about a leftist who fled the country out of fear of the Trump administration to Costa Rica. It gives new meaning to the term FAFO.  You can read all about it at Watch: LA Lib Fled Trump to Costa Rica, Now She's Glad to Live Under Him Again if She Can Just Come Home at the Western Journal.

“I regret moving to Costa Rica,” she said. “It’s a beautiful country. I love the nature and wildlife.”

“But moving to a third-world country where I don’t know the language, I don’t have any connections, resources, or opportunities — that didn’t make my life any easier.”

(sarcasm on) Really? You don't say. (sarcasm off) While our time in Panama was wonderful for us, we always realized that we were privileged because we were Americans. We had access to books, and media that the Panamanians did not have. Of course, our salaries with the Navy were much better than the locals enjoyed.  We took a vacation to Europe later, after returning to the United States, and found that for all that the first world pretends to sophistication and being better than we Americans are, it was less than we had at home. For instance, our usual hotels like the Holiday Inn would qualify as 4 stars in Europe.

“It’s so weird to want to move to America right now with everything that’s going on,” she whined. “But I just left so many privileges and resources behind. And I want them back! It sucks!”

The woman said she first visited Costa Rica at age 17, when she went on a luxury vacation with her wealthy high school friends.

The woman — who now appears to be in her late-20s or early-30s — discovered that the rest of Costa Rica is not like a five-star, luxury resort.

“Now that I’ve traveled, I’ve seen, like, real poverty,” she said. “And I’m like, ‘Oh, I wasn’t poor.’”

Again, one wants to respond with sarcasm, but in truth this woman, and the one who fled to Africa have been buffaloed by the media. It is sad, to be sure, and yet they have allowed the media to do it to them.  Here is the hard lesson that the Left has yet to learn.  America is great when most of us are not seeking power and control but being (imperfect) imagers of God on earth.  We all need to be more grateful for what we have and stop complaining about what we don't have.  The United States is truly the best country in the world.

At the same time, we also need to have consequences for bad actors.  That is another thing that made America great: it was relatively safer than either the third world, or Europe.  We need to apply the laws we already have evenly and without prejudice.  So, these people who fled have made their bed and now they should sleep in it.  We don't need such people.  As for illegal aliens, drug dealers, gang members and other criminals, we have laws, and we should apply them.  Sadly, the same applies to Muslims.  Like it or not, they want to change our laws to sharia.  Sharia is not compatible with our Constitutional Republic.  Frankly, Muslims should either move to an Islamic country or convert to Christianity.

Oh, and by the way, Trump is doing nothing to frighten any American.  

The Origin of the Modern Round of Terrorism

 In anticipation of receiving the book by Raymond Ibrahim entitled The Two Swords of Christ , I have been studying up on Islam again. My previous studies have led me to believe that Islam is a Satanic manifestation of corrupted Christianity. I think the break came during the controversy over the Arian heresy. The followers of Arius believed that Jesus was not divine. The Nicaean creed was written to affirm in no uncertain terms the Orthodox belief that Jesus was God and that the one God was three persons, Father Son and Holy Ghost. Beyond believing the Trinitarian Godhead, the idea cannot really be explained without falling into the trap of other heresies. It is something we just accept. The disciples of Arius were driven into the Arabian desert rather than giving up their heresy. Such is the sin of pride.

Today, at the American Thinker James Zumwalt has an interesting post entitled Islam's anti-Western terrorist campaign triggered by a holiday song. It wasn't just the song, though. It was...horror of horrors...can I say it...dancing! And not just dancing, but dancing cheek to cheek!

It was 1948. Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian political theorist and revolutionary who was seeking to escape persecution in his own country, came to the U.S. to study at Colorado State College. He settled in Greeley, Colorado, where its residents sought to welcome him.

Locals invited Qutb to attend a church social. He did so, but witnessed something that turned him into a raging anti-West jihadist. So irrationally profound was the impact upon him, it caused him to return to Egypt in 1951, committed to promote a violent anti-West, pro-Islamist ideology.

What possibly could have occurred at—of all places—a church social to so enrage him?

The fuse was lit when Qutb observed young couples take to the dance floor, embracing each other as a song was played. Writing about it later, he made his description of this event sound like a scene from a cheap sex novel. He claimed a “sedative atmosphere” permeated the room as lights were dimmed and the band played.

The song was a popular 1949 hit that won the 1950 Academy Award for “Best Original Song”. Its slow beat had couples embracing each other on the dance floor. Qutb reported the mere sight of these couples with their arms around each other caused him to feel scandalized by the “romantic, dreamy effect” and the “swarming legs.”

The name of the song triggering his disdain was one we still recognize today titled, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside!”

Gentle readers are encouraged to read the entire post. Qutb was a prolific writer and formulated what came to be called "Qutbism" or Islamic Fascism. This marriage between Islamic terrorism and Leftism, is what is taking the United States down currently, and it seems Europe will be lost. Both forces are Satanic in origin, seeking to destroy what God has built. And while I hate Islam and what it does to men, to women and to children, I pray for Muslims themselves. As Christ himself said, they know not what they do.

The difference between Judaism/Christianity and Islam can be seen in Genesis chapter 32, where Jacob wrestles all night with God. Let's just say that the battle was epic, but of course Jacob didn't win...or did he? God did indeed bless him and gave him a new name: Israel. What one may miss in this story is that God, YHWH, became incarnate as the second person of the Trinity to be able to wrestle with Jacob. It is this incarnate God who died on the cross for our sins and promises us eternal life with Him.

A lot could be written about just this one event, and indeed it has. But importantly, contrast this with the god of Islam. He does not want to wrestle with mere mortals but demands obedience. Islam means submission. But he is a trickster, and a deceiver so nobody knows where they stand with him. They just hope they do enough to make him happy. But is Satan ever happy?

New Evidence Confirms Jesus Resurrection

While I was raised in the Lutheran church, the fact is that I spent some time being, at best, an agnostic.  Why that is requires a bit of a story.

The pastor who confirmed us at the age of 13 (we had relatively larges confirmation classes then) so emphasized the many sins we all participated in, and the consequences of those sins, that I was convinced that God could never accept me. If He hated sin and sinners alike, He wouldn't want me anywhere near Him. Our pastor did not talk about the "grace" side of the equation. Believing that I was already sentenced to hell, I might as well have some fun along the way.  College of course did not help.  Getting married too young did not help either.  I got divorced 10 years later and remarried.  I was materially fairly successful, but I was also hollowed out inside.  There was no purpose to life.

That was the beginning of my search for...what I wasn't quite sure.  T. S. Eliot's poem Ash Wednesday haunted me during these years. There Biblical references abound, but secular readers and critics will not see them, which is too bad. We joined a church in Virginia, and I attended there for a while, but I was not ready to fully embrace the One who would save me. That required a bout with alcohol addiction. and a book called The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Lee Strobel is a journalist and investigator who was initially atheist, but became a Christian on the basis of his investigation into the man Jesus.  Strobel pointed out that the canonical writings in the Bible were written within 60 years of the actual events by eye witnesses to the events.  This is better than many other texts that are readily accepted though they were written hundreds of years after the facts contained in them.

All that was many years ago now. I passed on Strobel's book to another who was seeking something he could not define. But Strobel is still at it. You can see a video of an interview of him here. I hope gentle viewers will watch it.

To the Glory of God

 Helen Louise Herndon, in an article at the American Thinker today reminds us all that there is a right way, a Christian way, to act in times when the world seems to spin out of control. The article is titled Resist Evil Without Pride and Without Hatred.

I must confess that too often I have been guilty of pride and of hatred. I am sometimes proud that I have a greater understanding of the Biblical truth of Jesus Christ. But of course, what I have is what I have been told and taught. I have a great body of people who share and reinforce the same ideas. Someone born in, say, Iran who finds the truth of Christ has much greater faith and greater courage than I, who just follow where I am led. Is it any wonder that they believe as they do when they have been taught to believe that way from the day they were born? Clearly I haven't any reason to be proud since this great gift has been handed to me. I have done nothing to earn it.

Few Muslims are willing to debate, and frankly, why should they. Christianity has been put through the ringer by both atheist and Christian scholars, and has come out the other side stronger than ever. Islam is only now under the same scrutiny, and it is showing itself to be utter nonsense. I take some pride here too, but again, I have not done anything of which to be proud. And archeological evidence keeps turning up that show that events mentioned in the Bible happened where and in the way that the Bible says they did. Now knowing that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed as the Bible says they were does not prove that God did it. That is a matter of faith. It always comes down to faith, and even that I have only because He blessed me with it. So, I have no reason at all for pride, no reason to boast. It has all been given to be as a great gift.

I have also experienced hatred for things done to others by Muslims. When Raymond Ibrahim mentions the burning of Coptic churches in Egypt for instance, I feel my sense of indignation rising. When I hear of 70,000 Nigerian Christians being tortured and killed, I feel hatred for these people. It is the same when I hear of Syrian Christians being tortured and murdered.  But then, how can one blame others for believing what they are taught. Do I not do the same? Indeed, my real hatred is for those who continue to push a Leftist agenda, when history shows that it has failed each and every time. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, the Castro brothers, and Venezuela, it always ends in misery. It even failed in the United States in places like Oneida, NY. And yet the Marxist dream seems to find willing adherents in every generation. But hatred is not the answer.

In the book of Luke, Chapter 22, verse 36 Jesus tells the disciples to sell their cloaks and by a sword. The disciples respond that they have two, and Jesus says that is enough. We interpret this to mean that we need to combat the evil in this world on two levels. One is on this plane of existence with the material weapons of this world, the other is spiritually with the weapons of the spiritual world. We should certainly have and be ready to use guns and other weapons if needed. But more often, we must act, as the villagers in the story Herndon wrote about acted, to defend and save others through the giving of ourselves "for the glory of God."

As these two concepts progress in my own thinking, both lead to the same goal: “To the glory of God.” Whether Christian or Jewish, as people of faith, seeking to save a race of people chosen for extermination, an unborn child from premature death, a society from bigotry and racism, and antisemitism, the family unit from extinction, or current political violence, we must be ever mindful that the battle of spiritual warfare can only be waged with spiritual weapons and spiritual wisdom.

Between the Left and Islam, Can the West Survive?

 Andrea Widburg has noted that the West in general, and the United States in particular are under attack from two sources: the Left and Islam. She lays out her case at the American Thinker in a post entitled 21st-century Armageddon: Across the West, something evil this way comes. Each "religion" is using the other.  The Left is using Islam as its military wing and as foot soldiers, in addition to terrorist groups like Antifa.  Once in power, the Left plans to dispose of the Muslims.  Widburg's money though is on the Muslims.  For its part, Islam is using the Left's open borders and immigration policies to further its conquest of the whole world. Again, once they are in power, the godless Left can be disposed of.

For almost 2,000 years, the Christian faith has been the backbone of Western society. Growing from the Jewish Bible, the Catholic Church shaped Europe. Eventually, both the Catholic and Protestant faiths found their way to the New World, carrying with them the Bible and European values.

Although imperfect people often used Christianity for bad ends, it was still the moral force that led to a world where its respect for the individual led to unparalleled prosperity for all, along with previously unimagined safety and rights for women, children, and other vulnerable people.

Over the centuries, Christianity faced down Islam, which emerged from the Arabian desert in the 7th century. Unlike Christianity, Islam is doctrinally a religion of conquest. Christ advocated persuasion through words and deeds. It was human rulers who added conquest to the mix.

By contrast, the Koran, which represents the unchallengeable words of Mohamed, the “perfect man,” mandates that Islam’s believers strap on their swords (and, today, bombs and guns), and go forth and murder people into “submission.” It has a special animus for Jews, since they offended Mohamed by refusing to accept him as their messiah, but it’s very clear that, eventually, all must yield to its violent dictates.

Let's stop right there for a moment and note that we are actually talking about two very different gods, here. The God we read about in the Bible, YHWH, is the Christian God. Jews and Christians both worship YHWH. While He is no pacifist, he also does not condone murder, either on a personal level, or state sponsored. So Christian jihad is not in the cards.  Persuasion is.  At the same time, he insists on self defense and thus condones "just war." The Muslims' idea of convert or die is anathema to Him. By contrast, the god of Islam sanctions all sorts of behavior that YHWY finds abominable including pederasty, rape, stealing, murder and I could go on. I think it is fair to call Islam Satanic.

Just as Satan apes God, so Sharia is the ape of the just law of God. But Sharia is just a bunch of tribal rules writ large. Rape, raiding and murder of other tribes was just the norm in ancient Arabia, and these were rewritten as something you now do for your god. How great is that? And if you raid, and rape, and kill enough, you get 72 virgins who are ever new, and you will never tire out. How great is that? Islam is obviously a false religion, but its promise of infinite sex in the next life is enough to get men to kill and be killed.

Europe’s love affair with socialism started with the French Revolution, which was the antithesis of the American Revolution. The American Revolution enshrined individual liberty derived from a Biblical creator; the French Revolution was a ferociously anti-religious statism. The American Revolution created the most successful nation in history, a success Americans freely shared with the rest of the world. The French Revolution created...um, modern France.

Marx and Engels took socialism to the next level. They believed that an all-powerful state would eventually fulfill people’s material needs, allowing them to become their own gods, freed from the limitations of Biblical morality—a morality expressed in the Seven Noahide laws, the Ten Commandments, Jesus’s teachings, and Paul’s ministry. In the modern era, people are also being told that their state-derived god-like status will relieve them of the burdens of human biology itself.

Socialism, however, did not create Paradise. In the 20th century, it created 100 million dead in concentration camps, gulags, killing fields, battlefields, and the black hole of chronic poverty, starvation, and tyranny. It has never worked. But the true believers did something very clever: They gained access to the West’s media and education systems. And so, despite socialism’s unending list of failures, it has an equally unending source of acolytes.

All together, the United States is under extreme attack from Leftists, who advocate for criminals, illegal aliens, unlimited abortion, drug gangs, and on and on. Add to that we have now within our borders, indeed within our Congress itself, Muslims who advocate for the destruction of our laws in favor of their tribal laws. Can we survive? Ultimately, it is all in God's hands. Let us hope to be worthy of being saved, because we can not do it ourselves.

The Sun Causes Earth Temperatures to Rise and Fall

 We are a little over a month away from the UN's big confab on climate change known as COP 30, or the 30th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Brevity is not the UN's strong suit. Prior to that event, you will hear all sorts of drivel claiming that the "world will end in 10 years unless we do something now!"  Naturally, that something is always to stop using fossil fuels.

The use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas necessarily produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).  Thus, burning fossil fuels is a very grave sin according to the climate alarmists.  But, "very important people" such as Leonardo DiCaprio and John Kerry will fly to Brazil in their private jets to lend a hand to the COP 30 proceedings, thus adding yet more CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere.  While there, they will dine on sumptuous meals while back home, we can barely afford hamburger.

Note, that I do not begrudge these people their private planes.  I would own one of I had a need for it.  The problem is not that these people fly all over in private jets, but that they do so while lecturing the rest of us who use automobiles to get to work every day that we should give up our cars and drive horses and buggies or just walk.

Anticipating the onslaught of climate alarmism, Douglas J. Cotton has a post at the American Thinker entitled Why climate models fail. They fail, in that they cannot replicate past climates, because their premises are flawed. Cotton is not, as you may have guessed, a climate "scientist" but instead views the climate problem through a physicist lens understands a field called thermodynamics.

Mainstream climatology models are fundamentally flawed because they ignore a now established physical reality: gravity — not radiative forcing — governs the temperature gradient in the troposphere. This gradient arises from gravity’s direct influence on individual air molecules, slowing those with upward velocity components and accelerating those moving downward. The result is a vertical stratification of molecular kinetic energy — what we measure as temperature.

To visualize this, consider a sealed vertical cylinder, initially devoid of air. Introduce air molecules through a central aperture. Those that ascend lose kinetic energy (cool), while those that descend gain it (warm). This produces a stable temperature gradient — an equilibrium state of maximum entropy — where the sum of kinetic and gravitational potential energy remains constant with altitude. There are no unbalanced energy potentials; the system is in what we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium (not to be confused with thermal equilibrium).

Thus, what drives the surface temperature of the earth is not a gas that represents 0,04% of the atmosphere, but the Sun itself. Try as we might, there is nothing we can do to change the Sun.