Squashers of religious freedom

Lately it seems that no one is allowed to criticize any religion except for Christianity. Look at what has happened to Bridget Bardot because she was speaking out against the senseless sacrificing of sheep, she was convicted of racial hatred (a source).

I happened to stumble across a term in a book I was reading this morning, which referred to the "cultural mandate". Defined as "God's command to be fruitful and multiply, to rule and subdue the earth" source, p. 31

Not content to take the author's word for it, I went directly to the source. My NIV*KJV Parallel Bible, Genesis 1:28.

KJV: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth on the earth.

NIV: God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Do you see why anyone who embraces the cult of Al Gore cannot allow the Bible or Christianity to flourish? Both versions use the word "subdue" - which can be defined as conquer, overpower by superior force, vanquish, cultivate (source).

Why, that would mean that we humans are supposed to reproduce, and hold dominion over the creatures of the world. That means we can use the natural resources of the world. That humans are considered the superior race, not the animals on the planet. We are not to sacrifice humans, our health, our food, and our livelihood, to save a population of polar bears that aren't even endangered.

So you see, just the mere existence of the Bible threatens the cult of environmentalism and Al Gore! So naturally, any mention of the Bible is a danger!

In regards to polar bears:
As to whether polar bears are increasing or decreasing in numbers, I thought I found a citation of proof that polar bears are decreasing (source), but when I tried to read the "expert" opinion, it was all a bunch of double speak that first said that the claims that they are increasing are absolutely false, then says that there aren't really hard data that gives the original numbers - which should mean that you could neither prove or disprove the population increase or decrease. But that's ok, because here's an article from an area that actually has polar bears, that gives a clearer example of why they say the numbers are increasing.

Send a REAL message to congress (not Pilosi's imaginary messages)

FORMS ARE GOING FAST- SIGN UP TODAY!

Becoming Illegal (Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his senator)

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is topay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider.Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,

Donald Ruppert
Burlington , IA

Get your Forms (NOW)!! Call your Internal Revenue Service 1-800-289-1040.

Obama

There are numerous reasons for wanting to see each one of the sitting senators, who are front-runners in the presidential race, lose their seats in the senate. I wish there was a lever we could pull to spit out a different set of candidates. I know that the primaries are a joke, and that by the time the first couple of states have their say, very often the rest of us are screwed. Or you have someone like Charlie Crist, who it turns out is probably even more liberal than McCain, skewing everything the eve before the election. Why aren't we able to vote all at once, like any other primary? But I digress from what I wanted to say.

I just watched Obama talk out of both sides of his mouth, nearly at the same time. I don't know why the commentators didn't catch on to this, but essentially: he criticized McCain's wanting a gas tax holiday over 3 months. Obama says we'd only save 40 cents a day. But that there's no guarantee that the oil companies would lower their rates. Instead he says that there should be a tax cut (?? he is actually suggesting a cut? What's the catch, you know there is going to be one) of $1000 to offset gas prices, food prices, etc. He says that cutting the tax will take away so much needed money that goes towards the infrastructure (roads, bridges, whatnot).

Then in the same breath, he says that we need to go to alternative fuel sources (including bio-diesel, which is apparently just as bad for the environment, but is leading to skyrocketing food costs), and there needs to be tighter laws on ensuring cars have a higher fuel economy.

So.. giving us a tax break is going to be highly detrimental to the roads and highways (even though the government makes the highest profit of anyone on oil). But he's not talking about the fact that if everyone drove cars with really high fuel economy, or they drove cars that ran off of - I don't know, water? - that guess what? All of a sudden, everyone is paying less taxes towards the infrastructure, but is using vehicles at least as much or more than they were before!

It is so nice to be able to say whatever you want without having to actually say anything of meaning!!!

Oh, and he also claims that he is the only one who cares about the troops because he signed a bill to give GIs more college benefits than they are currently receiving (which is apparently only one year right now when they're out?). He says that Bush and McCain are against the bill. I'm not sure McCain knows heads from tails about what bills are good or bad, but since he is suddenly against anything that Bush supports, something tells me that the Dems have tried to force something else entirely into that bill, knowing that they can make the evil Republicans look bad for opposing it, even though the bill will have something else in it to punish the general public.