Pro Rege Papers

One of the media’s favorite phrases that they use to justify all their actions is “people’s right to know.” They apply that supposedly inalienable right to everything. Nevertheless, the people’s right to know is not in the Constitution.

Yes, there is that phrase “freedom of the press,” but that just means that newspapers can print anything they want. It does not mean that reporters can uncover national secrets and probe into anything they want to be able to print an inside scoop. When that happens, usually something is left out that, had it been left in, would have made the story sound less ominous. Reporters and the general public don’t know everything, and therefore cannot understand the entirety of a situation. However the person in charge usually knows about it, and understands it.

Secrecy is a foreign concept to the much of the press. They don’t realize that some things the public just does not need to know. Every detail of how we fight our enemies is not supposed to be in the headlines on every newspaper. Why? Maybe because [[gasp]] some enemies might read our national newspapers, and change their tactics so as not to be caught!

After the Abu Graib incident, the media demanded that all documents be released, all persons involved put under investigation, etc. All this was put under the banner, “people’s right to know.” But now, with more and more documents being declassified that we took early on in the war, it is slowly being revealed that there were WMDs in Iraq. The wickedness of Saddam’s regime is being further discovered. But the question is: Where are all the media demands for further declassification of the documents? They don’t want the documents to be published, because then it will show that they were lying all the time when they hammered into our heads that there were no WMDs in Iraq. It doesn’t fit their agenda, so they won’t look into it. So much for people’s right to know. I guess that principle is case sensitive.

Hypocrisy is rampant. That’s human nature.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has just posted that the New York Times has just commited another example of the “people’s right to know” syndrome.

Natural selection, put within the framework of evolution, has some serious problems as I indicated in my post yesterday. However there is a type of natural selection that happened that explains the variety within genera today.

A type of natural selection did take place when (for example) dogs came to the Arctic: shorthaired dogs died of the cold; long­haired dogs lived and produced longhaired puppies. The opposite happened in the trop­ics, but in each case, the result was a loss of information in the genetic code as a result of the isolation of a group in a hostile natural environment. The gene for short hair was eliminated from the genome of the group. This probably happened with many other genera, as creatures got more and more isolated from one another after the Flood.

What the Bible describes as a “kind” I believe is a genus. So coyotes, wolves, dogs, etc. are probably all descendants of a diverse group represented by two animals on the ark that had all the genes we see separated in the various species today. As the group split up and headed for their natural environments, the genes that best suited them for their surroundings got selected out and became dominant among that group; resulting in a separate species.

In all of these cases; however, there was a loss of genetic information, resulting in speciation, the opposite of evolution.

I prefer to call what I just described “Divine selection,” rather than “Natural selection.” God sovereignly guides the movements of creatures into their environments. He sovereignly directs the speciation process of the genes over the course of time. He providentially provides food for them, and equips them to be able to survive in their environment.

Divine selection is a process that came about through the providence of God, not an argument for evolution.

Well today Ghana beat USA 2-1. That ends a fairly disappointing World Cup for the MNT. They shone pretty well against Italy, but couldn’t pull off a win.

The rest of the tournament is still going though. The Final Game is July 9. Some good teams are Germany, England, Netherlands, and Brazil.

We’ll have to wait another 4 years, I guess.

In London, they have made a museum out of Darwin’s house. They have idolized him and put his quotes on the walls as certain truth. In one room, they have a copy of Gen. 1 on the wall, saying in big, bold letters above it, “Darwin put these writings to shame.” In reality, Darwin’s ideas are not Gospel truth, and they have been undercut by recent discoveries in genetics and other areas.

Darwin said that in the course of the time, organisms reproduce quickly. They reproduce so quickly that they out-grow their food source. Thus, a struggle for survival takes place. The “fittest,” which have variations that enable them to survive better, eventually dominate the group of organisms, and breed with other “fittest.” Thus, over a period of time, some new “fittest” replace the old “fittest;” and the species progressed. This process is known as natural selection.

First of all, Darwin did not explain the beginning of the group of organisms. He just dropped us into this situation where all the animals are engaged in “the war of nature.”

Second, he did not explain how the fittest got to be so fit in the first place. If evolutionists would worship anyone, they should worship the person who came up with the “benevolent mutation” theory. That one too has its problems of course.

Thirdly, it needs noting that in order to make any significant progress in advancing a species, two animals that are different from each other need to mate and make a new species. The problem with this is that a very important part of the definition of species is that it can breed within it’s own and have productive young (a cycle). Not only is the idea that two very different animals breeding with each other implausible; but also the next generation would have a problem because they would be unique and therefore could not breed and thus die out (a dead-end).

Darwin got around this by saying that the changes took place over a long, long, long period of time. (It seems they keep on changing the earth’s age by a billion years or so every six months. Let’s see, is it up around 4.5 billion now? I can’t keep up with it!) If the “fittest” were progressing at such a slow rate, they wouldn’t be distinguishable from the rest of the species, and would interbreed with the “lesser” forms; which would diminish the species advance.

Also, if there were gradual changes taking place over a long period of time, there would be definite traces of progress and difference in the fossil record. These transitional forms Darwin called “missing links,” which he said must exist because they are fundamental to proving his theory. Therefore, we are told, we must take for granted that they exist. This circular reasoning is very prevalent in Darwinian circles. Besides, we still haven’t found any real missing links. If Darwin is correct, then there should be millions of missing links in the fossil record showing the progression of each and every of all the animals that we see today. They don’t just need one or two here and there, but tons of them everywhere. Darwin predicted in his book that many would show up in the coming years. It’s been 150 years now, and we still haven’t found one. Yes, Axinar, I hate to tell you, but Tiktaalik Roseae and Archaeopteryx have been disproven. Those were merely desperate attempts to clutch at something that would provide a leg for a faulty theory. They are so frantic for some conclusive evidence, that they are willing to accept blindly something like Piltdown Man. True science follows Mendel’s basic laws of genetics, and not wishful thinking.

What Darwin did prove conclusively is what no one doubted in the first place: that there is variation in a species, and that by selecting animals (e.g. sheep) within a group with favorable characteristics and breeding them together, you can get different kinds of sheep. Breeders have been doing it for centuries. What is done by isolating a trait with a “fit” animal is narrowing the gene pool even more, which is counter-productive to evolution. In fact that’s de-evolution.

Oh yeah, I forgot. There’s also a lot of leakage going the other way recently too. Liberals who are afraid of Bush establishing a dictatorship are hitchhiking across the border, causing serious problems for the Canadian economy. There are only so many libs a country can stand at a time before things start going wrong. There are already enough leftists in Canada for their share, but I guess they deserve some retribution. You guys send us the bad guys you receive, and we’ll send you our agitators for you to hold for a while.

With all the worry about our porous Mexican border, people seem to ignore the northern Canadian border that has much looser security. We should be much more concerned about terrorists from the North than the tightly watched South.

You can cross the border (at least the last I heard) without a passport. The checks are fairly easy to get through, and traffic reasonably thick. The border is a lot longer than the Mexican, with much wilderness in between ports of entry. The Canadian ports of entry are very leaky. I don’t know if you noticed that the majority of the 9/11 terrorists came in through the Canadian border. The plan to bomb LAX on New Years Eve 2000 was going to be carried out by someone who, again, entered from Canada.

Canadian law enforcement is weak. They practice the catch-and-release policy that we used in the ‘60s. The Mounties have a hard time prosecuting caught terrorists and punishing them.

We need to do something about this and stop the flow of criminals before something really bad happens again.

If you liked that poster on the previous post, here’s another one that applies as well.