Monthly Archives: March 2013


British Gun Ban of 1997 led to Huge Spike in Violent Crime

SOURCES > *Updated* Please note it is a multiple page excel document.

Some notes on the Data:

*The way the two countries measure crime is different so this isn’t a scientific comparison. The primary purpose is to show trends. See the sources for a very specific break down of what is counted as violent crime.

*There are some definition changes that happened around the time of the UK gun ban and in 2002 that affect the numbers. I have included additional data sets that measure the crime rates with non-violent exclusions and rates that account for definition changes.

Researched and Created by Charity McDonald.

Notes from Republican Women Speech

By request: These are the expanded notes I used in my speech to the Tracy Republican Women on February 25, 2013.

Hi Ladies, thanks for having me here today. Today I want to talk about something I face all the time as a young conservative. Bullies. Not the playground type that run around beating up other kids. The adult type that use dirty, false and misleading tactics to silence opposition. Aka the left. The biggest culprit of modern-day bullying is the Obama Administration. I’ll give you an example so you understand exactly what it looks like.

“There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists, publicly warning of a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty. Not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes they’ll do everything they can to block any common sense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever.” – Obama

See how he assigns 2nd amendment supporters evil motives contrary to the evidence and makes them out to be paranoid and ridiculous? We all know that organizations like the NRA just want to protect our 2nd amendment rights. But Obama doesn’t want to have that conversation because if it’s based on fact, he will lose every single time. This is classic example of bullying. Ignore the facts demonize your opponent and play the victim. You might remember that later he trots out a bunch of kids to play the victim in his little gun control scheme.  There are lots more examples that I’ll get into a little later.

Ironically one of the Obama’s biggest social campaigns outside of Michelle’s eat tasteless food program is the anti-bullying campaign.  You might have seen the commercials that always end with Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t like bullying and there is nothing inherently wrong with this campaign. It’s just odd that they’ve launched this during a time when incidents of bullying are at an all time low and there is a heavy cultural trend of accepting everyone (except conservatives) for who they are. It doesn’t make sense in the real world, but politically it’s brilliant. Obama has set himself up as the face of anti-bullying so it lends him even more credibility to call the right a bunch of bullies.

This is what the left does. They refuse to talk about the issues, they bully the right, while playing the victim card all the while calling the right a bunch of bullies. And they get away with it. It works really well for them. So well, in fact, that they use this tactic pretty much always. I mean, when was the last time you heard a liberal argue for their policy based on its merits? It’s always oh look at these poor children that the Republicans want to go hungry or oh my gosh if we don’t keep spending trillions of dollars then a bunch of teachers will be fired. Seriously Obama said that about  the sequester. That funding for teachers, firemen and police would be threatened. Last time I checked there was no federal police force or teachers’ union. Those are state organizations.

Conversely conservatives hardly ever bully and we always argue for our ideas based on their merits. Good for us right? Unfortunately, we get silenced by bullies all to often. It’s one of the reasons Romney lost the election in my opinion. Obama set him up as a horribly evil dude that straps dogs to the top of his car and fires people for fun. Romney set Obama up as a reasonable, good guy that just doesn’t know how to run a country very well. Now if an uninformed voter walks into this he’ll pick the reasonable incompetent over the evil dude every time  Romney didn’t call out Obama for his bullying, he played way too nice. The way to beat a bully is to punch back twice as hard. Romney passed up way too many opportunities to hammer Obama.

There are so many examples of leftist bullying that we hear all the time:

  • You didn’t vote for Obama so you’re a racist.
  • You don’t want to keep spending money we don’t have so you’re anti-teacher and poor people and probably an unpatriotic neo-nazi.
  • You support the second amendment so you’re anti-children and pro murder.
  • You’re pro traditional marriage so you’re anti gay.
  • You’re pro business so you hate the earth and probably man kind too.
  • You dislike taxes so you’re a greedy rich person.
  • You dislike Obamacare so you want children with cancer to die.
  • You’re pro-life so you’re anti-woman and are waging a war against them. **I wrote an article specifically about abortion bullies that you can read here.

I’m sure y’all can think of many many more. They don’t even make sense and none of them are even close to being true. But the left is so effective at messaging these things. Now you’ll see examples of bullying everywhere. Like literally everyday. You’re welcome.

This brings me to another point about how the left thinks institutionally. When the Obama administration/campaign decides they want to push a point to bully the right on, they call up their troops. They get the unions out to protest. They get the networks to cover the story. They get their Hollywood buddies to make a sleek commercial about it. Before you know it all of America has been told that Republicans are waging a war on women without any real evidence whatsoever. This is part of the problem we conservatives have. We think individually, which is great. But we need to be strategic about how we message so that we can defend and counter-attack the left just as effectively. This is why I love people like Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro and the Republicans in Texas. They are building organizations that will be able to accomplish this.

So now we can see the bullying what do we do about it? Don’t let them get away with it. Stop being so dang civil. We’re good people I know. But we have to stop pretending that the left is playing by the same rules that we are.  We have to punch back twice as hard. Here are 10 points I’ve stolen from Ben Shapiro’s speech at the Heritage Foundation to help you battle leftist bullies:

  1. Frame your opponent – Identify who they are. Don’t let them masquerade as objective when you know they are biased. If they are a liberal then establish that early on. Make sure your audience whether live or in a publication knows where the participants stand. If they’ve used bully tactics then call them out on it. Don’t let them get away with bullying. Don’t be rude but don’t hold back. Expose their tactics and their hypocrisy to your audience. 
  2. Frame the debate – Set up their philosophical inconsistencies and then exploit them. For example in the gun control debate right now, the left want to ban “assault-rifles” because they are “killing-machines.” At the same time the left still claims to respect the second amendment. So we have two philosophical inconsistencies here. How do you respect the 2nd amendment but still make laws that clearly infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms? How would banning handguns infringe the 2nd amendment but banning types of rifles wouldn’t? Which leads to the second inconsistency. If you want to ban “assault” rifles because they’re killing-machines then why don’t you want to ban handguns? Every year there are only a few hundred murders committed with rifles while closer to 10,000 are committed with handguns. So is it about the constitution or isn’t it? Is is about murder rates or isn’t it? Define the debate and then hold them to it. 
  3. Don’t get sidetracked – Liberals love to randomly change the debate right in the thick of it if they feel like it’s heading somewhere they don’t like. We see this on the national scale all the time. If the economy is dragging then all the sudden Obama is talking about birth control. It happens in conversation too. I’m sure you’ve seen it. You’re in the middle of making a relevant point when all of a sudden the liberal offers some obscure anecdote that proves them right and they expect you to take them at their word and address their point. Don’t let them derail the debate. Bring them back to the point. If they refuse to stay focused then call them out for it. Another way the left likes to do this is rapidly changing attacks. They attack, you successfully defend, they ignore your point and immediately attack from a new angle. Bring them back to your point and make them squirm until they admit you were right.
  4. Don’t be intimidated – The left loves to intimidate and call names and berate. Don’t be intimidated by this. If you have the truth on your side and you effectively expose their tactics, there is a way you can come out on top almost every time. These hostile environments are opportunities to convince people. .
  5. Be fearless – This goes along with the previous point. Be on the offense. You have to know that you are a good person and be confident in the truth. Anticipate them calling you names so that you can come back at them offensively and expose them instead of reacting defensively. Attack them for their views. Once again, don’t be rude, but really go after what they claim to believe.
  6. If you don’t know something admit it – Liberals love to bring up out of the blue quotes, stats and stories in support of their points. They expect you to take them at their word and accept their bit of info as fact. There is no harm is saying “I don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ll have to let me do some research and get back to you on that.” This makes you look reasonable and humble and prevents you from falling into what ever trap they are setting for you. If they keep pressing the issue they will look like a bully. 
  7. Don’t defend a position you don’t believe in – This is another favorite tactic of the left. In the middle of an argument they’ll randomly pull out a quote from Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln that you’ve never heard of before and according to them is fully supports whatever their position on the issue is. The instinctual reaction is to sorta agree with this quote because it comes from a personal hero of yours. This is a trap. You are an individual and neither Reagan nor Lincoln is a god. The quote may be out of context or flat-out wrong or you may just disagree with that person on this issue. You don’t need to defend it. You won’t be a good spokesperson for a quote you’ve never heard of about an idea you don’t support. Just say you’ve never heard of it before and it doesn’t affect your stance on this issue. This immediately shuts down that line of attack.
  8. Let them have victories that don’t mean anything – Every now and then you’ll get a name or a stat slightly wrong or misspeak about something. Most often these little mistakes don’t affect your actual point but a liberal will still rake you over the coals for it. Let them. If you were wrong about something let them have their little victory. It doesn’t hold meaning and it won’t really affect the debate. It’s not a real win for them. It’s just superficial. It will make you look moderate and reasonable and they risk looking petty. 
  9. Reverse the polarity – As fast as possible. If you let the liberal control the conversation they will try to lead you into all of these traps. They expect you to sit there and passively let them ask you whatever horribly leading question they want while you do your best to defend yourself.  Take control of the conversation. Get on the offense. Start asking the tough questions and make them get defensive  Corner them and make them squirm for their position or their bias or their bullying. A great way to start this is by following steps 1 and 2. This immediately takes away their advantage and sets the tone for the debate. 
  10. Body language – This matters just as much, if not more than your spoken words. The right is historically terrible at this. We get on TV with a hostile host and we look like we’re in a war zone. All closed in looking like we’re expecting an attack. Relax. Look confident and calm and cheerful. This will help you achieve the image and the credibility you are trying to communicate with your words. This is especially effective in contrast with an opponent that has hostile body language. If you are planning on speaking regularly with an audience then it is definitely worthwhile to practice and train this skill. 

This is just a short summary of ways the left bullies and how to fight back. For more, buy Ben Shapiro’s book “Bullies.”

Don’t let them silence you. Fight back.

Charity McDonald

Ben Shapiro’s speech at the Heritage Foundation:

The future of California’s Republican Party and Child Rape

This week the California Republican Party elects new leadership. Jim Brulte is going to be the leader of the party. His first act was to bring in Karl Rove.  He then is quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as saying:

“Our party understands we don’t have to agree on 100 percent of the issues 100 percent of the time to qualify as a good Republican,” he said. “The idea that we can grow our party by division and subtraction is ridiculous. We can only grow our party through addition and multiplication. … Anyone who wants to join our party is welcome in our party.”

This may sound like a necessary statement given that the Republican party is now only representing 29% of California voters. However, marketing doesn’t work this way. Few people have a desire to join or identify with a political party because they like the name. People are motivated by fighting injustice, a cause, and better laws for a better future. The American economy is a disaster kept afloat by massive non-sustainable government spending. The American social fabric is shredded by any measure. Injustice and legitimate causes abound. Saying that we don’t need to agree 100% of the time might even be true, but highlighting it destroys the Republican brand even further. Had Jim Brulte instead said we can’t fight every injustice but we are going to focus on one or two items – then okay.

Today even though I’m a life-long Republican, I have no real idea what the party stands for. As a result, the Democrats can easily define the Republican Party as racist, homophobic, only for the uber-wealthy, etc. The man who is probably the most responsible for leading the Republican Party down the path on non-relevance is none other than Karl Rove, Jim Brulte’s first choice to set the agenda moving forward. The Chronicle said that Jim Brulte picked Karl Rove to make a point to the conservatives in the party that the party was going to be pragmatic. Okay, we got the point Jim – now go find your own volunteers because no one wants another liberal like Arnold leading the party.

Do any of these “pragmatic” politicians, or self-servatives, give one rip about building a party or a message? Was our party stronger because Republican Arnold won twice? Under Arnold, California’s finances remained a disaster, business flight started, and regulation skyrocketed, all due to the policies of this Republican pragmatic choice. The real message appears to be “The California Republican Party: the other big government/plantation party” or “The CRP: Rural Democrats.”

Prediction: The California Republican Party is going no where under Jim Brulte and will continue to decay.

Now, these pragmatic politicians point to decisive issues like “Gay marriage” as a reason the party loses. Do we really want to have two 30 year old married males adopting 12 year old boys because they are now “married?”  According to a major peer reviewed study out of the Univ. of Texas, nearly 1/3 of children growing up households with at least one gay parent are sexually abused or raped. According to this study, support for Gay marriage is tantamount to support for extreme child abuse. I wish those were not the statistics. I wish that children growing up with a gay parent did great. There are a few tiny studies about gay activists showing their kids are doing well. But when we look at the non-activist population, the sexual abuse statistics are shocking. Are we going to only pass a law that says highly motivated rich gays can marry and adopt?  Are we supposed to “shut up” in this face of this injustice so a few “pragmatic Republicans” can push for laws that statistics tells us are going to result in the sexual abuse and the repetitive sodomy of tens of thousand of California’s children? If that is you stand Jim,  then you can stand by yourself because you simply will never get many of us to go along with child abuse and child rape. This doesn’t mean heterosexual households are perfect. The same study showed the rate of abuse and rape about 5x lower, but still sickeningly high. The professor was attacked by the left and investigated by the University of Texas but eventually cleared of all accusations – how dare anyone publish evidence that doesn’t support leftist ideology! Jim you need to understand the evil you are up against and if your answer is to accommodate it, then you will be consumed by it.

Unfortunately, the Texas study has plenty of anecdotal evidence to support it. How has putting even a few priests (studies show between 15 to 58% are gay) who are sexually-repressed gay men and young boys in close proximity worked out for the Catholic Church? Are we suggesting that it worked so well for the Church, that now we want to put sexually-active gay men and young boys in permanent close proximity and then role that situation out in our State with near zero oversight?  There are very solid reasons why people oppose gay men marrying and presumably adopting – and it isn’t homophobia. Gays like everyone need love. I oppose it for the same reasons I oppose putting bars next to half-way houses or having politicians control social security money – statistically, bad things are going to happen. If new studies show differently, then we should look at the data.  Until then, please don’t risk the joyful innocent lives of tens of thousands California’s children on the alter of political correctness in exchange for winning a few seats. Well I mean, presumably winning seats because lately Karl is more like Karl “the big billion loser” Rove and his pragmatic strategy isn’t delivering results.

John McDonald

Environmental High Priest Al Gore sells out

Most elite environmentalists are documented major global warming hypocrites due to the fact they fly in private jets to global warming conferences, get into Prius’ for photo shoots, and live in massive mansions with massive energy footprints. We mentioned Sheryl Crow’s call to use a single square of toilet paper to combat global warming and compared that to her massive $16M wood palace. But when the self-appointed High Priest of Environmentalism sells out, it should make major headlines. Not so with Al Gore.

Al Gore sold his Current TV channel to Qatar via Al Jazeera and pocketed close to $100M in the process.  Seriously, how many ways can this be screwed up?  

Qatar exports ~1.4M barrels of oil per day! Virtually all of their cash comes from oil and natural gas. So in other words, the  High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore earned $100M in money from OIL. Now I know many environmentalists are nice well-meaning people, but just because you are nice and well meaning doesn’t mean the consequences of what you believe result in nice things happening.  Stop and think for a moment … The Pope of Global Warming was just caught taking $100M from the “devil of global warming!” What does that tell you about your environmental religion? If the Pope of your religion is selling out, then why are you taking showers with a trickle of water? Why are you banned from a plastic bag for your groceries? Why are you paying high taxes to subsidize High Priest Al Gore’s green investments?

What’s next? Is Ahmadinejad going to be discovered holding a Christian women’s Bible study?

However, for those of you true believers out there, Al Gore is ready with his next book for you to buy LOLOL!!!  :-)  Oh my goodness, I wish I was joking! The book has glowing reviews. The title is “The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change”.  I’ve included the link to Amazon so the fool that feels inclined can be easily parted with their money.  It is no wonder why the liberal 1% elites view us with such contempt.


Ewwww …. San Fran, E-coli, and reusable grocery bags!

Liberal Environmentalist have a long history of pushing for “Green” solutions with really gross results.

Remember Sheryl Crow’s recommendation we all use a single sheet of toilet paper? Now look at highly hypocritical Sheryl Crow’s $16M pad. Remember San Fran’s low flow toilet story?  San Fran saved 20 million gallons of water only to use 8.5 million pounds of bleach to flush out the smelling to high heaven sewer system. Real Smart Enviros!

ReusableGBNow we have the San Fran E-coli reusable grocery bag story.

From the Denver Post —

“In a 2011 study, four researchers examined reusable bags in California and Arizona and found that 51 percent of them contained coliform bacteria. The problem appears to be the habits of the reusers. Seventy-five percent said they keep meat and vegetables in the same bag. When bags were stored in hot car trunks for two hours, the bacteria grew tenfold.

That study also found that washing the bags eliminated 99.9 percent of the bacteria. It undercut even that good news, though, by finding that 97 percent of people reported that they never wash their bags.

Law professors Jonathan Klick and Joshua Wright have done a more recent study on the public-health impact of plastic-bag bans. They find that emergency-room admissions related to E. coli infections increased in San Francisco after the ban. (Nearby counties did not show this increase.) And this effect showed up as soon as the ban was implemented. The San Francisco ban was also associated with increases in salmonella and other bacterial infections.”

Read more: Ponnuru: Bans on plastic bags can have disgusting results – The Denver Post

Faith vs. Atheism Part III – the first miracle of God

The first miracle of God is: the Creation event

The first Biblical definition of God is: the “I am” that created matter and energy from nothing. The first miracle is His creation, the universe: or spontaneous matter creation. Numerous People of Faith played key roles in the data gathering, analysis, and theory development that ultimately led to the “Big Bang” being accepted.  Numerous top scientists who were atheists, played key roles in making fun of the “Big Bang” theory, developed opposing theories to, and created a climate of career-ending fear. The climate of fear was so effective that scientists were afraid to publish big bang supporting data, and gave each other top science awards for these opposing views, all the while claiming how unbiased they are.

This paper is the history of those discoveries. Today, atheists have co-opted the “Big Bang” and are wishing that we would all forget about how many decades they stayed on the wrong side of science.

Here are the key dates:

  • 1596 David Fabricius discovers Mira as a star of non-equal brightness
  • 1670 Geminiano Montanari writes that the 2nd brightest star in the constellation of Perseus is changing in it’s brightness
  • 1784 John Goodricke: Variable Stars Discovered
  • 1912 Cepheid Frequency and Brightness are related
  • 1913 Cepheid Brightness vs. Distance are related
  • 1917 Theory of General Relativity which demands a contracting or expanding universe
  • 1919 A portion of General Relativity proven correct
  • 1920-24 Universe discovered to have many galaxies by measuring Cepheids
  • 1922 Theory of General Relativity (gets corrected)
  • 1926 Arthur Eddington suggests a space temperature of about 3 Kelvin
  • 1927 Objects in the Universe theorized to be coming from a common point
  • 1929 Red Shift of light discovered
  • 1929 Objects in the Universe discovered to be moving away from each other.
  • 1941 Andrew McKellar measures the average temperature of the interstellar medium
  • 1948 George Gammow, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman offer the first prediction of background radiation
  • 1964 “Big Bang” implies background cosmic radiation which is discovered which provides the final proof that the universe was created in a singular event at a point in time.

Just as atheists opposed Louis Pasteur when he proved that spontaneous life creation is a miracle, atheists also took very active roles in delaying research, promoting false theories, and making fun of scientists who were going where the data led. They did this an a self-proclaimed “unbiased” way.

Now first things first: Many scientists are in rebellion against God like all of us have been. Rebellion against God breeds bias against all data that points to God and His creative work. The fruit of the bias is the irrational inability to accept facts which leads to scientific error and often delays the process of research and discovery. This paper will show numerous examples of this. People of Faith are not smarter than atheists as we are all made in the image of God. Atheists have made important contributions to science, especially in areas that don’t conflict with their anti-God bias.

The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge! David NIV Psalm 19:1-2

The Big Bang story really began in May 1783. John Goodricke presented the first explanation of variable stars to the British Royal Society. One of his explanations for stars changing in brightness was: a variable star is really two stars orbiting closely to each other so they appear as one star. However, when one star goes behind the other star, the two together appear dimmer. During his observations, he identified a star called Cepheid Delta. He could not explain the mechanism of its changing brightness.

1784 Edward Pigott, a cousin of John Goodricke, discovered the first Cepheid that varies in brightness because of thermonuclear process. The star is physically expanding and contracting.  John Goodricke also discovered another a week later.

Who was John Goodricke (1764 to 1786)?  He was a Christian and profoundly deaf from contracting scarlet fever at the age of five.

A long while passes…

1912 Henrietta Swan Leavitt discovered that Cepheid brightness and the time period between peak brightness is related! This was a huge discovery as we will soon see.  She wrote “A straight line can readily be drawn among each of the two series of points corresponding to maxima and minima, thus showing that there is a simple relation between the brightness of the variables and their periods.”

Who was Henrietta Swan Leavitt? She was a Christian and also profoundly deaf. From her written obituary “Miss Leavitt inherited, in a somewhat chastened form, the stern virtues of her puritan ancestors. She took life seriously. Her sense of duty, justice, and loyalty was strong. For light amusements she appeared to care little. She was a devoted member of her intimate family circle, unselfishly considerate in her friendships, steadfastly loyal to her principles, and deeply conscientious and sincere in her attachment to her religion and church.”

1913 Henry Norris Russell and Ejnar Hertzsprun soon realized the consequence of Leavitt’s work. If the brightness of a Cepheid is directly related to its blink frequency, then simply by counting the frequency we can know how bright it is. Therefore, a dim Cepheid star at a certain frequency must be further away than a brighter Cepheid star of the same frequency. In other words: Russell and Hertzsprun had developed a measurement yard stick by which we could KNOW exactly how far away some objects in the universe are.

Who was Henry Norris Russell? In a biography it is written “we must appreciate that from the first he saw the universe as deeply moral and religious, subject to the natural laws created by God.  Though both he and the world around him changed in many ways, he never abandoned that vision. Nor did he abandon his religious background and upbringing, which though supportive rather than determinative of life course, still shaped the choices he made about his career and his scientific practice.”  Atheists constantly reinforce the idea that they are in the majority and the future of thought. This is how they continue to market their ideas in America’s classrooms. Folks who do not think like them are at best “cute” and “outdated,” or worse “retro-fools” who are not deserving of publication or career advancement for good science work. This type of bias leaks out of atheists even when they cannot avoid mentioning the foundational work of great men and women of God.

1917 Einstein tried to use his newly developed theory of general relativity to describe the shape and evolution of the universe. The prevailing idea at the time was that the universe was static and unchanging. That is an easy conclusion when one quickly observes the unchanging nature of the night sky. A static eternal universe was a comfortable idea for atheists as this view does not necessarily require a Creator. Einstein had fully expected general relativity to support this view, but, surprisingly, it did not. The inexorable force of gravity pulling on every speck of matter demanded that the universe collapse under its own weight. Ouch! This meant the universe had a beginning and/or an end which was an extremely uncomfortable view for those people who do not really want to do deal with the idea of God. A beginning of the universe starts to sound a lot like Genesis 1:1 which states “In the beginning God …”

So what is a guy like Einstein supposed to do when confronted with the proof of a Creator God crying out from his equations? Well, he came up with a completely non-scientific new ‘antigravity’ term to add to his original equation. This new term enabled his mathematical universe to appear as permanent and invariable as the real one. Ah! Comfort again, even if the penalty was to bastardize the science. This term is called the “cosmological constant” or “fudge factor.” The fudge factor had exactly the same value everywhere in the universe, delicately chosen to offset the tendency toward gravitational collapse at every point in space. Einstein was no atheist, but his fudge factor enabled atheists to be comfortable again, at least for awhile.

1920 to 1924 the new Cephid yardstick was used to measure the distances between thousands of points throughout our universe. Herber D. Curtis came to the realization that some Cephids were so distant they could not be in our Galaxy. This set up the long forgot “Great Debate” between Harlow Shapley and Herber Curtis. The “Great Debate” was between Herber Curtis; a conservative Christian Methodist,  former Greek and Latin teacher, scientists of Lick Observatory in San Jose and Christian Shapley, a liberal with atheistic supporters. Herber Curtis took the position that the universe is much larger than our Galaxy while Christian Shapley believed that the universe was limited to our Milky Way. Even the casual science reader knows who ultimately won that debate! That is probably why no public school students are taught about this Great Debate.

1924 Edwin Hubble finds a Cepheid in the Andromeda Galaxy proving Curtis right.

1927 ( I really like this one :-)); a Roman Catholic priest named Lemaitre, leveraged the work of Einstein minus his fudge factor concluded that the universe popped into existence from a single point. In his article “A homogenous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae” or in other words “A CREATION EVENT”!  Sir Arthur Eddington, a devote Quaker, the man who popularized Einstein’s theories in Britain and proved relativity in the famous 29 May 1919 eclipse, is partially convinced.

Thus Einstein and the scientists who were needed to correct and force the conclusions, have laid the intellectual foundation of a creation event. Now, we move on to the final proof of a creation event from an observational view point.

1929 Edwin Hubble notices a doppler shift or “Red shift” in star light from Cepheids is related to distance. Remembering Leavitt’s work, Hubble knew how far away the Cepheids were. Hubble realized that the Hydrogen spectral line red shift is related to the speed that the object is traveling away from earth and for some strange reason, the further the object is away the faster it is traveling away from earth.

1929 Edwin Hubble formulates “Hubble’s Law” that the futher objects the faster they are moving, proving the universe is expanding and Einstein was wrong. In 1931, Einstein thanks Hubble. It is quite obvious now: IF stars that are farther away from earth are moving away from earth at a faster rate, THEN when we mathematically run time in reverse those far away stars will get closer and closer the further we go back in time. Eventually, all the matter in the universe would collapse into a single point. This probed that Father Lemaitre was right and that we are directly observing a creation event from a single point.

WOW! Game! Set! Match! Creator God exists!  However, no God rejecting atheist worth their salt is going to give up so easily. As a result, in the 1940’s the Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and other high decorated (Royal Society fellow, Bruce Medal, Pres. Royal Astro Society, Balzan Prize, Crafoord Prize, Multiple Gold Medals from the Royal Astro Society, Humbolt prize, honorary doctorates, etc. etc.)  astro-atheists came up with various alternative theories. One example: matter could be spontaneously created between galaxies and thus force an expanding universe into their steady state model which preached a universe without a beginning. Atheists have rather aggressive campaigns to give each other titles and awards until they start to look like those 3rd world dictators with chests full of medals, even when they are completely on the wrong side of history and science.

Atheists went out of their way to make fun of scientists who disagreed with them. Hoyle coined the term “the Big Bang” as a pejorative term for the expressed purpose of marginalizing Father Lemaitre’s theory. Like Hawking, Hoyle appeared to spend more time writing novels, accepting awards and titles, and advocating his anti-God positions then actually taking data. It has been written of Hoyle “The real tragedy is that this brilliant man simply couldn’t accept new evidence and adjust his world-view accordingly. And so he died in ignorance, clutching onto his discredited theory, in futility, for nearly the last forty years of his life.”  In 1993, Hoyle made a last ditch effort to get out of the inescapable proof for a creation with his “Quasi Steady State model” which the mounting observational evidence quickly disproved.

To put an end to all this atheistic craziness and their non-creation event theory of the week, was the discovery of direct evidence of the “Big Bang.”  Theorists had predicted that if the “Big Bang” happened then there should be a microwave radiation afterglow. In 1964, two American radio astronomers at Bell Labs, Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias serendipitously discovered 2.725 K microwave background radiation. Think of this energy as the type of heat that is left over after an explosion, as the explosive gas fans out it cools … so much so that it now 2.725 K in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It probably was a little of God’s humor that a Jew and a Christian representing the entire Bible be the team who discovers the direct evidence of the “Big Bang.”

“While working on a new type of antenna at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, they found a source of noise in the atmosphere that they could not explain. After removing all potential sources of noise, including pigeon droppings on the antenna, the noise was finally identified as CMB, which served as important confirmation of the Big Bang theory.”  As John Huchra, a professor of astronomy at HarvardUniversity and a leading observational cosmologist put it, “The discovery of the 2.7 degree background was the clincher for the current cosmological model, the hot Big Bang. It opened a window on the Universe at a very, very early time, enabling astronomers and physicists to see the initial conditions from which the beauty of the present-day cosmos sprang.” – Source Bell Labs


Penzias’ son went on to become a Rabbi.  While in an interview with Robert Wilson, states “Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.”  — Source: Robert Wilson, An interview with Fred Heeren, Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God, Day Star Publications, 2000, p. 157

That’s the proof of the creation event from an observation viewpoint.  However, the battle between light and darkness goes on.  Atheists were thrown off their footing for nearly a decade after the Bell Labs proof.  But, being an atheist means never having to admit you are wrong.  Wrong is part of the scientific process.  But, wait a minute.  Being wrong in science would be okay if it was simply a matter of new data proving a proposed theory to be correct or in need of adjustment.  Dispassionate scientists correcting and improving their data, formula, models, etc. is all part of the scientific process.  However, being wrong after the astro-atheists ridiculed those in the right, gave dozens of prestigious awards to those in the wrong, maliciously presented their theories as facts to millions of school children, defunded efforts where data did not support their desired theories, creating a climate of fear where junior scientists were afraid to publish, while leading hundreds of young scientists down worthless rabbit trails is not a simple matter of the scientific process being followed.  Don’t hold your breath waiting for apologies and retractions and don’t underestimate the power of the dark side.  While every school child will learn about the Scope’s trial, few will learn about the Great Debate, Fred Hoyle, and other astro-atheistic disasters.  In fact, since this time astro-atheists have just moved on to ever crazier theories in their continual effort to minimize God’s creation while de-railing the efforts of some of America’s best and brightest minds.

John McDonald

Mountain House, CA

Drake’s Bay Oyster

DrakesbayLocal Drake’s Bay Oyster company is to be closed for environmental reasons!

Here is a nearby business under attack by wacko environmentalists, Sylvia Earle, and their powerful filthy rich allies in Washington DC.

Drake’s Bay Oysters

Please watch their 7 min video. If you like Oysters, consider buying Drake’s Bay while you can …

Wacky Environmentalists have their shtick down perfectly as they talk about nature in glowing terms. Drakes Bay is a perfect example. Here is what one wacko says  “Protecting Drakes Estero, America’s only West Coast marine wilderness park, will restore health – and hope – for the ocean and for the interests of all of the people of this country,” said oceanographer Sylvia Earle. (quoted from the Huffington Post)

Let’s cut the nonsense and look at what Sylvia Earle is really saying. What she is really saying is: “I don’t give a damn about 30 people and their livelihood – screw their lives, screws their children’s live, screw them. I don’t give a damn about the science that oysters are filter feeders that make “Drakes Estero” cleaner and more beautiful. I don’t give a damn that the water will now be muddier with less life as the real environmentalist reports state.I don’t give a damn about the 30 people who are already passionate about water quality for their oysters and the beauty of the local environment. My anti-mankind religion trumps all.” And yes, it is a religion. Just Google “Sylvia Earle” and observe where her books and videos are sold – atheist and humanist websites.

So who is Sylvia Earle? She is an oceanographer who has sucked off the American taxpayer and Chinese debt for the majority of her adult life as she jumps from one highly compensated taxpayer funded job to the next. Apparently she either has no compassion or is just ignorant of the consequence of destroying the human habitat for 30 people. It is time that people like her go find a real line of work and learn about the damage they have caused this country’s economy and environment. Married three times and currently separated, Sylvia appears to be the typical “humanist atheist.”  How much human suffering and wasted tax payer money could have been avoided if she had sought God early in her life?

Of course what’s another 30 people on unemployment ? :-(

Is Drake’s Bay company conservative, Republican, etc.?  Answer: No.


Feds blow up Red Snapper

The wacko environmental movement believes that anything mankind does is by definition evil. For example; these folks advocate the blowing up of dams even when millions of birds who depend on the irrigation water will die, they oppose nuclear power even though it would save them from their other apocalyptic global warming scenario, and right here in the Delta they are trying to shut down farming by flooding Delta islands.

The environmental jihad against the oil industry now has the Federal Government blowing up old oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico. This destroys the coral reefs that have built up around the pilings for more than 4 decades.  You can see the enormous destruction in the following video.

The full story here

Breakthrough Institute in Oakland!!

Electrical Engineers (I’m one) have been so aggravated over the years watching environmentalists demonize nuclear power while at the same time screaming that fossil fuels are going to destroy the earth from global warming.  We see completely ignorant politicians, nutty environmentalists, and grant seeking scientists pump out nonsense when it comes to real solutions to energy.  Nuclear power is the only viable technology at this time that is able to substantially lower carbon emission.  If you think global warming is a crisis, then the only sane position is to advocate for nuclear power. If you don’t, then you are seriously ignorant.

The Breakthrough Institute in Oakland, an environmental group,  is FINALLY stating what I’ve been writing for such a long time that nuclear power is really the answer to energy independence, lower use of fossil fuels, and a much higher standard of living for Americans! GOD BLESS THEM. Well most lefty’s don’t like the use of the word God, but oh well. I’m excited that they are on-board. This Breakthrough Institute and the California 2050 Energy report are starting to give me hope that some sanity is returning to the environmentalist movement. Perhaps the lesson of President Obama’s $90B of green wasted effort has sunk in. Now they know that there was no Big Oil and GM conspiracy to prevent green power and electrical cars. Now they know that there really are tough technical and economic problems with solar, wind, batteries, etc.

Let’s review some of the facts.

1. Energy use is going up. Deal with it. Conservation (while good) is not going to solve the world’s energy needs. The reason is simple: many countries abandoned state controlled socialist economies and adopted free market economies. Now billions of people are seeing their standards of livings increase around the globe. As these billions of people get richer, they want the same stuff we in the West have enjoyed. Microwaves, dishwashers, fridges, AC, street lighting, etc. are just a few of the new energy consuming goods being sold in the tens of millions in formerly 3rd world nations.

Even more interesting is that it has been shown that when lights are more energy efficient, people just increase the amount of light they use so the net energy change is zero.

2. Making Fossil fuels expensive is not going to fix global warming. First, American environmentalists and America itself has no control over the vast majority of the world’s fossil fuels. All the US Gov regulations and activists protesting against Exxon, Chevron, and Big Coal has simply hurt these companies while exporting jobs and pushing control out of the USA. Today, not one single US company is in the top 15 in the world in terms of oil reserves.

3. Green Energy with wind, solar, waves, etc. is simply not going to produce the amount of energy necessary to make any substantial difference. The sun still sets and the wind doesn’t always blow, thus the cost of green energy will always been high. President Obama, like so many nutty lefties, actually believes the pseudo-science and environmental conspiracy stories about why green energy never took off. Well $90B dollars of failed investment later, he appears no wiser. As an electrical engineer, I LOVE solar panels and the technology, I LOVE wind energy and the technology behind it. I wish like mad they were wonderful, cheap, reliable, etc. and if some great thinker figures out the right formula, I’ll jump on the bandwagon in a heartbeat.

Friends of mine have a wonderful start up in solar power now that has promise to advance the thin film solar efficiency to in excess of 30%!!  This is amazing, I love it and I hope it succeeds. I hope their technology is stable. Thin films often peel sort of like paint so they don’t last as long as single crystal and poly crystal panels. On the bright side, thin film technology is usually cheap.

4. There is enough nuclear fuel in this world to last until the earth is swallowed by the sun. The oceans are loaded with it and it can be retrieved at a cost of only a few cents per kW/h. In fact I want to try an experiment which I’ll try to carry out in the next 5 years in this regard.

All the best,

John McDonald