CyberCiphering

The Age of Obama: Eugenics Reaches Its Zenith

2008-11-13T05:11:05Z

While the debate over Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) rages on (e.g. here) and the propensity of some folks to invoke Godwin's law when discussing President Elect Obama is decried as shameful behavior akin to the kind of "stuff" routinely seen at web sites like Daily KOS, I nevertheless remain puzzled and alarmed by one thing, viz. the numbers. After taking a good look at the numbers, how is it that black people in the United States overwhelmingly perceive the election of Barack Obama as some kind of victory for their people/race?

Recall that on December 7th, 1941, Japanese Imperial Naval forces bombarded the airfields and battleships at Pearl Harbor resulting in more that 2000 military and civilian casualties for the United States. That surprise attack precipitated the eventual unconditional surrender of Japan in September of 1945 -- after many of their cities had been fire-bombed to ashes and two of their cities had been vaporized by atomic bombs. Also recall that nearly 60 years later, when Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center in New York city on September 11th 2001, some 3000+ civilians lost their lives. Once again, the United States responded militarily with what is now a 7 year war in Afghanistan (and counting), not to mention Operation Iraqi Freedom, which arguably could never have happened had the 9/11 attacks not occured as they did (how could George W. Bush have mustered any support in Congress for a war in Iraq had the 9/11 attacks not occurred?). Thus, one might be tempted to prematurely accept the premise that when more than a few thousand Americans lose their lives in a single day, the people of the United States close ranks and methodically, systematically set about exacting punishment upon the people responsible for that loss of life with extreme prejudice. The trouble is, you'd be wrong if you accepted that premise. It's simply not true. The evidence is in the numbers. Voici:

Take a look at the statistics here, here, and here. Multiple sources indicate that 3700 American women walk into an abortion clinic every single day in the United States and insist that the medical people that work there kill the baby that they carry in their womb. Again, in case the number went by you too quickly, that's three thousand seven hundred (3700) abortions every day. More people than we lost at Pearl Harbor, more people than we lost on 9/11, every single day. Where's the military response? That's right. There is none. Where's the outrage? It appears to be rather subdued and somewhat confined (almost exclusively) to regular church-goers. According to some watchdog groups (see this YouTube video), of these 3700 daily abortions, some 1500 are sought by black mothers. Printed statistics found here cite a figure of 37% for black abortions. Let us consider the more conservative figure, viz. 0.37 * 3700 abortions per day = 1369 black abortions per day. Again, let's be conservative, and assume that these abortion statistics are NOT seven-day-a-week figures, but rather, Monday through Friday five-day-a-week figures. Thus, a conservative estimate for the number of black babies aborted every year in the United States is 365 days * 5/7 * 1369 = 356,917 black babies aborted per year in the United States. Again, taking a conservative tack, let us round this number down to the lower and simpler figure of 350,000 black babies aborted every year in the United States. Are you getting a feel for the numbers yet?

Let us continue with our little exercise in rudimentary mathematics here. According to this article, the current figure of 3700 abortions per day in the United States is down significantly from the peak abortion figures that occured in the early 1980s and again in the early 1990s. Again, let us adhere to our conservative way of estimating the cumulative damage here. Let's simply ignore all the abortions that occured before the localized peak figure in 1980 and let's revise the actual numbers downward and assume that the number of black babies aborted over the past 29 years never exceed the current lower figure of 350,000 black babies aborted per year. What is the cumulative number of casualties over those years? Simple multiplication of 29 years * 350,000 black babies aborted per year leads us to 10,150,000 black babies aborted in the past 29 years. That's right. The true and accurate figure almost certainly MUST exceed 10 million black babies aborted in the United States during the interval of time since I became an adult/registered voter in the 1970s. Again, by one of the most conservative measures, that's roughly 10,000,000 black babies aborted in the past 30 years. If you do not find this number both astonishing and staggering, then (like most liberals) you simply do not understand arithmetic. (Behold the power of the multiplication tables.)

These simple arithmetic calculations that I have outlined here are not speculation, nor are they conjecture -- they are the hard, cold numbers. Numbers do not lie. It is generally estimated that Nazi Germany is responsible for the murders of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, and yet we, the people of the United States, with the help of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, have murdered more blacks in the past 30 years (upwards of 10 million). Furthermore, no U.S. political figure in recent memory has been more supportive of this activity than President Elect Barack Obama. (BTW, not all blacks have been fooled by "the One" as evidenced by this YouTube video.)

So. Is it really lunacy to invoke Godwin's law and compare Barack Obama to Hitler? Perhaps so. Certainly, Barack Obama himself will never be as efficient, competent, and accomplished as many of the Nazis were. It's taken 30 years for Planned Parenthood to rack up casualties in the black community that are comparable to the damage that the Nazis did to the Jews in less than 10 years -- and clearly Barack Obama is not even remotely responsible for all of this. Yet he IS a collaborator that possesses an almost fanatical devotion to abortion. The fact that Barack Obama now occupies the most powerful position in the U.S. government may not make him Adolf Hitler, but it does make him the most influential supporter of Margaret Sanger's Negro project -- a eugenics cause with accomplishments that now rival those of Third Reich. If you think that I'm "full of it", I suggest that you wait and see who Barack Obama appoints to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ponder these thoughts for a while: Here in the U.S.A., we carried out our eugenics project and we didn't have to build death camps, gas chambers, or ovens. In fact, we didn't even have to keep the trains running on time -- all we had to do was build abortion clinics. Somehow, we managed to convince some 10 million members of the "inferior races" to walk into these abortion clinics of their own free will. If Hitler and Himmler were still around today, I'm sure that they'd be green with envy. If the irony in that doesn't shake you, then consider this: It's clear to me that God exacted His holy and righteous judgement against Nazi Germany in 1945. Just when and how will America and its citizens pay for what WE have done?

What Just Happened?

2008-10-03T10:10:32Z

Republicans are now running an ad that finally hits back hard on the Mother Of All Bailouts (MOAB) that was precipitated by the Community Re-Investment Act (CRA). Here's a link to the YouTube version of the ad entitled "What Just Happened?"

Burning Down The House - What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

2008-09-26T03:09:31Z

Everyone needs to see this YouTube slide show and elected government officials, especially Democrats, need to own up to their role/involvement in the current economic apocalype. Burning Down The House - What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

And now, the new improved version of this video, after it was taken down by YouTube for "copyright violations."

My collie says: "Copyright violations. Yeah .Sure. Right. Whatever."

Catholic Vote's pro-life 2008 election ad

2008-09-23T10:09:29Z

The imagery conjured by this ad was SO powerful, I thought that it deserved a permanent link here on my site. The YouTube version of the video is simply entitled "Catholic Vote 2008".

Sarah Palin on God

2008-09-12T08:09:13Z

When did it become "wrong" to believe in God?

The Truth About ANWR

2008-07-12T10:07:18Z

An interesting e-mail has been making the rounds on the internet. The snopes web-site has posted its contents along with links to additional information. Read "The Truth About ANWR".

Is NASA wrong about the "melting ice caps"?

2008-07-03T05:07:23Z

In the continuing saga of 'climate change' pseudo-science, Dr. James Hanson is back this week -- and he may be misrepresenting things a bit (again?). Yet another article at The Register is "calling him on the carpet" for omitting certain "inconvenient truths."

My collie suggests that you read this blurb at The Register posted today:

Are the ice caps melting?

Forget SUV guilt, have you read about your HD-TV?

2008-07-03T04:07:40Z

With gasoline approaching the $5/gallon mark and all the controversy surrounding the 2008 Presidential candidates' proposals regarding energy independence, many of us are starting to feel guilty about that SUV or pick-up truck that we are driving -- but what about that big flat-panel monitor that you are currently using to read this blog?

My collie suggests that you read this brief article over at The Register:

'HD TV gas' 17,000 times worse for planet than CO₂, claims boffin

Blogs making us stupid

2008-05-27T08:05:10Z

Bloggers may not be happy with me for drawing attention this, BUT ...

Recently (05/20/2008), PCMAG.COM featured an article authored by John C. Dvorak (how does that guy keep his job?) that claims that internet blog sites are making us stupid. See the link here:

Losing Perspective

Of course, it is possible that there may be some truth in all of this -- but since Dvorak wrote the article, I am inclined to reserve judgement on the matter. After all, he's been wrong about almost everything else over the past 20 years.

My collie says:

"You have to hand it to him, at least he is consistent."

Is NASA doctoring the climate data?

2008-05-06T07:05:19Z

The Register has a good summary of an article that recently appeared in the scientific journal Nature. Here's the link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

Is the data being doctored? The smoking gun in the article may be this paragraph:

"Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the
temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore's science advisor and
the world's leading long-term advocate of global warming."

Continuing to the second page of the article, you will find this disturbing paragraph:

Bottom Line

"Both of the satellite data sources, as well as Had-Crut, show worldwide
temperatures falling below the IPCC estimates. Satellite data shows temperatures
near or below the 30 year average - but NASA data has somehow managed to stay on
track towards climate Armageddon. You can draw your own conclusions, but I see a
pattern that is troublesome. In science, as with any other endeavour, it is
always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the
data and the people interpreting it."

My personal take on this: It is stuff like this that has caused a lot of good people to leave the agency (NASA) over the years.

In the beginning...

2008-04-30T09:04:20Z

My collie created this blog. Thus far, no one has volunteered to discipline him for this act of sedition. I, for one, refuse to use a rolled-up newspaper on him -- mostly because I spent five years of my adolescence as a paperboy, so I know for a fact that this tactic only serves to make dogs hate the paperboy. (Although I was an entrepreneur between the ages of 8 and 13, I have since learned that it is much safer to simply "blend in" with the rest of a union represented labor force.) So, like Rafiki in Disney's Lion King, I am inclined to tell my collie "it doesn't matter, it's in the past." Besides, I know my collie pretty well, and if I discipline him for this, there WILL be reprisals. I don't want to end-up "on the wrong end of the pooper-scooper", if you know what I mean.

The inception of this blog will, no doubt, go largely unnoticed in cyberspace. Hakuna matata (no worries). Like the immensely popular Seinfeld television series of yesteryear, this blog is largely "about nothing" anyhow -- so if it disappears into the cyber-mist in a manner akin to its genesis, that would be "no big deal", would it? After all, does the "internets" need yet another blog site? I think that the answer to that is decidedly and unequivocally "No!" "So why spend your time starting a meaningless and labor intensive blog site?" my wife asks.

My Calvinist collie answered her with the following quote:

Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun— all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 9:9 (NIV)

"It is your destiny," my collie added.

I muttered "stupid dog" (mostly because I hate it when I think that he might be right). After all, what could be more of "a meaningless, toilsome labor under the sun" than starting a blog that is "about nothing"? So, because I hate losing an argument with a stupid dog, I started to list some reasons for starting a blog (even if they are not very good ones).

One reason for starting a blog is that it contributes to my long-held personal goal of "continuing education". I can use it to learn more about building and hosting web-sites. Learning about all facets of personal computers (PCs), i.e. building, administrating, and using them, has been one of my hobbies for the past 25 years. In my estimation, I am hopelessly addicted to PCs (though the recent upgrade to Microsoft Windows Vista very nearly turned me into a Mac aficionado, but as you know, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and thermonuclear war). I am praying that this addiction of mine is healthier than drinking heavily or smoking cigarettes -- otherwise, I may be in "deep doo-doo."

Yet another reason for starting my own blog is the clarity and therapeutic value that I will derive from posting my thoughts on a regular basis. A blog can serve as a 21st century version of the more familiar hand-written diary or personal journal. Of course, individuals that go to the trouble of keeping a diary do not necessarily do so in anticipation of any interaction or critique that they may or may not receive from their "readership". The usual reasons for writing a personal journal are usually just that -- personal. So it is understandable if some people believe that there may also be an element of exhibitionism in starting a new blog. So be it. I've been called worse.