new

It is the American left that clearly does not want free speech. They think that free speech obstructs their agenda of a leftist dictatorship and they think that free speech is not a God-given right. The Masters of the Universe have sided with the American left. Also, the American left has sided with jihadi psychopaths in an alliance to obtain power by violence. What the American left does not understand at all is that the jihadi psychopaths will turn on them once Christians, Jews, and capitalists have all been silenced in the USA. The reason that jihadi psychopaths will turn on the American left is that Muhammad said to slay everyone who was not a member of Islam.

So meanwhile the American left is busy silencing the opponents of socialism/communism and the opponents of homosexuality and the opponents of jihadi psychopaths. It does not matter that you are a refugee from communist brutality or that you teach Christian morality or that you are just teaching what jihadi psychopaths say in Arabic in some Indianapolis mosque.

I believe that the American left and their violent jihadi psychopaths will win power in America. As I said before, I then think that the jihadi psychopaths will take power away from the American left by using the lack of free speech that the American left is now instituting. The jihadi psychopaths will say that the American left is slandering the prophet Muhammad. As President Obama said at the UN on September 25, 2012, The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Katherine Timpf wrote in National Review yesterday that 41 percent of American university students believe that hate speech such as defined as speaking against the leftist agenda should be punished. Here are a couple of paragraphs from what she said:

What’s always been the most interesting to me is that it seems as though most of the people who want to crack down on people’s First Amendment right to free speech are also people who are very liberal, the same kinds of people who often claim that President Donald Trump is a Nazi. In other words: They want the government to have the power to control speech, they think that the head of the government is a literal Nazi, and yet they don’t see any irony in that. It truly blows my mind.

Everyone isn’t always going to like every person in a position of power in this country, and that’s exactly why we need to keep our speech completely free. If we don’t do that, then our right to speak our minds is subject to the whims of whoever happens to be in power at that time — and that person might have a different view on what kind of speech is or is not acceptable. It could get very scary: If a leader, for example, decided that he or she considered any speech criticizing him or her to be “hate speech,” then we could even lose our right to place a check on government power using our First Amendment right to be critical in that way.

So what are we to do about hateful speech? We speak out against it. That’s right: The way to stop others from saying hateful things is not to use government power to silence them, but rather to use our own freedoms to combat what they say. After all, the only way to ensure that the government doesn’t have the power to police what we say is to make sure that we never give it that power in the first place — because the same laws that could be used to stop speech you don’t like could also at some point be used to silence you.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. --Barack Hussein Obama

I can infer the "truth" about the de-evolution theory by the 2nd law of Thermodynamics than you can for macroevolution, but that is a mocking sarcasm against the "preponderance of evidence" reasoning for the evolution theory. Do men act like apes around females? Do not many witnesses, both men and women, will attest to men behaving like Neanderthals? Do law enforcements testify to men acting like Cro-Magnum men when subduing females against their will for mating? One can observe and prove the de-evolution theory quite well by such a preponderance of evidence and yet we know it is not true, right?

Science cannot prove the age of anything by their dating method when it goes past known human history since they are errant dating results as proven by history and even in the present day; example; a living mollusk is carbon dated as 2,300 years old "dead". So how can any one take stock in their dating methods past human history? No self respecting scientists can.

And when the errant dating methods does not meet their evolutionary time table or find a fossil out of place as found with fossils in according to their geographical evolutionary time table, they conveniently place it in according to the evolutionary time chart.

Evidence of this is how fossilized whale bones and other fossilized marine life were found on the top of the Andes Mountains buried "TOGETHER" with fossilized land animal bones like the extinct Gibbon. The "scientists" testify that they can just bend over and pick them right up, but to counter them being buried together, they spun the tale in presenting the evidence in according to the evolutionary time table by saying that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea, trapping marine life by doing so, and yet offer no explanation for the fossilized land animal bones that were found buried together with the fossilized marine life.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

The scientific fact about the reservoir effect where marine life will absorb carbon 14 at a lower rate than land animals seems to be purposefully overlooked in favor of presenting these preponderance of evidence. That means they would get a different dating result by those fossilized bones on that mountaintop buried together. See the evidence of the Biblical global flood yet?

They are now changing the time table from when they said that birds evolved from dinosaurs to now.. dinosaurs had evolved from birds. Would birds in flight receive a higher absorption of carbon 14 than land animals? In any event, what they had said formerly as being a fact or true, they are now changing their "facts" or the "presentation" of the evidence but still only within the parameters of the evolution theory.

When our government gives grants to those that try to prove the evolution theory, you can suspect any proposals for grants to be geared towards that effect when their livelihood is at stake.

Now if that false science is not circumspect enough, Jesus's words testify to Noah's flood as a real time event as a warning to believers to be ready or else because Peter warned of a fiery judgment was coming in 2 Peter 3 rd chapter also in relation to Noah's flood.

Jesus validated the first marriage. He validated the reason behind the creation of the sabbath day. He warned believers in regards to how God has judged the world by the flood in Noah's days and judged the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah of that coming judgment of destruction that will occur after His appearing for why they are to be ready & willing to go or else.

No genetic information has ever been observed as being added to a living organism. It will never happen. The Law of Biogenesis sees to that as life cannot come from nothing; life comes from similar life, but evolutionists keeps glossing over that law because they coined the term microevolution from that law to make macroevolution "look" plausible. It is a deception.

So you either believe Jesus's words or you believe the ever changing words of fallible men by their fallible devices for what that false science that is the evolution theory is all about; the world withholding the truth in unrighteousness.