Blog - Page 2 of 3 - Bo Kelleher

Dr. Pan’s Adverse Reactions: Fluoride Overdose?

Bo KelleherMay 10, 2018Health, VaccinesLeave a Comment

This is Dr. Richard Pan, author of California's SB277, the mandatory vaccination compliance law. Take a close look at his teeth. He has what appears to be significant and noticeable dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is caused by an overdose of fluoride that gets deposited in the dentin.

He literally has to stare at himself in the mirror every day and come face to face with the hypocrisy of his undeterred commitment to medical "prophylaxis". Fortunately for him; what he does not have to deal with every day, is a vaccine injured child who will never even learn to brush their own teeth. There's no other direct link implied here, between vaccines and fluoride, but an increasing load of vaccines and unmetered fluoridation are all part of the BIG LIES that Western Allopathic Medicine perpetuates, even in the ugly face of objective evidence of harm.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA Sept. 18, 1943), states that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons — they inhibit enzyme systems, and water containing 1 part per million (ppm) or more fluoride is undesirable. This was the AMA's stand on fluoridation shortly before the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed nationwide fluoridation.

According to FluorideAlert.org, As of September 2017, a total of 59 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and over 40 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 52 of the 59 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ, while 45 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals. The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 12,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.

Dr. Pan's wife, Dr. Wen-Li Wang, DDS, is a practicing dentist in Sacramento.

Who writes this stuff?

Bo Kelleher

Removing the Religious Exemption from California Vaccine Law violates the Bill of Rights

Bo KelleherMay 5, 2018Christianity, Vaccines

The freedom to exercise your religious conscience under the Bill of Rights has been trampled in California.

Article I, Sec. 4 from the California State Constitution states: “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

An “act” or “acts” that is “inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State” is generally held as an ordinary and customary definition to be volitional (intentional). Under the usual and customary (dictionary) definition of “act”, it requires positive “action” (of which the root word is act”.

You would presume that passive refusal of vaccines, absent an imminent outbreak or pandemic, should not constitute an “act” under the law.

Here is the legal definition of “Act” from Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition (1999):

act, n. 1. Something done or performed, esp.
voluntarily; a deed.
” ‘Act’ or ‘action’ means a bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary …. ” Model Penal Code § 1.13.
2. The process of doing or performing; an occurrence that results from a person’s will being exerted on the external world; ACTION
(1). – Also termed positive act; act of commission.

The term to be debated here is whether refusing a vaccine, when and where there is no imminent threat that an individual may acquire and transmit a disease, is an “involuntary” bodily movement constituting an “act” that is “inconsistent with the safety of the State.”

It seems like an absurd stretch to say that a person of faith must surrender their religious beliefs because of the undiagnosed, improbable (non-imminent) risk that said person may, through no overt action of their own, become an involuntary vector for disease.

It is even more egregious for the State to erase the guarantee of free exercise and non-discrimination as it insists on aggressing against the body and the spirit of a person who is intent on invoking and refusing to waive their liberty of conscience as they decline a coerced medical intervention, devoid of informed consent, in such condition where no active, imminent or even probable threat of disease or injury yet exists.

Diversity of thought and Diversity of experience are under attack

Bo KelleherJanuary 5, 2018Culture, Good and Evil, Introspection, TechnologyLeave a Comment

Politics in 2018 is about finding the people you agree with. #MeToo. Everyone is balkanized into self-confirming echo chambers. The AI and the scripted media have managed to get people to self-segregate into congruous interest groups that demonize non-conforming ideas. These cliques can be seeded with highly charged or weaponized “yellow” information that whips them into a frenzy. Many of these groups have “dog whistles” or phrases known to rile them up so much more than any other group.

Law Enforcement Officers are balkanized behind their thin blue line, so while overall, police officer deaths on duty went down in 2017, law enforcement’s psychological posture is approaching utter paranoia, where they’re at DEFCON 1 and trigger happy, which in turn enrages over-policed racial populations who have endured decades of institutional racism compounded by elements of self-inflicted cultural suicide.

Middle-age, middle-class, mostly-white people have been told that they don’t matter and that they can’t say that they want to matter because of the passive bigotry they exude as a result of being born with un-sheddable privilege.

Employment Unions balkanize people into an “us” vs. “them” mentality, and the public employee unions are the worst at exploiting their low-information workers.

Churches balkanize people into sects, denominations, home groups, etc.

Instant entertainment on demand through SmartPhones has given rise to a whole generation who get their way (*all the time*).

1,000 channels of linear TV programming and unlimited VOD from YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, WorldStarHiphop delivered through personal devices issued to every family member with thumbs; have made it so that people never have to gather the patience and deference to tolerate a 60 minute TV show in the living room that may not be their pick… all because Dad wants to watch something different for a change.

Everything is personal and instant and everyone is special, so shared experience where kids defer to elders and tolerate each other is a dead concept. That should terrify all of us.

This is how it is in 2018.

But in another era, it was considered important and valuable to have a diversity of intellectual influences and a diversity of cultural or experiential inputs. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a rare interview granted to his former law clerk, Laura Ingraham, expounded upon the value of having a range of experiences and even wondered if it's that lack of shared experience that is causing "e Pluribus Unum" to lose it's "Unum".

Watch and see what he had to say:

Who Writes This Stuff?

Bo Kelleher

Who murdered Andrew Finch: Swatter or SWAT?

Bo KelleherJanuary 5, 2018Culture, Good and EvilLeave a Comment

Isn't the guy who shot him the killer?

I have this (probably unpopular) thought, that echoes the matter-of-fact observation of Andrew Finch's mother: He wasn't murdered by a phone call. He was murdered by a cop who had the training, the mindset, and the circumstance. In a murder case, those things are called, "motive, means and opportunity" and when all of that meets "with malice aforethought", it's murder. The phone call only created the circumstance. It didn't conclude that the only rational response to that information was to kill. That mindset existed in the yet-unnamed officer long before he encountered Finch.

And so it cannot be said that I let the victim off scott free: If you're 28 and you live with mom and occupy any meaningful portion of your life playing video games online against illegal aliens, something has gone very wrong in your life. The very fact that Andrew Finch was home at mom's house, developing an aroma of dorito sweat and Mt. Dew farts instead of busting his ass with hard work so he could get his own place and move out, speaks volumes. It should also be a warning beacon to other near-30-year-olds who live at mom's for the snacks, toilet paper and wifi, that -- especially if you have kids -- have a higher calling. You have a purpose greater than your own self-interest that will keep you away from FPS clans who call the cops and suggest that you be killed.

So What's the Solution?

Rules of Engagement for Civilians NOT IN A WAR ZONE: Civilian Domestic Police ought to have a more temperate ROE than that of our military when the military is deployed in hostile territory.

You don't fire until fired upon, and...
you don't use lethal force to defend property unless the property you're defending is a weapon or a strategic location (i.e. bridge, radio tower, hospital, police station, etc.).

If that's too burdensome a test of the bravery and willingness-to-sacrifice asked of our men and women in Blue, then perhaps they are in the wrong profession and it's time to calibrate their career with their tolerance for personal risk vs. duty to the constitution and to the people.

Moreover... States should adopt a zero-tolerance "you fire; you're fired" policy.

If a police officer, under the ROE, shoots a suspect; he or she will be immediately retired with up to 80% of his or her pension, with a sliding scale for years of service, but not more than 80%. If an officer wants a full pension, he or she will have to resist perforating the public for the duration of their service.
If a civilian UOF evaluation board determines that an officer was unjustified in the use of deadly force, even if no criminal charges are filed by the District Attorney, or if no indictments are made, or if no verdicts are rendered; the officer shall receive 0% of any taxpayer-funded portion of his pension including any interest or capital gains.

States should additionally also adopt a professional licensing requirement that:

law enforcement officers maintain professional liability insurance, and...
state laws shall be amended, where needed, to remove the legal presumption of "qualified immunity" in place of a civil tort test for reasonableness or malpractice, just as is held by and for physicians and other professionals who have a high duty to perform in their profession without error and at great potential peril to the public if they fail.

It should be readily apparent to even the most casual consumer of local and national news, that the cost of "errors" by law enforcement is the erosion of justice itself, and when justice is eroded, the source of authority (to do justice) from which the State issues the power to police, investigate and arrest is polluted for all members of society.

Do you think this makes sense? If you do, feel free to make it your own idea: copy and paste it to your friends, your mayor, your chief of police, and/or your State representatives. Do you think it goes too far? Tell me why by making an argument from the perspective of "all of us" or "the least of us", not just "us vs. them" or "brave cops vs. scary bad guys".

Who writes this stuff?

Bo Kelleher

What does Common Sense Gun Control Mean?

Bo KelleherOctober 3, 2017Culture, Good and EvilLeave a Comment

In the wake of the shooting of over 600 people in Las Vegas under what remains extremely confusing circumstances, there have been reflexive and emotional demands from the usual suspects demanding a ‘final solution’ to America’s gun problem. They are demanding “Common Sense Gun Control” legislation. The phrase means nothing at all because their sense isn’t sensible, nor is it common. And some on the political left (who are the true fascists, to which they purport to be “anti”) are nakedly calling for the total disarmament of the average American gun owner.

How would they do it?

Anyone who thinks that Americans should be disarmed should be prepared to explain how an estimated 600,000,000 firearms and 24 Trillion rounds of ammunition in the hands of law-abiding civilian gun owners are going to be confiscated. Seriously. Let’s hear your proposal. In any scenario, does it seem probable that there would be bloodshed involved in the stripping of a fundamental right and the theft of private property?

If the goal of gun confiscation is to reduce the number of firearm-related deaths, do you think that starting a civil war resulting in the deaths of likely tens of millions of Americans is a means to an end? How much political genocide would you consider reasonable to achieve the goal of “gun control”?

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) [5] made machine guns largely illegal to own (a legal pre-ban M16 costs upwards of $16,000 and requires extensive background checks and approvals). In addition to breaking laws against murder and terrorism, the assailant in Las Vegas also seems to have violated the NFA.

How is more gun control legislation going to deter a motivated killer who doesn’t care two wits about the law in the first place? It won’t. This is a terrible case of people feeling like government needs to “do something” and people start saying things like, “there ought to be a law!” There is. Murder is illegal.

The 2nd Amendment applies to machine guns.

It is the constitutional right of every non-prohibited person to keep and bear arms that are ordinary and useful to the purpose of standing as the organized or unorganized militia (10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes) [1]. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, beginning with United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) [2] that the 2nd Amendment applies to weapons that are “ordinary military equipment” found Clarence Thomas in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [3]. Because automatic and select-fire weapons are “ordinary military equipment”, and as the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) [4] that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, the National Firearms Act of 1934 [5] (emotionally prompted by the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 [6] (Reflexively prompted by the assassination of President Kennedy – *by a lone wolf gunman, we are told to believe*), should be nullified.

The answer to tragedy — even severe tragedy — need not be an automatic urge to create civil-rights-destroying laws that turn out to be unconstitutional on their face. We have enough laws, but even without the U.S. Code, there are the inherent civil rights that spring forth from natural law. For instance: You have a right to be free from aggression. The laws against murder and terrorism (extreme aggression) clearly are intended to prohibit the kind of carnage seen in Las Vegas. And while you have a right to be free from aggression, you don’t have a right to be free from risk. So to those who are pushing “Common Sense Gun Confiscation”, please tell me: What additional restrictions on gun ownership or possession would have stopped 600 people from being shot by someone who wilfully disregarded the most fundamental moral law of all, “thou shalt not kill?”

Does gun control work in other countries?

Some people will say that America needs to go the way of Australia or Western Europe. They claim that “gun control works everywhere else.” O really? Did Gun Control work in Paris when the Charlie Hebdo offices were attacked by terrorists with AK-47s? Did it work when concert-goers were massacred by gunfire at the Bataclan Theater? And what are the benefits of a completely disarmed population? Gun restrictions in Sweden ensure that immigrants can wantonly rape Swedish women with no fear that their victims will be able to present a lethal defense.

Even without easy access to firearms, criminals and terrorists in the UK are using heavy trucks to mow people down and engaging in knife attacks in crowded areas. What is the response of British police? They’re arming themselves with guns in the hope of being able to defend themselves and their communities, something that Britain hasn’t done in living memory. I thought Gun Control would eliminate all violence, murder and rape? Gun Control doesn’t work everywhere else, except to make the population helpless victims-in-waiting.

Count the cost – Blood and Treasure

To those who are demanding Common Sense Gun Confiscation: Are you personally willing to bang on a door and serve a search and seizure warrant on the home of a non-compliant gun owner? When you go to your Marine Corps combat veteran neighbor’s house, knowing that he is determined to fight to the death, are you also prepared to fight to the death to disarm him? May I suggest that you darn well better be.

…what you’re proposing is spending $880 Billion JUST ON COMPENSATION (before the costs of bureaucracy) in order to get Americans to surrender their guns.

Before we get to planning the lightning raids on gun owners’ homes, let’s consider the economic impact of what you say the gun confiscation crowd wants to do. For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume a fair market value of $300 for every privately owned gun owned in the U.S. That’s $300 x 600,000,000 which equals $180,000,000,000.00 ($180 Billion). And that’s not even counting the value of the Ammo. Let’s assume $0.05/round x 14 Trillion Rounds or $700,000,000,000.00 ($700 Billion). We have a Fifth Amendment with its “takings clause” that requires just compensation for confiscated property, so what you’re proposing is spending $880 Billion JUST ON COMPENSATION (before the costs of bureaucracy) in order to get Americans to surrender their guns.

But let’s assume the oft quoted 3% (III%) of gun owners won’t turn them in. Contemporary polls estimate that approximately 44% of households own guns, so from about 106 Million adult gun owners, you’re looking at around 3.1 Million Americans who are willing to be arrested or killed to preserve their constitutional right to self defense and private property and/or to defend the security of a “free state” against a tyrannical government. Are these Gun Control advocates prepared to compel the United States to commit political genocide and the targeted killing of over 3 million of their fellow citizens, only because they believe that they will live under the false peace that comes when only the murderous and tyrannical power of the state remains to wield a weapon?

Any citizen or national who would do this to America and to Americans, is a domestic enemy of the Constitution and the Republic.

References:
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Who writes this stuff?

Bo Kelleher

NFL Protests are Alienating Fans

Bo KelleherSeptember 28, 2017CultureLeave a Comment

An Open Letter to the Denver Broncos

I grew up during the Orange Crush years and my first game was at the old Mile High Stadium in 1982. It happened to be Craig Morton’s retirement ceremony (we lost to the Chiefs). Since I can remember… I have always been a Broncos fan, but I simply don’t know them anymore. I’m not a fanatical jingoist who thinks that everyone should worship the flag, but I grew up in a time where we stood with RESPECT for the flag, for the National Anthem, and for our national symbols, even if we disagreed with the government, the wars, the high taxes, the laws… so be it. I happen to think that America, despite it’s problems, is still worthy of respect.

Hey Denver Broncos: Stop making it about YOU. There are things more important than you. And one of those things is our National Dignity. What has happened in our country as a result of cops killing 1,000 people a year is intolerable and must stop. But it is infuriating that some intellectually-challenged individuals have wrongly connected the warrior cop problem to our National Anthem and our Flag. That makes as much sense as knocking over your aquarium because the dog took a dump on the carpet. The reaction isn’t conceptually in the same universe as the problem.

America is NOT its government. America is NOT its police. America is not “white people”. America is ALL OF US, and when you insult the Flag and the Anthem, you’re attacking ALL OF US… not just the cops or the nebulous “whiteness” or “toxic masculinity” or “privileged 1%” that you think oppresses you. Yes… there is a problem with out-of-control cops.

But there’s also a problem with kids being shown, by role models like you, that it’s okay to disrespect authority, and that their selfish whims should be catered to and celebrated. We now have kids in grade school who are refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance in class and showing open rebellion to their teachers… all because of what they see their football superheroes doing. And these disrespectful little brats will be the ones who ignore police commands and fight legitimate authority, thinking somehow it’s the system’s fault, not their own, when they get taken to the ground by a cop who’s had one too many encounters with self-important, disrespectful jerks like him.

I’m a just a regular guy who grew up in Aurora with my single mom… both of us loving the Broncos. But I’m also a disabled veteran who was willing to give whatever it takes for this country that you’re denigrating and disrespecting. I’ll miss being a Broncos fan. It’s a shame it had to end like this.

Goodbye.

Who writes this stuff?

Bo Kelleher

Why shouldn’t America be a moral Christian Theocracy?

Bo KelleherSeptember 8, 2017Christianity, CultureLeave a Comment

Freedom. That’s why. But freedom is a bit of a conundrum.

Until the millennial reign of Jesus, there will be no universal morality on earth.

God gave mankind free will from the very beginning. Why did God give man free will? Because God created mankind so that He could Love us, and so that we could love Him. But the law of love is such that Love cannot be compelled. God could not force mankind to love him or even to obey him. If he did, that “love” would not have been genuine. Being coerced, it would have been disingenuous. You can make a robot that does whatever you tell it to do, but it will never love you… not even with the most advanced AI, unless it can also choose to *not* love you, but does so of it’s own free will. So because God is Love and made us to love Him, free will came into existence and begat disobedience, which begat sin, which begat the perpetual struggle of mankind as a creation in rebellion against God.

No form of government will ever eliminate vice or sin. No rule of law will ever change the sin nature of the human heart. Governments don’t fundamentally change people’s hearts when they make a law. People don’t even fundamentally change on their own, but it is Jesus that changes people.

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:3-4)

Attempting to change the sin nature by force of law is impossible. So the focus for christians seeking an equitable kind of government that allows room for the expression of the Gospel and it’s redemptive power, is that we should move away from the moralizing “rules” and pay closer attention to the relationship between God and his creation.

But this can’t be done righteously by a religiously-directed civil government, because any theocracy would inherently become pharisaical and full of unrighteous condemnation. Imagine a national theocracy run by the Roman Catholic Church. That was the world in 1000 AD, and it was a terrible thing for non-catholic Christians. Imagine an Islamic theocracy with sharia law. While moralistic and rigid, it would also mean death to infidels who didn’t obey the Islamic authorities. Imagine an evangelical christian government run by Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar and Paula White… with a 10% national “sales tithe” that went to the “Lord’s anointed” (themselves). Imagine that Mormons ran the country and required 2 years of national service as a missionary baptizing the dead. Imagine a rainbow flag-waving theocracy run by Lesbian Liberal Methodists… or don’t… that’s a terrible thought.

The crucial point is that no theocratic government would govern righteously. A liberal, (liberal meaning “free and open”, vs. “Liberal” as in “Michael Moore: Liberal”) democratic, representative republic that provides a secular civil government which protects the rights of any and all religions to freely exercise their faith is what the founding fathers envisioned, having had just enough of King George III and his predilection under the Church of England to claim the mantle of God’s chosen rule-maker in all things about his earthly realm. Religious freedom from theocratic rule was the abiding hope that launched the Puritans of the Mayflower in 1620 among so many other English Dissenters who desperately wanted liberation from the tyranny of State Religion.

So, suffer as we must with the institutional weakness of a limited, secular, civil government to regulate and punish the vices of unbelievers, it is that same liberty… the same freedom… that allows non-conforming religious people to worship as they feel best. Freedom is a double-edged sword. It cuts both ways. God knew this when he instilled it in us by giving us free will. So it makes sense that we should tolerate the blessings and the curses of liberty together as one.

The universal moral principle that even non-religious people can agree with, is the “Non-Aggression Principle”. You ought to be free to do as you please, so long as you do not aggress against the person or property of another. It’s hard for most moralizing religious folks to mind their own business, but if this was really the highest principle of law in the land, there wouldn’t be a need for morality laws… just laws against aggression. No drug war. No helmet laws. No gun restrictions. The state would merely administer criminal law in the case where there were a victim of personal injury and/or a loss of property due to aggression by another. The state would also arbitrate contracts between parties who voluntarily entered into an agreement (such as a cohabitation, property management, and child-rearing agreement), eliminating such state-sanctioned institutions like “marriage” and relegating the moral and ethical responsibilities for such institutions to the churches, where they belong. In short, the government that governs best is the government that governs least, and when it does so… it preserves freedom, both religious freedom and even anti-religious freedom, while protecting individual members of society from aggression and holding them to their own voluntary standards when it comes to contracts and agreements.

The biggest problem that we have today, is that Statism is the new national religion, and it’s steeped in Secular Humanism and political correctness. Statism has taken over education from K-12+4, ensuring that most of the State’s own indoctrinated horde have been bathed in non-stop anti-theistic, secular humanist, progressive propaganda for 17 years of their lives before entering the worker class and being asked to submit their own progeny to a 17 year commitment to learning how to worship the State and all it’s bureaucratically liturgical requirements.

Who writes this stuff?

Bo Kelleher

Three reasons people reject God

Bo KelleherSeptember 1, 2017ChristianityLeave a Comment

Most people who deny God’s existence do so for three primary reasons. I used to be one of them, and one of these reasons was mine:

I like my sin.

1. The first type of denier wrestles with this: If God is real, it means that they are accountable to a supreme being for their actions. Right after the famous “John 3:16” Jesus said, “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” (John 3:19-20) People reject God because they don’t want to change their ways. They like their sin.

If god exists, why is there so much pain?

2. The second type of denier doesn’t understand the problem of sin and why it separates us from God — and why that separation is what causes all the pain and suffering in the world.

a. God created us so that we could be loved by him and that so we can love him. But love is not true if it is coerced. So God gave us the free will to NOT love him. When he did so, he opened the possibility that mankind would reject him.

b. God is holy. If God is PERFECT and pure and just and glorious, then he cannot allow even a tinge of unrighteousness in his presence. The rebellion of mankind removed God’s perfect protection from us. Mankind has been influenced by “spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).

c. Because there is sin in the world, there have been consequences. There is calamity and despair.

d. God has a plan to reconcile those who love him, and it begins and ends with his son Jesus and putting your faith in Him alone to save you from your sins. Nothing you do will ever be good enough. The Bible says that “all your righteousnesses are as filthy rags” to God. Only Jesus was perfect and sinless and can reconcile you to God. Those who reject Jesus reject God also (1 John 2:22) and they are eternally condemned.

e. If God allowed imperfection into his perfect presence, he would be polluted and unholy. If he gives a pass to any sinner, he’s an unfair and corrupt judge. If you blame God for the consequences of sin, you’re trying to make God in your own corrupt image, and that’s not who He is. Remember… he is love, he loves you, and he created you to love him. It’s your choice to accept that, but you don’t get to write the terms. Loving God in a broken world, with a broken heart and with a broken relationship with Him requires humility instead of hubris. It requires surrender. William Lane Craig has a great video explaining suffering and evil.

I can’t believe in something I can’t see (except evolution).

3. The third type of denier has unresolved intellectual skepticism and cannot accept something that they cannot concretely prove. They’re willing to believe in theories that explain things that supposedly happened millions of years ago, that no human eye has seen, but they reject the most documented events in recorded human history, occurring just 2000 years ago when Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Son of God, fulfilled more biblical prophecies that can statistically be attributed to chance even over millions of years, and performed supernatural miracles (even documented by non-Christian scholars in the Jewish Talmud where they refer to him as a “sorcerer”), culminating in his being put to death for the crime of blasphemy (calling himself God), being raised from the dead, seen by over 500 people alive after his crucifixion, and having made a promise to return again, ascended into the clouds with angels.

The intellectual skeptic readily finds dullard Christian preachers who know nothing of science and stereotypes all Christians as “the blind leading the blind”, ignoring that some of the greatest scientists in history were believers in Jesus (Isaac Newton would probably be more known for his eschatological writings if he hadn’t done so much work on gravity and thermodynamics).

But knowing God is not a pursuit of the intellect (though study of scripture certainly is). Knowing God is a pursuit of the heart. Belief precedes understanding, not the other way around. This was me before I became a believer.

What type were (or ‘are’) you?

Who Writes this stuff?

Bo Kelleher

Why Animal-Rights Veganism is Anti-God and Anti-Human

Bo KelleherAugust 27, 2017Christianity, Culture, Good and EvilLeave a Comment

Veganism is not about eating healthier

There’s been a remarkable rise in veganism and animal rights activism in recent memory. It made me wonder if people are just becoming more health conscious and simply avoiding red meat (but that would be vegetarianism). Very few vegans these days seem to point to the health aspects of veganism the the primary motivation for their desire to forego the taste of animal meat. It’s all about their belief that animals are “just like humans” and they say things like, “I don’t eat food with a face”. I understand vegetarianism. I was a sort of vegetarian for about 4 years. I was of the ovo-lacto-pescatarian kind of “vegetarian”, if you can call it that. I was okay with eggs (ovo), milk (lacto) and fish (pesca). But today’s vegans attack vegetarians for their heresy, almost more viciously than they attack omnivores.

I’ve watched an acquaintance whom I’ve known since about 2005 go from meat-guzzling gigantic bodybuilder to thin-faced vegan animal rights activist. During the same period, I’ve watched him casually explore differential theology and craft his own nebulous view of “spirituality” in which now, apparently, animals have souls just like people do, feel exactly the same feelings that people do, and for that reason, we can’t eat them. He seems focused on cruelty as a chief argument for veganism, but also attempts to make arguments like “there is no difference between a cow and a human woman” or “animals have feelings just like we do”.

Anthropomorphization

No. No. No. Animals do not have feelings just like we do. They have sensory perception. They have memory. Some animals even seem to have some level of self awareness. But they simply don’t have human emotions. Animal Rights activists vain ploys to get you to think that animals have human emotions are all centered around “anthropomorphization” or the act of humanizing something that is non-human. Think “Little Shop of Horrors” where Seymour Krelborn’s plant comes to life, gets hungry for human blood, falls in love, kills for self-preservation, and passionately sings the blues. That was a plant. Not even a real plant. And some plants (not just the fictional “Audrey II”) are carnivores! Anthropomorphization tells you to imbue humanness onto a non-human thing.

Meat is NOT murder

Animal cruelty is just wrong. No conscientious hunter wants to wound or maim an animal. He wants a clean kill with as little pain and suffering for the animal as possible. No rancher wants damaged animals and less return for their investment. Ranching is hard work, so it’s uneconomical and self-defeating to have maltreated product delivered at auction. Tremendous work has been done in humane livestock handling and slaughter. I had the pleasure of watching an HBO movie about the life of famed animal husbandry pioneer Temple Grandin, who pushed the beef industry far beyond what the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 required. I’m of the personal opinion that dog fighting and bullfighting are cruel and stupid, but it’s not right to call a bullfighter a “murderer” with that same import as Charles Manson. Killing and murder are not the same, but the language is being stolen by the activists.

Are animals a “person”?

Let’s worry about nouns. We’re living in a world now, where using the wrong pronoun and misgendering someone can get you jail time. And now the social engineers (not just the vegan ones), are trying to steal nouns, too. You were probably taught in grade school that a noun is a Person, Place or a Thing. Take a breath: that’s still there. But the definition of “person” is being challenged. The Supreme Court in the Citizens United vs. FEC ruling said that corporations are people and have free speech rights. Transhumanists are trying to tell us that anything that can pass the Turing Test should be granted legal personhood. Animal Rights activists from PETA are still pursuing a lawsuit (and the court is allowing it!) that would grant intellectual property rights (copyright) to a monkey who took a selfie with a photographer’s camera. Don’t let the absurdity of this idea cause you to doubt it.

As with most things, my mind wanders over to the spiritual realm and wonders what can be the purpose of this all from a spiritual warfare perspective. The answer is almost always that Satan, from the very beginning of God’s special creation of mankind, has been trying to kill or pervert humanity, and to convince humans that they are NOT special to God. That they are just “stardust” or that they are no better than machines, or that they are no better than animals.

Mankind is the only creature into whom God himself “breathed” life. When God sent his son to earth, he didn’t send a blue whale messiah. He sent Jesus… fully God, fully man. The enemies in the spiritual realm want one thing, and always have… for you to be separated from God. The serpent in the garden of Eden knew how to market disobedience with “one easy trick” that would reveal the knowledge of good and evil. The fallen angels mated with the daughters of men to corrupt the bloodlines and DNA of God’s people, but God preserved it miraculously from Noah to Abraham to Joseph to Mary so that Jesus – the second Adam – could reconcile humanity to God and reverse the curse.

Inhumanity

Today, the enemy of old is pulling out all the stops to try to convince humanity of their inhumanity. There’s no such thing as a Christian Vegan morality. Jesus ate fish and lamb. If God didn’t intend for humans to eat meat, would God in human form eat meat? No! That would make God a hypocrite and a liar. which is exactly what the enemy of God wants you to believe. To become a vegan animal rights activist, you have to shake your fist at God, who gave man dominion over animals, who welcomed burnt offerings, and even consumes the sacrifice from Elijah with fire from heaven.

This is not to say that if you’re a Christian, that you are required to sacrifice animals. And you don’t have to follow Mosaic purity laws. Yes… have that bacon-wrapped shrimp with your filet mignon (Acts 10:15). What God has called clean, call thou not unclean.

Who writes this stuff?

Bo Kelleher

Quantum Pseudoscience: The Soul can’t be explained by physical science

Bo KelleherAugust 9, 2017TechnologyLeave a Comment

According to New Age news site Peace Quarters, “Scientists Found That The Soul Doesn’t Die – It Goes Back To The Universe” or so the headline reads.

It’s based on a set of theories (*) proposed by two “scientists”, Roger Penrose, a theoretical physicist (emphasis on ‘theoritical’) and Stewart Hameroff, a psychologist and anesthesiologist. Their theory… not “findings” (sorry to disappoint, Peace Quarters)… is that there is a massive amount of quantum data on a qubit (micro-cellular) level that is quantum-entangled with other non-local particles in the universe. Their theory is that there are parts of you, on a subatomic level that are connected with the universe in ways no one can (yet) comprehend. The theory is called Orchestrated objective reduction, or “Orch-OR“.

Physical Science can ONLY deal in the observable, physical, natural universe. It cannot explain the intuitive, the metaphysical, or the supernatural. The conflation of “consciousness” (which may be a measurable, testable, observable and repeatable phenomenon) and the “soul” are a mistake. They are not the same, in any way.

The theory of the “soul” is based on the belief that (a) the soul is the same as consciousness, and (b) that consciousness is an expression of an observable quantum physical process. So to evaluate this, you need to go back to the biggest body of work in the theory of quantum consciousness, which has been (since 1975) the Posner theory. This new hypothesis of micro-tubules further extrapolates (without observable, repeatable proofs) that there is some possibility of decoherence of qubits (quantum entangled atoms) based on the Posner molecules. Posner molecules refer to phosphorus… begging the question of *this* hypothesis… At what point of death do the Posner molecules (phosphorus) leave the body during death?

Answer: They don’t. Not only is Posner is unproven, but these “scientists” are so far into the theoretical realm that that they’re making wild, unprovable claims. The headline declaratively screams “Scientists Found”. They found nothing. They found a hypothesis with no observable, repeatable tests and no control. This isn’t even remotely adherent to the scientific process.

The best argument against quantum entanglement as a biological process is the simple fact that the longest sustained, observable entanglement was seen in non-organic material, specifically diamonds… and it lasted all of 2 seconds.

Isaac Newton – God’s sublime philosophy

I deeply love science and all it has to offer, but it is pathetic and disheartening to see scientists who have no sense of the supernatural. We’re almost 2 or 3 generations into “absque scientia Dei” (Science without God), and it appears that scientists have lost their minds trying to explain that which is clearly beyond the confines of the physical realm.

Isaac Newton was an absolute Titan of science (Gravity?) and a zealous Christian. It was his desire to know better the nature of God’s design that drove his scientific endeavors. He was obsessed with eschatology and believed that his pursuit of scientific knowledge would reveal greater information about the future revealed in prophecy.

But modern scientists roundly reject God, having been trained that there is a natural explanation for everything, ignoring the fact that men like Newton and Darwin were believers in God and understood that there were both natural and supernatural processes.

Occam’s Razor says that, “all things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the best.” The soul isn’t just metaphysical; it’s supernatural. And using natural means to explain the supernatural is silly.

Who Writes this stuff?

Bo Kelleher

Page 2 of 3
←
1
2
3
→