Mike Corthell

Mike Corthell
Editor & Publisher at Fryeburg Free Press MEDIA

Monday, October 24, 2011

Liberal or What?

Suicide of Columbia America

''Reading Buchanan’s book, I can see from my 65 years of perspective that he’s right on the money that we’re losing our country, culture, language and foundation. We’re being torn apart by our own stupidities. But the young can’t see it and don’t see it because they don’t know what anyone over 50 knows.''

In his new book reporting on the imminent decline of America, Suicide of a Superpower, Pat Buchanan wrote a chronology as to how and why America cannot survive another 20 years. If you look around, you can see his descriptions playing out across the country weekly.

In Chapter 7, you can see the growing nightmare of the “Cult of Diversity.” Every day across America, racism rears its ugly head. We read about it in newspapers where racial fights break out in Los Angeles schools. Mexican gangs run blacks out of their turf. We hear about “flash mobs” of blacks in Wisconsin, New York and New Jersey beating up on whites.

Legal suits of racial discrimination fill our courts. We saw the Selma March in the 60s, whites dragging blacks on a rope behind a truck and hundreds if not thousands of black/white confrontations from the inception of this Republic.

In Boulder, Colorado, where I once taught, we see white liberals, which make up 98 percent of the city, sporting bumper stickers that read, “Celebrate Diversity” or “Enjoy Multiculturalism.” But when their schools become overloaded with Mexican children of illegal migrants that clean their houses, Boulderites drive their own kids off to all white private schools. Across the nation, our inner cities seethe with failure, distrust, anger and racial tension.

If we watch the ongoing racial dance in London, Stockholm, Oslo and Paris, we now see another mixture of Middle Eastern immigrants creating a new kind of racism. They prefer to maintain their own enclaves where host country citizens do not dare tread for fear of harm, rape or death.

But today, the United States imports around 3.1 million immigrants and their children annually from disparate countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia, Bangladesh, Mexico, India, Congo and another 100 other third world countries in an effort to “multiculturalize” and “diversify” America’s culture.

In this book, Suicide of a Superpower, Pat Buchanan speaks about the cultural displacement now steaming full speed ahead to reconfigure America into something that has never succeeded in all of humanity—a country where everyone from everywhere creates a polyglot civilization where people mingle with their own, enclave with their own, and avoid assimilation into the host country.

Chapter 7. The Diversity Cult. “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality,” Wattenberg trilled. (A philosopher who celebrates the loss of a dominant culture in America.)

It’s safe to say he would rejoice in a loss of women’s rights, female genital mutilation, honor killings, arranged marriages, killing of gays, stoning of women, multiple wives and full scale indoctrination of a certain religious text in all schools.

“Yet, one wonders: What kind of man looks with transcendental joy to a day when the people among whom he was raised have become a minority in a nation where the majority rules?” Buchanan said, “Historians will look back in stupor at 20th and 21st century Americans who believed the magnificent republic they inherited would be enriched by bringing in scores of millions from the failed states of the Third World.”

Chapter 8: The Triumph of Tribalism. “We may deny the existence of ethnonationalism, detest it and condemn it. But this creator and destroyer of empires and nations is a force infinitely more powerful than globalism, for it engages the heart. Men will die for it. Religion, race, culture and tribe are the four horsemen of the coming apocalypse.”


Sunday, October 23, 2011

Lead to a Kill

Apostasy, Prophecy

2Timothy 4:2 “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

(3) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
(4) And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

We have entered into a time where biblical prophecy can be found in the daily news paper on a daily basis. One of the things that is spoken of in scripture is the actions of the ‘social church’ in the last days. The ‘social church’ is not the true church as the true church will hold strong to the precepts of God. The social church will lean heavily towards what society accepts. Today’s society has accepted people living together without the benefit of marriage. In the social church this subject is very rarely talked about and many in that church are living together without being married. Today’s society has no problem with divorce for almost any reason. In the social church the divorce rate is actually higher than in the world. Society does not have a problem with alcohol and I have seen the social church actually serving alcohol on church property. Society is beginning to accept same-sex marriage and all that it brings with it. We have many denominations that are now ordaining practicing homosexuals to lead their churches.

These insane actions from today’s so-called churches do nothing but confuse the parishioners. When the Bible says one thing about a subject but the preacher teaches something entirely the opposite, this causes confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33 “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” Now that we have verified where the teachings that are contrary to the Bible are originated we can understand why too many ‘churches’ are so far away from what the Bible teaches. When the church ignores the laws and precepts of God’s Word, the church becomes ineffective in the society that it exists in.

The church in America was the center of government, education and enforcement during the founding years. These churches relied on what God required and then acted accordingly. That philosophy created the greatest nation the world will ever see. It was only when the church began to allow the philosophy of the worlds system into the church that the church began to lose its influence in the society where it once flourished. No system of governing that man has devised has ever been successful. The fall of all empires, the Greek, Persian, and Roman and even Russia are perfect examples. America’s system, based on biblical principles, has been the most effective, prosperous and successful for its people than any form of government this world has ever seen. Yet, we no longer embrace the values taught in scripture. The decline was gradual until 1954. At that time then Senator Lyndon Johnson attached an amendment to an IRS bill that made it illegal for a 501(c)3 corporation to be involved in the political arena. When the church was taken out of the political arena, the influence of godly principles began to fall exponentially.

Today most pastors don’t know that the church was ever involved in politics. This is disturbing because when you study the Bible God always had a man of God in a position of influence to those in government, always. That should give some pastors a hint that this should still be happening. I have spoken with many pastors about being involved in the political arena by preaching the importance of godly men in office, something that our Founders were very strong concerning and they look at me with terror in their eyes because of the fear of losing their precious 501(c)3. The Bible tells us that we are to have godly men in authority over us: Exodus 18:21 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:”. This is the verse the Founders used to establish the different levels of government; local, state and federal. Then we are told to pray for those in authority over us; 1 Timothy 2:1 “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

(2) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. What sense does it make to put ungodly men and women in authority over us and then spend all our time praying that they do godly things?

The church has been so slack in standing for the things of God that we have allowed our rights and freedoms to be taken from us mostly without a fight. In 1947 the Supreme Court reversed the meaning of the 1st Amendment stating that there should never be a biblical influence in government instead of never having governmental influence in the church and the church did nothing. In 1954 they stood by and let our freedom of speech and our right to participate in the political process be taken away and the church did nothing. In 1962 they made it illegal to pray in school and the church did nothing. In 1963 they took the Bible out of the school and the church did nothing.


Saturday, October 22, 2011

Make Your Own Walking Sticks

Political/Religious Discussion

Mike Corthell Founder / Administrator

Welcome to Corthell & Company

Thank you for taking the time to visit this site. The main focus of U.S. Politics Online is the free exchange of ideas. All views are welcome! We encourage you to register as a member here in order to have the best possible experience. The discussion forum is a place to share your ideas, discuss the issues with others, and learn as much as you can to become a better informed citizen. Today we face dangers and threats not fully realized in the past. Countries are continuing to build and seek out nuclear weapons. Terrorists are organizing like never before to disrupt the way each of us live. People have lost their sense of security, some their jobs, and others their lives. As we face these new challenges--politically, morally, and ethically--we must never forget what makes the United States and countless other countries throughout the world so great, our freedom...our liberty. Are you willing to remain idle; to sit by and watch this world change without getting involved; without letting your voice be heard and without listening to the voices of countless others from every political perspective, religion, nationality, gender, be heard as well? Please, get involved and be heard...but never forget to listen as well. Thank you for your time and we look forward to you sharing your ideas and thoughts on the issues that matter most to you.
Go To Forum:

What they always do....

KILL Again

Sigmund Freud's Crazy Grand Illusion

[I]t would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent Providence, … a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be. …

~ Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis and, to a great extent, modern psychology and psychiatry, came of age in Vienna in the late 19th century. At that time Vienna, despite its overt anti-Semitism, was a cultural and intellectual haven for Jews. Freud's biographers aren't exactly certain what series of events led to his virulent hatred and disregard of all religions (especially Judaism and Christianity), but what we do know is that in many of his most important writings – "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality" (1905), "Totem and Taboo" (1913), "Civilization and Discontents" (1930) and the book I will critique in this essay, "The Future of an Illusion" (1927) – Freud repeatedly and shamelessly attacks religion as nothing but a grand illusion; psychotic delusions that people who consider themselves to be rational, intelligent and scientific should straightway give up, grow up and admit "man's insignificance or impotence in the face of the universe."

Despite his hatred of religion and glorification of sexual perversity, Freud admittedly had many revelatory, thoughtful and profound insights into the deep, dark recesses of the conscious and unconscious mind, which for a century have aided scientists and psychologists to help people understand and resolve real and serious mental and emotional problems. Freud isn't original in this respect. The Bible, arguably the first psychological treatise (or as Bishop Jakes says, "psychiatry for the poor"), for millennia has already told us about the grotesqueries of human nature, our irrational attraction to evil [sin] in all its innumerable forms and the need for a Redeemer to save humanity from committing suicide against itself.

"The Future of an Illusion" is a naked frontal assault against religion, dismissing it as mere illusion, foolish wish-fulfillment by infantile minds. Freud's ideas originated in classical philosophy whose intellectual foundation lies squarely in the amoral political atheism of Machiavelli, reaching its philosophical zenith in the writings of Nietzsche. However, Freud provided a novel distinction by presenting atheism as ipso facto true. Rejecting the thought that religion exists because God exists and that human beings therefore have a natural tendency to worship, Freud thought that a more scientific explanation for religion was in order.

Freud first presented his perverse and unscientific theories of the unreality of religion in his 1913 book "Totem and Taboo." Here Freud's famous Oedipus Complex theory stated that the source of the religious cult (the origin of culture) was the murder and eating of a father by his sons. The sons killed the father because naturally they desired to have sex with their mother, and their father was a rival. In base primeval fashion, they thought that by eating their father they gained his power and privileges. Over time, this consecrated feast evolved into the institution of religion and its moral prohibition of incest and patricide.

There you have it, in Freud's Garden of Eden the three branches of humanity's family tree lay in incest, patricide and cannibalism. Where is Freud's historical evidence, scientific rigor and substantive psychoanalysis to support these scurrilous charges? There is no evidence. Freud's immoral anything-goes philosophy was animated by the atheism of Hobbes and Rousseau who glorified Primitive Man, including their entirely phony philosophy of man's inherently primitive state of nature – particularly Rousseau's ideas contained in his famous aphorism: "Savages are not evil precisely because they do not know what it is to be good."

Freud believed that he had demonstrated "the psychical origins of religious ideas" in "the terrifying …helplessness in childhood [that] aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father," and that religious ideas are therefore "illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind."

Freud's solutions are even more ghastly and unconscionable than his subjective rants, which he falsely presents as reasoned, dispassionate psychoanalysis in his books. The rational thing to do, Freud argues, is to renounce this illusion. Grow up, reject religion and embrace science. Become "irreligious in the truest sense of the word" and admit "man's insignificance or impotence in the face of the universe."

ne cannot help reading Freud's anti-Judaism and anti-Christian diatribes in his book "The Future of an Illusion" and not think of two things: First, by attacking religion in such a personally virulent way Freud lacks all objective or scientific credibility and makes himself a victim of his own perverse ideas, namely psychological displacement, which is a psychosis and defense mechanism invented by Freud himself whereby one ascribes his own evil intent or psychopathy to one's enemies.


An appeal is when you ask one court to show its contempt for another court.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Do they eat brains in Washington, D.C.?

Do you feel like a Zombie? Do you walk about aimlessly? Crave pork rinds? Then we are here for you.....

Corthell & Co
Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for the weak! (or the overly kind)

Ever Discuss Politics or Religion? (don't bother?)

How many times have your friends and relatives told you, “I never discuss politics and religion?” (Atheists too?)

Why is it taboo to discuss religion and politics? (takes brains)


I submit the reason is people are brainwashed from their youth into believing this will start an argument causing bad feelings and loss of friendship. Who promotes this lie? (we all do)

Qaddafi: Death Becomes Him

They all end this way

It takes one to know one

To Know A Crook, One Must Be A Crook

Following is a historical statement by Al Capone, explaining why he would play the ponies but wouldn’t invest a dime on Wall Street:“It’s a racket. Those stock market guys are crooked.”

One has to give it to old Al; he was apparently as astute and perceptive in regard to corrupt economics as he was morally corrupt. That which he so aptly stated in his day in regard to the stock market is true even today; possibly more so. The markets are a racket and the fruits thereof – like those garnered in the nation’s gambling casinos – are transitory and misbegotten. The odds are always in favor of the house dear reader and the house in this regard is a government backed corporate clique that can be likened to a syndicate as venal and corrupt as the mafia ever was, and in fact profoundly more so.

The media, a/k/a our perpetual propaganda machine, would have you believe that a bull market is indicative of a healthy economy and of a productive society. Watching these medium puppets of government - and of the government’s corporatist confederates in economic chicanery - is akin to watching an old Edgar Bergen Mortimer Snerd puppet routine. The ostensible words that fall from the dummy’s mouth - via its manipulator - are profoundly foolish and innately stupid; and the words of the media manipulators of public thought are beamed as fact to a conspicuously ignorant and receptive people. Unlike Edgar Bergen, Mortimer Snerd’s manipulator, these puppeteers are not just amiable entertainers; they are the mouthpiece of a fraudulent collusive collective that is robbing the middle-class taxpayers of this nation blind.


Have you noticed that these media shills for a controlling government have been continually buffeting their viewers, listeners, and readers with a running commentary on minute to minute stock market returns? If you have been paying close attention you will note that when the markets have been stressed by public sell offs of stock they somehow mysteriously rebound and stabilize, often within days and many times within hours. Ah! You exclaim what good fortune now my 401K is safe and my retirement has been delivered from the precipice of disaster, whoopee! I’ll continue to invest. There is a word for such thinking, it is: Gullible! It does indeed seem that the sheep cannot wait to be sheared.

In reality while the media is dutifully ramping up your spirits the powers that be are propping up the markets by ramping up share prices via high volume buying of dumped stocks to create the illusion that shares are - rather than falling as is the case - in fact going up. It’s a rigged hand and even a dummy ought to be able to read the cards that are being dealt. These corporate cheats control the odds in the markets just as a casino owner controls the odds at his tables and games; an ordinary small time investor cannot win in such an environment.


I have written in the past, and I reiterate, do not gamble in the stock market if you do not have the funds to absorb monumental losses in order to make even more spectacular gains. Unlike the corporatists you are not guaranteed indemnity against loss through government taxpayer-funded bailouts, stimulus scams, or by an easy acquisition of loads of free Federal Reserve fiat money. Al Capone was correct your odds are better with the ponies than with the markets. The great difference between Al Capone and your government and its economic partners is that the government has granted itself a license to steal from you; Capone had to operate sans such legitimating circumstances.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Discuss: White Guilt & and The Obamanoids

Go To:

Powered by White Guilt

Running low on fuel (finally)

Abortion will end when...

''If we make the abortion debate about a “woman’s right to choose,” the babies will die. If we make the debate about a babies right to life, the babies will live. A pre-born baby is a person, too!''

Let there be no mistake about it. We are willfully ignorant. Purposefully blind might be an even better phrase.

It is the most evil of all ignorance. Lying to oneself, denying what is obvious, hiding behind the mist of moral relevance. Refusing to stop what we know is wrong.

Dr. Seuss made that very clear to us way back in 1954 with the publishing of Horton Hear’s a Who where Horton utters the universal truth “A Who is a Who no matter how small.”

Yes my friend, size has nothing to do with whether one is a person or not.

We would never permit a grown-up to kill a one year old baby, why would we grant license to kill a pre-born child?

Look. We all know it is a person growing inside the mother’s womb. That’s what makes abortion a “difficult choice.” Of course it is. Choosing to murder someone is a difficult choice. If it wasn’t a person, what would be so “difficult” about choosing to kill it?

Is killing a cancer growing inside your body a “difficult choice between you and your Dr.?” Of course not. A cancer is a “blob of tissue” that has invaded the body. Do we now compare unborn people to cancer? Do cancer’s grow into human beings?

Dehumanizing the child is the only way to pull it off. Like cancer, the baby is just a “blob of tissue.” Killing it is the ultimate act of bullying.

According to the dictionary, bullying is “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.” (Sounds like Planned Parenthood to me)

Why do we permit such blatant bullying of the pre-born? Can you find for me a “smaller or weaker” person than a precious baby boy or baby girl inside his/her mother’s womb?

(I just googled “bullying” and came up with over 17 million hits in 20 seconds.)

Everyone wants to stop bullying of the born, but we permit bullying of the pre-born to be a “choice.” (I have a new slogan “Stop the Bullying—End Abortion”)

Of all of the evils foisted on America none has been more despicable than the legalization of the murder of unborn children. It is murder, you know: “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.” But the Supreme Court illegally made it legal, so abortion can now be defined as “the LAWFUL premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

That’s right. The SCOTUS has no power to make law, yet we cowardly hide behind the lie that Roe. V Wade is the “law of the land.” Roe V Wade was a Supreme Court decision…not a law.
Court opinions are not laws…they can only offer opinions. Only Congress can make law.

But they hide behind the lie that pre-born children are not “persons.” Only by dehumanizing the unborn can this charade of “choice” continue to play out.

Listen to this dialogue from the arguing of Roe V Wade at the Supreme Court. Please watch this. It only takes one minute. The lie of choice is clearly exposed.

Only by saying that a “fetus” is not a person, was the case able to move forward. Even the Planned Parenthood attorney admits that if the “personhood” of the fetus was acknowledged the right to kill it would die.

The entire abortion argument has been built upon the lie that a fetus is not a person. (By the way, the dictionary definition of fetus as “unborn child.”)


The courts have done it before, you know. Jews were considered “non-humans”, blacks were considered “property” and eventually 6/10’s of a human being, and courts denied women the right to vote because they were not “persons.” in the eyes of the law. The easiest way to deny one rights is to argue that they are not “persons.”

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

The Wolfe Says Die

''Ron Hardeski of Bayonne, New Jersey also predicted the world would end on February 27th, 2004 – his wife’s 50th birthday. The world didn’t end, so Ron beat his wife to death with a Bible. He’s serving a life sentence.''

Now that The Rapture has passed, Harold Camping has confirmed the Apocalypse – October 21, 2011.

May 21st, 2011 has come and gone. The Rapture is over. Now the dread can begin because on October 21st, 2011… all of us that have been Left Behind, will die.

As crestfallen followers of a California preacher who foresaw the world’s end strained to find meaning in their lives, Harold Camping revised his apocalyptic prophecy Monday, saying he was off by five months and the Earth actually will be obliterated on Oct. 21.

Here’s a recap of how we got here:

Marie Exley would have liked to start a family. Instead, the 32-year-old Army veteran has less than two months left on the planet and she is going to spend her time spreading the word: Judgment Day is almost here.

Exley is part of a movement of Christians loosely organized by radio broadcasts and websites, independent of churches and convinced by their reading of the Bible that the end of the world will begin May 21, 2011.

Technically, May 21st is Judgment Day, or The Rapture, so the world won’t end that day, it’s just the beginning of the end… But, don’t worry, it will end VERY soon after. Probably by October 21st of this year – at the latest.

To get the word out, they’re using billboards and bus stop benches, traveling caravans of RVs and volunteers passing out pamphlets on street corners. Cities from Bridgeport, Conn., to Little Rock, Ark., now have billboards with the ominous message, and mission groups are traveling through Latin America and Africa to spread the news outside the U.S.

“A lot of people might think, ‘The end’s coming, let’s go party, let’s drink and have multiple sex partners” said Exley, a veteran of two deployments in Iraq. “But we’re commanded by God to warn people. I wish I could just be like everybody else, but it’s so much better to know that when the end comes, you’ll be safe.”

Last August, Exley left her home in Colorado Springs, Colo., to work with Oakland, Calif.-based Family Radio Worldwide, the independent Christian ministry whose leader, Harold Camping, has calculated the May 21 date based on his reading of the Bible.

Her husband left for Vegas to drink and spend his life savings on prostitutes.

Exley, in the meantime, is organizing traveling columns of RVs carrying the message from city to city, a logistics challenge that her military experience has helped solve. The vehicles are scheduled to be in five North Carolina cities between now and the second week of January, but Exley will shortly be gone: overseas, where she hopes to eventually make it back to Iraq.

“I don’t really have plans to come back,” she said. “Time is short.”

Not everyone who’s heard Camping’s message is taking such a dramatic step. They’re remaining in their day-to-day lives, but helping publicize the prophecy in other ways. Allison Warden, of Raleigh, has been helping organize a campaign using billboards, post cards and other media in cities across the U.S. through a website, We Can Know.

The 29-year-old payroll clerk laughs when asked about reactions to the message, which is plastered all over her car.

“It’s definitely against the grain, I know that,” she said. “We’re hoping people won’t take our word for it, or Harold Camping’s word for it. We’re hoping that people will search the scriptures for themselves.”

Camping, 89, believes the Bible essentially functions as a cosmic calendar explaining exactly when various prophecies will be fulfilled. But he’s 89, so he’s not so worried about the world ending. He’s already done all the living he wants to do.

The retired civil engineer said all his calculations come from close readings of the Bible, but that external events like the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 are signs confirming the date.

“Beyond the shadow of a doubt, May 21 will be the date of the Rapture and the day of judgment,” he said.

The doctrine known as the Rapture teaches that believers will be taken up to heaven, while everyone else will remain on earth for a period of torment, concluding with the end of time. Camping believes that will happen in October.

“If May 21 passes and I’m still here, that means I wasn’t saved and I will be dead on October 21st. Does that mean God’s word is inaccurate or untrue? Not at all,” Warden said.

The belief that Christ will return to earth and bring an end to history has been a basic element of Christian belief since the first century. The Book of Revelation, which comes last in the New Testatment, describes this conclusion in vivid language that has inspired Christians for centuries.

Few churches are willing to set a date for the end of the world, heeding Jesus’ words in the gospels of Mark and Matthew that no one can know the day or hour it will happen. Predictions like Camping’s, though, aren’t new. One of the most famous in history was by the Baptist leader William Miller,who predicted the end for Oct. 22, 1844, which came to be known as the Great Disappointment among his followers, some of whom subsequently founded the Seventh Day Adventist church.

Ron Hardeski of Bayonne, New Jersey also predicted the world would end on February 27th, 2004 – his wife’s 50th birthday. The world didn’t end, so Ron beat his wife to death with a Bible. He’s serving a life sentence.

“In the U.S., there is still a significant population, mostly Protestant, who look at the Bible as kind of a puzzle, and the puzzle is God’s word and it’s predicting when the end times will come,” said Catherine Wessinger, a professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who studies millennialism, the belief in pending apocalypse.

“A lot of times these prophecies gain traction when difficulties are happening in society,” she said. “Right now, there’s a lot of insecurity, and this is a promise that says it’s not all random, it’s part of God’s plan.”

Past predictions that failed to come true don’t have any bearing on the current calculation, believers maintain.

“It would be like telling the Wright brothers that every other attempt to fly has failed, so you shouldn’t even try,” said Chris McCann, who works with eBible Fellowship, one of the groups spreading the message.

“If you want to say we’re crazy, go ahead,” she said. “But when you’re dead on May 21st (or soon after), you’ll know we were right. And you’ll thank us.”

Why 'Change'

''...or nothing comes from nothing''

Emerging Transhumanism

''What about those old-fashioned folks who want to make sure that their children are just like them, naturally stupid and disease-ridden? Lawler suggests that the unenhanced would pose a risk to the enhanced and therefore would be inevitably coerced by government into participating in the transhumanist project. Actually, it seems likely that the unenhanced would present very little risk. After all, they would not be real competitors. With regard to the disease risks that they might pose, the enhanced would already be protected by their augmented health. And the more intelligent enhanced would also be better able to anticipate and counter aggressive acts by the emotionally unstable unenhanced.''

Berry College political scientist Peter Lawler wants you to be afraid of biotechnology. Very afraid. “We will lose autonomy over our very beings," he warned during our debate concerning the ethics of radical life extension at Wheaton College in Massachusetts last week.

Lawler, a member of President George W. Bush's controversial Council on Bioethics, tried to make the case that using technology to radically extend human lifespans, and boost human intellectual, emotional, and physical capacities, will end in coercion. Those who don’t want to take advantage of the kinds of enhancements that biotechnology, nanotechnology, and cognitive technology will offer, argues Lawler, will ultimately not have a choice about using them.

But is that so? If anyone should be concerned about coercion, it is the transhumanists who rightly fear that bioconservatives like Lawler will try to use the power of the state to halt the research that would lead to the development of enhancements would enable them to improve their life chances and those of their children.

I advocate a liberal tolerant approach: People who reject enhancements for themselves and their progeny are free to do so, whereas those who want to upgrade their mental and physical capacities are also free to do so. Lawler believes, however, that the tolerance I favor must inevitably give way to coercion. What does he mean by “coercion?”

In his presentation at Wheaton College, Lawler offered a couple of examples of enhancement coercion. For his first example, he suggested that certain enhancements might make physicians more intelligent and surgeons more dexterous. Lawler admits that no one is forcing any doctor to use these enhancements. But he wondered, “Who will want to go to a 'bad' doctor?” Lawler thinks it obvious that any reasonable person would prefer to go to a doctor who is better able to diagnose and cure their patients because they have taken advantage of enhancements. The result is that doctors who don’t want to take enhancements will nevertheless be “forced” to do so if they want to continue to practice medicine.

Lawler offered a second example of transhumanist “coercion” in which a moody professor believes that his morose character gives him “clues to who he really is.” The professor cherishes his downbeat personality because he believes that it tells him something important about the truth of the human condition. On the other hand, Lawler grants that the brooding professor is in fact not very productive and students avoid his classes. Meanwhile his colleagues are using safe modern pharmaceuticals to boost their brainpower and their sociability. Again, the pressure to be a productive teacher and a pleasant colleague will “force” the moody professor to take enhancements and his “authentic” insights into the dismal human condition will ebb from his consciousness.

Lawler also warned that parents would be “coerced” into enhancing their children. Again, if safe enhancements for improving minds and health are available, lots of parents would likely want to give these benefits to their children. Lawler argued that if, say, Mormons and Roman Catholics wanted to have babies the old-fashioned, unenhanced way, “we won’t let them do it.” Why not? Because enhanced people would regard “the stupid and disease-ridden Catholic babies as a risk to their own well-being.”


Transhumanist enhancement, on Lawler’s account, thus threatens the “liberty” of doctors to be relatively incompetent, professors to be unproductive, and parents to ensure that their children are comparatively stupid and more likely to suffer disease, disability, and early death. Enabling people to lengthen their healthy lifespans and improve their intellectual capacities, their physical stamina, and their emotional resilience expands rather than contracts their liberty. These are general capacities that anyone would want because they increase the range of their possible life choices. It is rarely the case that being stupid and sick makes one freer.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011


Take the Discussion Forward

Discuss the Issues

Do you feel like a Zombie? Do you walk about aimlessly? Crave pork rinds? Then we are here for you.....

Corthell & Co
Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for the weak! (or the overly kind)

Ever Discuss Politics or Religion? (don't bother?)

How many times have your friends and relatives told you, “I never discuss politics and religion?” (Atheists too?)

Why is it taboo to discuss religion and politics? (takes brains)

I submit the reason is people are brainwashed from their youth into believing this will start an argument causing bad feelings and loss of friendship. Who promotes this lie? (we all do)

Stupid as a bag of hammers

Cutting the the federal crap (trap)

''Children and lunatics cut the Gordian knot which the poet spends his life patiently trying to untie.''

Presented with the impossible challenge of untangling the Gordian knot, the great Alexander seized his sword and sliced the legendary knot in half. Problem solved.

The modern-day Gordian knot is surely the federal government – the world's most expensive and entangled boondoggle, an extravaganza of waste, corruption, madness and militarism that echoes the declining days of imperial Rome. The conclusion drawn from Henry Lamb's column ("Will the real America please stand up?") is that Mr. Jefferson's experiment turned sour after 1912, with the federals going feral. A century later, the invasive weeds of despotism and graft appear deeply rooted in governance and regulation. Federal power runs amok and unconstitutional policies prevail. These are the hideous norms of 2011.

Conservatives face the daunting, perhaps impossible, challenge of taming and streamlining a government apparatus that has metastasized and spread its gripping tentacles into every crevice of American life. Over decades, the beast has devised cunning survival strategies. Even Ronald Reagan, champion of limited government, could not stay its inexorable growth. To maximize its gain, the beast learned to contrive wars and instigate fear, disorder and violence. Obedient press and media sycophants ask no questions of their master.

Gallup polls show 41 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative, while only 21 percent call themselves liberal. Conservative principles such as limited government, religious freedom, self-determination, and the sanctity of personal liberty and privacy attract broadest support, yet a vast entrenched governing organism actively opposes these principles no matter the administration.

The Pilgrims crossed a raging ocean in a tiny wooden ship to gain religious freedom. The colonists broke the bonds that connected them to British despotism. Our history of seeking freedom has prepared us for creation of a separate polity where, as free men and women, conservatives can live in peace, practice religion without interference, raise children sans government indoctrination, enjoy God-given liberties, keep what is earned and prosper economically. That cuts the Gordian knot.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Walking Dead, The Review

Do you feel like a Zombie? Do you walk about aimlessly? Crave pork rinds? Then we are here for you.....

Corthell & Co
Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for the weak! (or the overly kind)

Ever Discuss Politics or Religion? (don't bother?)

How many times have your friends and relatives told you, “I never discuss politics and religion?” (Atheists too?)

Why is it taboo to discuss religion and politics? (takes brains)

I submit the reason is people are brainwashed from their youth into believing this will start an argument causing bad feelings and loss of friendship. Who promotes this lie? (we all do)

Silly Monday

It's Monday. Stop making silly faces and get on with it

The Politics of Mormons and Mitt

''The charge by Robert Jeffress, the Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, that Mitt Romney is “not a Christian;” that “Mormonism is not Christianity;” and that Mormonism is “considered a cult” is indicative of a degree of intolerance antithetical to the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and, moreover, an opinion born of ignorance.''

Mormonism is indeed a Christian faith: Are not all who proclaim Jesus Christ to be their Savior and who adhere to his teachings appropriately called Christian? The term Mormon is ascribed to those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Church of Jesus Christ considers: (1) Jesus Christ the head of the church and teaches its members that Jesus is the messiah, the only begotten son of God; (2) that Christ is the prophesied messiah of the Old Testament (Jehovah) and created the earth at the direction of Heavenly Father; (3) that Christ was the only perfect, truly sinless human to live upon the earth; (4) that Christ made an ultimate sacrifice for mankind, atoning for the sins of the world through his suffering at Gethsemane and his crucifixion on Calvary Hill, making it possible for man, a sinner, to return to God free of spot through the intercession of Christ; (5) that Christ suffered, died, and was resurrected from the dead; (6) that he reigns in Heaven at the right hand of Heavenly Father; (7) that Christ will return to earth in a second coming at which time there will be a final battle between Satan and his minions and Christ and the saints, the dead will be resurrected, Christ will have a millennial reign, all will be judged, and there will be a final establishment of Heavenly order; (8) that the teachings of Christ are paramount; and (9) that true prophecy can be discerned to be such only if it is in complete conformity with the teachings of Christ. There is in this faith nothing but Christianity, all consecrated to and in fulfillment of the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the Mormon church is officially named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. While other Christian faiths have doctrinal differences with the Church of Jesus Christ, it is beyond peradventure of doubt that the members of that church are Christians and that Mormonism is Christianity.

The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints include in addition to the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, which is by title and content another testament of Christ, complementary to and not in derogation of the Old and New Testaments. To declare people who hold Christ and his doctrines the essence of their religion to be non-Christian renders the term Christian nonsensical or, perhaps, schizophrenic (meaning that only some who believe in Christ may be designated Christians rather than all who do). The Church of Jesus Christ also believes fundamentally in free agency: in the right and power of each person to exercise freedom of choice, albeit recognizing that choices in violation of the commandments and teachings of Christ will be addressed on Judgment Day. That commitment to free agency as a part of God’s plan ensures that Mormons are not members of a cult, if by cult one means mind control by religious leaders. There is in the Church of Jesus Christ no theocracy, no presumption of the church as having jurisdiction or power over the functioning of civil governmental authority.

I think it prudent for intelligent people to reject the pronouncements made by Pastor Jeffress. We should recognize, as the nation largely did over five decades ago, that such commentary endeavors to divide people based on religious intolerance and would, if followed, lead to a destruction of that comity and respect for others’ religions that is inextricably a part of our First Amendment. We are free in no small measure because we are free to choose the religion of our preference and to practice that religion according to its dictates, so long as we do not violate the equal rights of others.

On September 12, 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy, then running for President of the United States, confronted similarly ignorant and bigoted comment in a speech he delivered to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association at the Rice Hotel in Houston, Texas. Critics mused that Kennedy would be a servant of the Vatican if elected and that the Pope would effectively run America. With characteristic wit and intelligence, Kennedy put those charges to rest in the following passages:

But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim -- but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice -- where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind -- and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe -- a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it, its occupancy from the members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty (nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so). And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection -- for if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none -- who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require him to fulfill -- and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a ‘divided loyalty,’ that we did ‘not believe in liberty’ or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened ‘the freedoms for which our forefathers died.’


Sunday, October 16, 2011

Dog vs Dog

Are you mistaken about Heaven?

''When you get together with friends you haven't seen for awhile, you talk about things. You reminisce. You go over the old stories and tell them again and listen to them again. That is how it will be in heaven. We will remember things on earth, and we will remember relationships on earth. We will remember activities on earth. We will have points of reference. In heaven, I think we will be able to look at things from an eternal perspective, from God's viewpoint. And with that, we will be able to honor and worship him.''
A recent global survey was conducted that asked people about their belief in God and the afterlife. Of the 18,000 people polled across 23 countries, 51 percent were convinced there was an afterlife and a God. In the U.S., belief is even higher, with 76 percent of Americans believing in heaven. Among those, 71 percent think it is an actual place.
Belief in the afterlife is not unique to our time. Almost every culture believes there is something beyond the grave. The Egyptians believed that, of course. Archaeologists have discovered a solar boat at the base of the Great Pyramids, believed to have been placed there for Pharaoh Khufu to use for journeys in the afterlife. American Indians would bury a warrior with a pony, a bow and arrows so that he could ride into the happy hunting ground. In Greenland, Eskimos who died in childhood were traditionally buried with their dog, intended to guide them through the supposed cold wasteland of death.

All of these views are skewed or outright wrong. But the one thing they do have right is there is indeed life beyond this life.

It is interesting to note that in the time of Jesus, many of the Jews had an aberrant view of the afterlife because they didn't look at what the Scriptures taught. One day, the Sadducees came to Jesus to provoke him with a question. The Sadducees might be described as theological liberals. They did not believe what the Bible said about a judgment or an afterlife. In fact, they only accepted the first five books of Moses as being inspired by God. They did not believe there was any kind of a resurrection.

The Sadducees also were very powerful. They were the aristocrats of Jerusalem, being largely in control of the temple. They also were responsible for the operation of the priesthood, and it was through the temple concessions – selling sacrifices and money changing – that they obtained their wealth.

The question they posed was intended to put Jesus on the spot. They had a bleak worldview, believing there was no life beyond the grave. So they come up with a scenario:

One two occasions, Jesus had gone into the temple and overturned their tables, saying, "'My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a 'den of thieves'" (Matthew 21:13 NKJV). Needless to say, the Sadducees were not very happy with Jesus.

Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies without children, his brother should marry the widow and have a child who will carry on the brother's name.' Well, suppose there were seven brothers. The oldest one married and then died without children, so his brother married the widow. But the second brother also died, and the third brother married her. This continued with all seven of them. Last of all, the woman also died. So tell us, whose wife will she be in the resurrection? For all seven were married to her. (Matthew 22:24–28 NLT)

Now if I were Jesus, the first thing I would have said was, "What is the deal with this woman? What is she cooking for these husbands? Why would the fourth guy still want to marry her? Is this a good thing to do?"

But that is not what Jesus said. Instead, he put them in their place. He said, "Your mistake is that you don't know the Scriptures, and you don't know the power of God. For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. In this respect they will be like the angels in heaven" (verses 29–30 NLT).

Husbands and wives won't be married to each other in heaven, but they still will be connected to each other. In fact, our relationships in heaven will be even stronger. In his excellent book, "Heaven," Randy Alcorn says, "Earthly marriage is a shadow, a copy, an echo of the true and ultimate marriage. …"

Read more:Mistaken views of the afterlifehttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=353149#ixzz1aw6iA0e